Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />BOOK 7 9 F,,;;c 15 <br />Attorney Kneller stressed that NorPak objects to any per- <br />centage requirement of the upland native vegetation. It is a <br />"taking" and also in violation of the "equal protection" clause. <br />He stated that it is very important today that the Board know the <br />effect of what they are doing, and stressed that whether the <br />figure is 190, 200 or 250, no one knows the effect. Other <br />counties, particularly with their traffic concurrency management <br />programs, have implemented programs without knowing the effect, <br />and the result was a moratorium. He again warned the Board that <br />it is very important that they know the effect of what they are <br />doing. <br />Darrell McQueen, of McQueen Assoc., came before the Board <br />representing two developers in the area being affected. He liked <br />the direction the Commission is going, and as far as setting <br />aside some of the natural vegetation, he that is normally done in <br />upscale developments. He continued that one of the developments <br />he represents consists of about 2,000 acres of completely natural <br />vegetation which has never been cleared; associated with it is <br />about 400 acres of wetlands, and when you talk about the 25% <br />rule, you are talking about 400 acres of uplands. You need 12 to <br />15% in stormwater management, and when you get through with all <br />those figures, it leaves 1,000 acres in this parcel. The other <br />parcel consists of about 1,200 acres sparsely vegetated, and <br />setting aside of that would not create a problem. Mr. McQueen <br />liked the suggestion of possibly 200 over the entire range, but <br />he would further suggest that the Board put a cap on that 200 <br />such that it does not exceed 100 of the total project area. In <br />fairness to the people who still have a parcel in its natural <br />state, there should be a cap. <br />Bill Myers, Lloyd & Assoc. spoke in opposition to Policy <br />6.12. He advised they have absolutely no objections to Objective <br />6 and think Policies 6.1 through 6.11 validly support that <br />objective, particularly the concept of mapping and photographing <br />the county to see what you have and truly want to preserve. As <br />52 <br />