Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Land use idea may aid bid to conserve

A real estate broker proposes a comprehensive plan amendment that would allow a higher density in rural areas by reserving a portion of the property for conservation.

By DAN DeWITT
Published October 5, 2005

BROOKSVILLE - Gary Schraut has long crusaded against the county's rural land-use designation.

The density the designation allows - one house per 10 acres - isn't really rural but just another form of sprawl, said Schraut, a real estate broker.

"Hernando County, all of it - from U.S. 19 to U.S. 301 - is the definition of sprawl by the Sierra Club and a lot of other people," he said Tuesday.

Schraut's solution is a comprehensive plan amendment that would allow more development - not surprising, considering Schraut has often fought to develop sparsely populated parts of the county.

More surprising is that some planners and environmentalists agree with him, at least in principle.

That's partly because Schraut's proposed amendment would require landowners to set aside part of their property for conservation in exchange for the increased density. Also, many planners agree with Schraut about the inefficiency of providing services to residents on large, scattered lots, while some naturalists say those lots are not large enough to preserve significant habitat.

"It's kind of always in the back of your head: Is this (10-acre lots) the best thing to do? Is it the best way to build a community?" county planning director Larry Jennings said.

"It's a pretty interesting thought. It's a good starting point," said Joe White of the Hernando Alliance for Open Land Conservation, who suggested a similar approach to development in rural areas at a county growth management forum last year.

But Schraut and White, as well as Jennings, differ greatly on how much land should be set aside and how much should be developed.

White presented an example of a developer who owns 1,000 acres setting aside 800 for conservation.

"I wouldn't mind having 10 houses per acre" on the remaining land, he said.

Schraut, meanwhile, talked about how the policy might affect a 180-acre tract in northern Hernando County in which he has an interest.

Current law would allow him to put 18 houses on the property. He would like the county to require him to set aside one-third of the land for conservation and, in return, allow him to divide the rest of the property into 78 one-acre lots.

In their discussions, Schraut said, Jennings has been talking about 5-acre lots and leaving 50 percent of the land undeveloped.

"I can talk comfortably about 33 percent. Larry's pretty solid on 50 percent," Schraut said.

Terry Bickel, a Brooksville real estate broker who owns property with Schraut, presented the comp plan amendment to the County Commission on Tuesday because Schraut was in Georgia. He sought an extension of the deadline to apply for comp plan changes, which is today.

Commissioners did not extend the deadline, but they may do so when the matter is brought up again Oct. 12, said Jennings, who added that he did not talk specific numbers with Schraut but made it clear that he would accept only a change that truly conserved land.

"The idea of conservation subdivisions is kind of interesting, but the devil is in the details," Jennings said.

He said the county must ensure that meaningful amounts of conservation land are set aside.

"You have to make sure you're really serving a public purpose."

Dan DeWitt can be reached at 352 754-6116 or dewitt@sptimes.com

[Last modified October 5, 2005, 01:14:17]