Laserfiche WebLink
Agricultural operations proposed for lands currently consisting of <br />upland plant communities may, as an alternative_ to._,20 percent <br />pre -servation of the on-site community: (1) pay an impact fee <br />equivalent to (the average assessed value of one acre of the <br />particular habitat type under consideration ) X (the number of <br />acres of habitat type that would otherwise have been set aside); <br />or (2) attach a deed restriction to the property limiting its use <br />to only an agricultural operation until such time the impact fee <br />described in item�(1) of this condition (adjusted to reflect <br />average value of the habitat at the time of land use change) is <br />paid to the county. This impact fee shall be used by the county <br />for acquisition of comparable native habitat preserve areas and <br />for management of such lands. <br />Commissioner Bird asked where the 25% figure came from, and <br />Director Keating explained that it is a policy in TCRPC Plan. <br />25%. <br />Commissioner Wheeler wished to know where the RPC got the <br />Terry Hess of TCRPC advised that he is not an ecologist or <br />biologist and he was not with TCRPC when that was prepared; so, <br />he cannot answer, but he was told that was determined to be a <br />minimum amount of habitat that the wildlife and animal species <br />would have to have so they would not be threatened with <br />extinction. <br />Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois pointed out to the <br />Board that the county staff has made a somewhat more flexible <br />interpretation in our revisions. Our original policy referred to <br />preservation of "each" native community on site, and it now is <br />revised to reflect a percentage of the "total cumulative native <br />plant community acreage," which will provide flexibility to work <br />within the design on the property. <br />Commissioner Bird felt that whether the number was arbitrary <br />or not, there is a basic question - do we have the right to <br />require that set-aside of property which is a "taking" or a <br />limitation of a person's use of their property? If we feel <br />strongly that we want to preserve these environmental communi- <br />ties, should we not find a way to buy these properties. He did <br />not feel we should confiscate them from people who have owned <br />them and paid taxes on them for years. He noted that years ago <br />we had a provision that when you platted a subdivision, you had <br />to set aside a park, and we subsequently found those parks were <br />F`L 1 1990 31 BOOK f `.��► <br />