Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and land‑use advocates urge commission to reject ‘conservation communities’ provision
Summary
Public speakers from PACE Florida and Flood Defenders told the Santa Rosa County commission the proposed “conservation communities” land‑development provision would let developers cluster small lots without rezoning, risk clear‑cutting conserved land and increase density in agricultural areas. Commissioners said they would consider public input before the vote.
Several residents and land‑use advocates urged the Santa Rosa County Board of County Commissioners not to adopt a proposed “conservation communities” change to the county’s Land Development Code, saying the amendment would let developers bypass rezoning and shrink rural lot sizes.
Ryan Fowler of PACE Florida told commissioners the change — which the board planned to consider during a later meeting — “will fundamentally change the North agricultural community,” allowing developers to cluster houses on much smaller lots without a rezoning hearing. “When developers build on a parcel, there will be vacant land, conservation area, and individual lots,” Fowler said, arguing that developers could later seek rezoning of the vacant land and increase density.
David Fowler, also with PACE, warned the provision would remove minimum lot sizes on agriculturally zoned land and pointed to a recent three‑year period when alternative subdivisions allowed lots as small as one‑ninth of an acre in some cases. “Allowing lot packs and setback changes would inevitably affect us and other farmers in this area by raising the price of land and causing property taxes to go up,” he said. He added that the proposal does not require conservation areas to remain in a vegetated, natural state and therefore would not reliably prevent clear‑cutting.
Chris Curb of Flood Defenders diverged from PACE on one point: he described conservation or clustered subdivisions as potentially positive if infrastructure is in place. “Conservation subdivisions are a very positive thing from a growth management perspective if your infrastructure is available,” Curb said, but he warned that cluster development without water and sewer would leave new homes relying on wells and septic systems in close proximity. “If you don’t have water up there, then you gotta put in wells… Where’s your crap go? It goes in your water wells,” he said, urging that infrastructure requirements be written into any provision.
Board members acknowledged the concerns and said they would take public comments into account. One commissioner told the speakers their remarks would be “taken into consideration” as the amendment moved forward; no final vote on the land‑development change was recorded during the meeting.
What’s next: The land‑development amendment remained on the board’s agenda for future action; commissioners moved related items to the Thursday consent agenda for consideration and public hearings described in the staff schedule.
