9/11/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� v � Kimley-l>forn Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS 3885 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 407562-7981 Facsimile 407 575-0344 September 11, 1990 8960.01 Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: Objections to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations Proposed for Adoption on September 11, 1990 Dear Chairman: On behalf of our Client, Mr. Edmund H. Lappeman, the following objections and comments are submitted for consideration and action. Mr. Lappeman owns approximately 15.17 acres here in Indian River County, approximately located east of Gifford Dock Road, South of Grand Harbor and adjacent to 'the Indian River Lagoon as shown on Exhibit A. As you are aware, guy Client has entered a petition to intervene and participate in the administrative hearing between Indian River County and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. As you are aware, our Client's petition has been accepted by the hearing officer and you have received correspondence to that effect. The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, and the proposed Land Development Regulations severely restrict our Client's property rights and is arbitrary and capricious in that his property has been designated Conservation -2, and labeled "environmentally sensitive estuarine wetlands" in that no determination or review of our clients land was made to determine if it was, in fact, "environmentally sensitive estuarine wetlands". A copy of our petition has been enclosed as Exhibit B. The Comprehensive Plan and the proposcd Laiad Development Regulations do not specify how "environmentally sensitive estuarine wetlands" are delineated or designated on private property. As such, there is no criteria a property. owner can use to evaluate whether or not a Conservation land use designation or environmentally sensitive label is appropriate. It is Mr. Lappeman's position that his property is not environmentally sensitive and should not be designated Conservation -2. Furthermore, his private property rights should not be limited without due process and justification. Concerning Scction 901 of the proposcd Land Development Regulations, we request than an appropriate definition be given for "Open Spacc" and "Environmentally Sensitive Estuarine Wetlands". We request that the definition for "Water Quality and Adverse Impact" on page 74 be revised to eliminate discussions of secondary and cumulative Impacts. If the County proposes to consider potential secondary and cumulative impacts of activities that may affect water quality, then the County should provide criteria and a basis for evaluating such potential secondary and cumulative Impacts. 19 SEP 1990 4,C