My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/13/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
2/13/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:43 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:46:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/13/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
determined that certain native upland plant communities had been <br />cleared to the point where there was only 3-5% of the original <br />land area remaining in them. That 25% in their Plan is essenti- <br />ally a situation where they are saving 25% of the remaining 30, <br />which isn't very much. The 25% rule was developed as part of the <br />TCRPC policy in 1987, and the provision for the impact fees and <br />deed restrictions on AAG were added because it was realized that <br />AG was in a different situation and that was -the best they could <br />come up with at the point, except that there weren't very many <br />people from AG involved with that decision. Mr. Spyke noted that <br />although the policy has been there with TCRPC for these years, up <br />until this point it hasn't been enforced; it was only a policy. <br />Mr. Spyke pointed out that with commercial, residential and <br />industrial development, where there are usually landscape and <br />open space requirements, it is not as tough to deal with this <br />thing. Unfortunately in AG, they are already planting trees as <br />densely and as close as they can and can't plant more to <br />compensate. As to the impact fee option, AG would have to go out <br />and buy more land to allow them to use what they already have, <br />and AG has no setback or open space requirements to apply the 250 <br />rule against. He noted there is even a question as to the <br />legality of the Comprehensive Plan regulating AG. Mr. Spyke <br />believed AG is specifically excluded from the term "development" <br />as defined in the Growth Management Act since that Act is <br />designed to regulate growth of people. Mr. Spyke then asked what <br />do you do about timber and cattle? If you set aside 250 of the <br />native habitat, does that include the timber and how would it <br />affect logging of the timber, which is native trees. He advised <br />that in Martin County they discussed mapping to provide an <br />indication of what appropriate kind of preservation policies <br />would be feasible. He further noted that at this point in time <br />an AG development that is involved in a change in land use (i.e., <br />from native pasture to citrus grove) is involved with obtaining <br />F-� <br />r � 1990 47 BOOK. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.