Agenda 02/28/2012 Item #11B2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to provide direction to Staff regarding the extension of the "Early Entry"
bonus Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) credit, as provided for within the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP)
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board provide direction regarding the extension of the Early Entry bonus TDR
credit, which is set to expire on March 27, 2012 and provide direction for the processing of
applications submitted before the expiration deadline
CONSIDERATIONS:
During the February 14, 2012 Board public hearing, presented under agenda item #6B, the Board
was requested by Rich Yovanovich, representing property owners within the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District ( RFMUD), to request that the Board extend the time period which the Early Entry
bonus TDR would be available. The Board directed staff to bring the item back as a agenda
item.
The Early Entry bonus TDR was first introduced into the RFMUD through Ordinance 05 -25,
which provided for its availability for three years from the date of they implementing LDC
amendment, September 27, 2008. It should be noted that staff had received a number of
applications for TDR severance submitted before the September 27, 2008 expiration date, which
qualified the property owner to be eligible to receive the Early Entry bonus TDR. Additionally,
through Ordinance 08 -59, the Early Entry bonus TDR was extended to the current March 27,
2012 expiration date.
Attached to this executive summary as Exhibit "A" is the RFMUD major issue from the January
31, 2011 adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Within the.section, the participation
within the voluntary program has been quantified, which has a direct correlation to the request to
extend the Early Entry bonus TDR. To date, as indicated on page three, only thirteen percent of
the eligible parcels have participated within the program. Additionally on page five, an estimate
of the numbers of TDRs which would be available with full participation in the program projects
that only seventy -four percent of the eligible receiving lands could be entitled. Essentially, the
extension of the Early Entry bonus TDR credit could not result in an unbalance or over - supply of
TDRs within the program.
Based upon this conclusion staff has constructed a number of options regarding the extension of
the Early Entry bonus TDR credit:
1. Direct staff to include the extension of the Early Entry bonus TDR credit as part
of the upcoming EAR -based GMP amendments.
2. Direct staff to included the extension of the Early Entry bonus TDR credit as a
separate GMP amendment
3. Direct staff to allow the Early Entry bonus TDR credit to expire.
If option one or two is selected by the Board, staff requests direction from the Board to process
all applications submitted prior to the deadline. It should be noted that no pending severance
application are currently in process with the Comprehensive Planning Section, but the expiration
Packet Page -490-
2/28/2012 Item 11.13.
of the Early Entry bonus would affect all projects that need TDRs for entitlement and the eighty -
seven percent of parcels in Sending Lands that have not severed their TDRs.
zn
It should be noted that the minimum $25,000 price for a base TDR is not a requirement of the
GMP, but rather a requirement within the LDC (2.03.07.D.4.£ii(a)(v)), which was incorporated
into the code on February 11, 2004, through Ordinance 404 -08. The minimum price was
incorporated into the LDC to protect the property owners in the Rural Fringe and assure them the
program would compensate them for participation. This would be one of the many issues
explored during the structural review of the program as recommended by the 2011 EAR.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Land Development Services has allocated revenue to satisfy the cost associated with staffing and
advertising the EAR -based amendments within the FY2011 -12 budget, additionally revenue for a
stand only GMP amendment has been programmed within the general budgetary allowance for
the Comprehensive Section of Land development Services.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
At this time there are no direct GMP impacts associated with this executive summary, but the
conclusion of the EAR -based amendment process or a standalone GMP amendment will modify
the GMP.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This item is ready for Board considerations. A majority vote is necessary for Board action.
With respect to the issue of whether minimum prices are legally enforceable, the County
Attorney does not believe it a legal issue (it may be an economic one), as the issue was vetted
and approved by outside counsel retained to help create the program, that it is not an uncommon
feature in these programs nationally, and government often sets both ceilings (rent control) and
floors (minimum wage) on prices. -JAK
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board directs the County Manager or designee to include the
consideration of the extension of the Early Entry bonus TDR credit as part of the EAR -based
GMP amendments and to deem all applications submitted prior to the March 27, 2012 deadline
for severance as having met the existing early entry eligibility deadline so long as they are active
and in process.
Prepared by: Mike Bosi, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Land Development Services
Department
Attachments: Exhibit "A ", the RFMUD major issue from the January 31, 2011 adopted
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR).
2
Packet Page -491-
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.13.
2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
Item Summary: Recommendation to provide direction to Staff regarding the extension of
the "Early Entry" bonus Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) credit, as provided for within the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). (Mike Bosi,
Comprehensive Planning Manager, Growth Management Division /Planning & Regulation)
Meeting Date: 2/28/2012
Prepared By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R
2/16/2012 4:13:51 PM
Submitted by
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Name: BosiMichael
2/16/2012 4:13:53 PM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R
Date: 2/16/2012 4:20:28 PM
Name: LorenzWilliam
Title: Director - CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive
Date: 2/16/2012 4:32:00 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary;Transportation Planning
Date: 2/17/2012 7:39:37 AM
Name: FederNorman
Title: Administrator - Growth Management Div,Transportati
Date: 2/17/2012 9:46:43 AM
Packet Page -492-
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor
Date: 2/21/2012 11:40:25 AM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mgmt Svs,CMO
Date: 2/21/2012 12:09:50 PM
Name: Klatzkow7eff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 2/22/2012 9:41:33 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 2/22/2012 4:09:55 PM
Packet Page -493-
2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
2/28/2012 Item 11.13.
RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) is the Future Land Use Element Sub - District which
was adopted in 2002 through Ordinance 02 -32, as a result of Final Order — ACC -99 -002.
ISSUE BACKGROUND
ACC -99 -002 was issued by the State due to the County's GMP being found to lack regulatory
protection for environmentally sensitive property, not adequately discouraging urban sprawl and
preventing the premature conversion of agricultural land. The Final Order required the following
modifications to the GMP to address the issues within three specified areas:
1. Identify and propose measures to protect prime agricultural areas.
2. Direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat in order to protect water
quality and quantity and maintain the natural_ water regime as well as to protect listed animal
species and their habitats.
3. Assess the growth potential of the Area by assessing the potential conversion of rural lands to
other uses, in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, directing incompatible
land uses away from critical habitat and encouraging development that utilizes creative land
use planning techniques including, but not limited to, public and private schools, urban
villages, new towns, satellite communities, area -based allocations, clustering and open space
provisions and mixed use development.
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District was designed to address the above specified areas of concern.
The District, as identified on Future Land Use Map, consists of approximately 93,600 acres.
Significant portions of the District are adjacent to the urbanized area as well as the semi - rural, rapidly
developing; large -lot North Golden Gate Estates platted lands. Agricultural land uses within the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District do not represent a significant portion of the County's active agricultural
lands.
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated
lands and between the Urban and Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) and Conservation designated
lands farther to the east. As of June 2002, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District consisted of more than
5,550 tax parcels, and included at least 3,835 separate and distinct property owners. Alternative land
use strategies were developed for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, in part, to consider these
existing ownership patterns. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a balanced approach,
including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights,
providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density
and intensity of development. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and
rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational
facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the
District.
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is separated into three specific areas, Sending Lands, Neutral
Lands, and Receiving Lands. Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of
environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for
listed species. The permitted uses within the Sending Lands are limited to a narrow list of permitted
and conditional uses and the regulations allow residential density at a maximum density of one
dwelling unit per 40 acres or one dwelling unit per lot or parcel of less than 40 acres, which existed on
1
RURAT. FRTNr?' `xr` "c"' r%Tc`RTC'.T (RFWTT))
Packet Page -494-
2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
or before June 22, 1999 (lots <5 acres which existed as of October 15, 1974 or January 5, 1982,
depending upon location).
Neutral Lands have been identified for limited semi -rural residential development. Available data
indicates that Neutral Lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation, and thus higher habitat values,
than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but these values do not approach those of Sending Lands.
Therefore, these lands are appropriate for limited development, if such development is directed away
from existing native vegetation and habitat. A lower maximum gross density is prescribed for Neutral
Lands when compared to Receiving Lands. Additionally, certain other uses permitted within
Receiving Lands are not authorized in Neutral Lands and the area allows. a maximum density of 1
dwelling unit per 5 gross acres (0.2 units per acre). The density allotted to the area prior to the
adoption of the
Receiving Lands are those lands within. the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified
as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be
transferred from areas designated as Sending Lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, these
lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as
Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural
operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into Receiving Lands and away
from Sending Lands, thereby maximizing native vegetation and habitat preservation and restoration.
Such incentives include, but are not limited to: the TDR process; clustered development; density bonus
incentives; and, provisions for central sewer and water. Within the Receiving Lands the base
residential density allowable is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The
maximum density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per
acre, with a minimum project size of 40 contiguous acres. This maximum density is exclusive of the
Density Blending provisions.
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, as noted, has been regulatory constructed to steer development
away from environmentally valuable land and to the areas designated Receiving Lands. The areas
designated Receiving will be the areas which will require the greatest outlay for infrastructure
improvements. Within each of the four Receiving areas, the FLUE allows the development of a single
Rural Village, which by regulation must be located where public infrastructure exists or is planned,
and shall have direct access to a roadway classified by Collier County as an arterial or collector
roadway, or access to the Village may be via new collector roadway directly accessing an existing
arterial, the cost of which shall be borne entirely by the developer. Additionally, a Rural Village may
only be approved after demonstration that the Village will be fiscally neutral or positive to county
taxpayers outside of the Village. These provisions of the regulations attempt to ensure that the highest
intensity development allowed by the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District will have in place or identified
the means for funding the capital improvements necessary in maintaining the Level of Service (LOS)
required by the GMP. The 2005 Residential Build -Out Study anticipated a total of 57,644 people or
19,433 dwelling units for the RFMUD. The Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) projects a total
of 34,837 people or 11,769 dwelling units. The population or either projection will require extensive
infrastructure to satisfy the demands of the anticipated population. The regulatory component of within
the FLUE provides for a means in which the most intense development allowed within this District,
Rural Villages, are required to provide the funding for the capital improvements necessary to maintain
the County required adopted level of service for public facilities and services.
Comprehensive Plan Implementation &Program Assessment
As noted the RMUD was established based on the principal of preserving environmentally sensitive
lands, discouraging urban sprawl, promoting mixed use, protecting listed species and their habitats,
2
RURAL FRINGF ' """^ " " "'Y RICT ( RMMUD)
Packet Page -495-
2/28/2012 Item 11.13.
while respecting the property rights inherent to the property owners within the sub - district. The
assessment on the following page provides for analysis to better determine if the goals and objectives
of the RFMUD are being met.
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO DATE — FY2003 -2010
Processed Pendina Process Total Acres
Number of Acres enrolled in TDR Program
Number of Base TDR Credits
722.00
20.00
742.00
Number of Bonus TDR Credits
722.00
20.00
742.00
Number of R &M TDR Credits
290.00
17.00
307.00
Number of Conveyance Credits
220.00
17.00
228.00
Total Credits in Program:
1,954.00
74.00
21019.00
Total Credits Redeemed:
300.00
TDR CREDITS YET TO BE REDEEMED:
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS- POTENTIAL
Unprocessed
Potential Number of Acres TOTAL
Potential Number of Base Credits 3,448.00
Potential Number of Bonus Credits 3,448.00
Potential Number of R &M Credits 3,448.00
Potential Number of Conveyance Credits 3,448.00
POTENTIAL CREDITS TOTAL
All of the above have been rounded to the next highest figure
There are a total of 20,617 acres which are designated sending that have been designate eligible to
sever their development right. It should be noted that this acreage does not include all designated
sending lands due to those lands being in public ownership and not eligible for the TDR program. Of
the 20,617 acres, 17.5 percent or 3,615 acres have had or are in the process of having their TDR's
separated through voluntary participation in the program. Based upon the above estimates there are
potentially 15,819 TDR's, of which 12.7 percent or 2,019 TDR's have been generated through
participation in the program. Of the 2,019 TDR's which have been generated to date, 300 TDR's or
14.8 percent of the TDR's generated have been redeemed. The TDR program became effective, due to
legal challenges in 2003, so the program has been in existence for less than seven years, with
3
RURAL FRINGE A.nvvn rron nrr"rRICT (RFMUD)
Packet Page -496-
2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
participation in the three mentioned areas all within the 12 to 18 percent participation range. Based
upon the information available regarding existing TDR programs, the Collier TDR program can be
viewed as active and achieving the stated purpose. In a November 30, 2004 memorandum from Dr.
James Nicholas to Marti Chumbler regarding the proposed additional TDR credits being proposed at
the time. Dr. Nicholas references two of the more successful programs in the county, Montgomery
County Maryland and New Jersey Pinelands. Both programs are approaching 25 years and for the
Montgomery County program 60 percent of possible TDR's have been severed and for Pinelands, just
fewer than 50 percent of lands have participated. If the Collier program was extrapolated on a straight
line based upon the fact that 12.7 percent of the total potential TDR's have been created, extending out
25 years or 3.5 times the current length of the Collier program, the participation rate would be 7,210
TDR's generated or 45 percent of the total 15,819 potential TDR's. This participation rate would place
Collier's program along side of the Pinewoods program, but behind the Montgomery County program,
but a successful program based upon the matrix established.
The following assessment attempts to evaluate the RFMUD regarding the number of TDR's and the
acreage designated Receiving.
Four Receiving Areas TDR expenditure characteristics
Non Village
Maximum density 1 unit per acre when utilizing TDR's
Minimum 40 acres need 32 TDR's to enable.
Village
3 Allowed at maximum 1,500 acres @ 3 max DU per acre
1 Allowed at maximum 2,500 acres @ 3 max DU per acre
Total 7,000 acres @ 3 DU per acre — Maximum 21,000 DU
1,400 DU associated with Base Density
7,000 TDRS to enable 14,000 DUs based on Rural Village Bonus Credit Provision
Sub -total 7,000 TDRs used to enable 15,400 DU's
5,600 Additional TDRs need to enable maximum density
Estimated that a total of 12,600 TDRs needed to enable maximum density and size for allowed Rural Villages*
*number of TDRs needed will be decreased slightly by density associated (1 DU per 5 acres) with required
greenbelt encompassing village.
Total receiving Land - 22,020 acres Potential TDRs - 15,809
Less developed land —5,201 TDRs for Max Village - 12,600
Less acres of potential Village —7,000
Remaining Acres —9,819 Remaining Potential TDRs -3,209
Remaining 3,209 TDRs could enable 4,011 acres of additional receiving land @ 1 DU per acre.
4
RURAL FRINGP "T"'' n T TC+T•. T T(-WCT (RFMUD)
Packet Page -497-
`J
2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
Total - 5,808 acres of receiving land could not participate in the program due to full expenditure of potential
TDR credits.
From the above analysis, it can be determined that there are an adequate number of TDR's potentially
in the system to enable the 74% of the eligible receive lands. It should be noted that the program was
not designed for 100% participation. Additionally, 5,201 acres of receiving land is currently
developed with residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses (see map on the following
page). With these two additional data sets considered within the evaluation it can be concluded that
there is a sufficient number of TDB's and potential TDR's within the program.
5
RURAL FRING.' x,nvi'rn rrc•c nTc"rRICT (RFMUD)
Packet Page -498-
RURAL FRINGE
MIXED USE DISTRICT
�...
OF CFh /INC, G12 mnnc:>. =,•;
'XNOINC+ t41 SZ5 ACrresl
^�..1. N LYMAL+.9.07 AGCCSI
Developed Residential . 1,797 Acres
Developed Commercial: 2.225 Acres
Developed Industrial: 532 Acres
Developed Institutional: 47 Acres
0 1. 25 15
� Miles
r�s an.valka. eer« vrwa ..•ct=
�!' L! :vpnGNSfck.'b�q'n�.M.WALiC#+Gkr OIV15lUM
I .u. I °n :wvaazc rc ;trekuswrr nN .,t.nrn., r.><r
2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
The below map show the program activity, as well as the public ownership pattern within the RFMtTD.
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
•
•
6
RURAL FRING v A srvc n r T " r% TRICT (RFMUD)
Packet Page -499-
2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
The TDR Program Activity map, particularly for the South Belle Meade area, shows how the program
is furthering the state and local effort to protect the designated sending lands, which in the case of the
South Belle Meade area forms a natural extension of the Picayune Strand State Forest. The Public
owned land is shown in green. The conclusion from the RFMUD analysis is that the program has been
effective in accomplishing the specified goals of the sub - district, as well as the Final Order, which
promoted the creation of the RFMUD. This assessment does not align with the public comments
received at the public participation meetings held in early 2010. Those comments are provided for
below.
• Adjustment to Transfer of Development Rights (2005) program not producing desired result.
Wholesale comment on Overlay
• Application process for severances & transfers not fair to all receiving agencies. Land
Development Code
• Need more specifics of Land Management Plan required for TDR credit No. 3. Cost associated
with severance process prohibited Land Development Code
• The County should develop a unified LMP for area. Future Land Use Element —Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District Overlay
• County should be studying ideas for TDR's to be applied beyond RFMUD. Future Land Use
Element — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay - Additional TDR Provisions
• County should be studying ideas to have a TDR education program. Programmatic
• TDB's should be open to be used in Urban Area. Future Land Use Element — Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District OverlakAdditional TDR Provisions
• Look at Marion County TDR Program. Informational
• Don't use Golden Gate Estates as thru -way for access to the coast. Observational.
• Don't build roads in advance of development and population. Observational.
• TDR program is inefficient. Observational.
• TDR program doesn't intent transfers sufficiently for developers. Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) RFMUD.
• Envisioned market for TDB's is non - existent (don't sell) Observational.
• Further intent transfers into urban infill (clause is unclear and needs to be expanded). Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) RFMUD.
• Provide further incentives from sending to receiving. Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
RFMUD.
• Rural villages envisioned within receiving areas don't provide sufficient commercial capacity.
Observational.
• Design and criteria for commercial locations within the villages isolate them from major
transportation corridors (making them not viable) Future Land Use Element (FLUE) RFMUD.
• No new high speed (> 36 mph) roads built in RLSA and Rural Fringe Sending Areas (low speed
essential for wildlife preservation) Observational
• RLSA and RFMUD need to be compatible with Golden Gate Master Plan. Observational.
• When RFMUD was created, land use restrictions eliminated functionality of Golden Gate Master
Plan — Ex: Proposed location for estates commercial. Observational.
• Receiving Areas in the RFMUD need to be changed to allow services including business,
commercial and industrial can be located there to support not only the RFMUD, but adjacent
Golden Gate Estates and surrounding Communities. Observational
• TDR Program not working. Observational
• Not enough TDB's to use for density in Receiving Lands. Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
RFMUD
7
RURAL FP"GL' x �rv�r, roa nTrTRICT (RFMUD)
Packet Page -500-
2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
• Allow other uses on Receiving Lands (Non - residential). Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
RFMUD
• RFMUD Plan not compatible with Estates Master Plan. Lost commercial opportunities for the
Estates due to RFMUD Plan. Observational
• Allow owners of Receiving Lands to convert a portion of those lands to Sending Lands in order to
get more TDRs to use on their remaining Receiving Lands. This process should be available
through a rezoning -like process rather than requiring a comprehensive plan amendment.
Programmatic
• Increase the TDR Credits formula for Base TDRs to more than the current one (1) base TDR per
five (5) acres. In designated Receiving Areas allow a density of greater than one unit per acre
with the use of TDRs and not limit density above one unit per acre to only Rural Villages. Non -
villages should be able to go up to 2 units per acre. Like the RLSA, rural villages should be able
to go to 4 units per acre. Programmatic
• Remove /modify the very detailed and unworkable requirements for development of a Rural
Village. Increase the TDR Bonus multiplier in a Rural Village to make it economically viable. At
the present time, the TDR program is too expensive for a higher dense village. As density
increases, average prices comedown. Programmatic
• Remove the minimum required purchase amount of $25,000 for a Base TDR and instead let the
market work to determine TDR prices. Programmatic
• Protect existing TDR holders but drastically revamp the current program such that it is less costly
to develop in receiving areas. Programmatic
• Encourage the establishment of mitigation banks in the Rural Fringe for listed species.
Programmatic
• Another option to consider is to establish separate overlays for each of the four distinct Rural
Fringe development areas, similar to the North Belle Meade Overlay which has its own set of
development standards. Programmatic
• The current Rural Fringe provisions of the GAP already call for the County to consider the
feasibility of establishing a "TDR Bank" to be administered by the County or some other non-for-
profit government, or quasi governmental agency with the objective of making funds available to
support the TDR program by offering initial minimal purchase prices of TDR credits. The County
should create a TDR bank Programmatic
• Consider allowing owners of large tracts in the Rural Fringe the option of utilizing the standards
and procedures of the RLSA program. Programmatic
• Allow for the ability to transfer a certain percentage of density credits from the RLSA to the Rural
Fringe. Programmatic
• There is a need to have different more favorable treatment for owners of Sending Land parcels of
twenty (20) acres or less to facilitate their participation. Programmatic
8
R URAL FRINGF x "',-V n r TaV n ""'RICT ( RFMUD)
Packet Page -501-
2/28/2012 Item 11. B.
The majority of the comments are not housed or applicable to the RFMUD as provided for within the
Future Land Use Element, but rather could be classified as observational, programmatic or provided
for within the Land Development Code. There is an undercurrent or commonality to the comments
related to demand, perceived lack of demand and the need to further incentives the program to increase
demand.
From all factors evaluated, staff can conclude that the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District has been
effective in protecting the environmentally sensitive properties within the designated sending areas and
to a limited degree allowed for market utilization of available TDR's, but based upon the public
comments, there appears to be dissatisfaction with the market response to the program. The reasons
behind this perception can be explained by a number of micro and macro conditions, but regardless of
the reason, staff believes that a public review process of the RFMUD should be conducted prior to the
County's next EAR.
9
RURAL FRf1VGF &"Vvn T mL' nrt, -RI .T ( RFMUD)
Packet Page -502-