2/13/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

access requirement. There we actually were taking it by requiring an easement where the public could use it, and it was not the exclusive use of the owners at that point. Attorney Vitunac further clarified that this is a land development regulation; we are not taking title. The theory in constitutional law is that the property owner does not have the right to destroy everything on his property, and if the land regulation says he must keep it the way it was because of the harm it would cause to the public if it were destroyed, then the regulation is not a taking. If it is to confer a benefit on the general population, then it might be a taking, and the public would have to pay for it. His office says a regulation like that is just like a setback or open space regulation that we deal with all the time in this county. 1-1 Commissioner Scurlock asked what happens if the configura- tion of this requirement renders the property undevelopable, and Commissioner Bowman noted that, on the other hand, from the environmental point of view, these pieces may be so disparate that they are really of no ecological value. Planner DeBlois made the point that there is a 5 acre or larger threshhold also written into the revised policies and some flexibility to address the situation where something would be in the center of the property. We also give the option of off-site mitigation and allow for perimeter buffering as crediting towards this. Commissioner Scurlock asked if staff feels there is enough flexibility, and Director Keating stated that they do and noted that we have worked with this in the wetlands and have worked with all the options. Commissioner Bird thought staff wanted the 25% to remain in a contiguous block of property - that they wanted the plant community to stay intact and did not want it scattered throughout the development. 33 EiJGK ft z�, FED, 1 1990