9/11/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP 111990 We object to the definition for "Conservation Areas" as described on page 18 of Chapter 901 in that this designation implies that the lands are environmentally sensitive. In our client's case, it severely limits his private property rights and puts undue burden on him. The County has failed to evaluate our Client's property to determine whether or not the land use designation of Conscrvatiori-2 is appropriate relative to the function and rule of viable wetlands. Therefore, our client objects to limitations of his private property rights when this definition is referred or relied upon. Please provide a clarification of the definition, intent, and proposed use of the words "Estuarine Environment", "Conservation Areas", "Wetlands", and "Environmentally Sensitive Estuarine Wetlands". We request a clarification on their relationship to each other and the affects of their use within the Land Development Regulations. Upon receipt of such clarification, we reserve the right to further comment on these terms. Please clarify between the definitions and intent of the terms "Tree" and "Protected Tree". "Protected Tree" implies protection regardless of size and appears inconsistent with the definition of "Tree". We object. to the definition of "Wetland" on page 75 of Chapter 901 for reasons as discussed in our petition, .page 5, item 6a attached as Exhibit B. In Section 911.03, our Client objects to the maximum density proposed for Conservation - 2 land use as it relates to his property. Our Client objects to Section 911.05.(3). As previously discussed, conservation districts have been designated based on environmentally sensitive lands. To our knowledge, a detailed study of the environmentally sensitive lands within the County has not been performed to allow re -designation of such lands, nor has our Client's property been evaluated to deserve such designation. Furthermore, it is our understanding that private property .owners whose land has been re -designated specifically to Conservation - 2 have not been given specific notice of such designation and the restrictions, limitations and impacts of such designation. Our Client objects to Section 911.12 in its entirety in that' it severely restricts the uses of his property. Further, this new designation of our Client's property, has eliminated the multi -family use for which the property was purchased, without proper justification. 1. Our Client objects to Section 915.08(5). The last sentence states "... in no case shall environmentally sensitive areas be developed at any density greater than allowed under the appropriate Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation". As previously discussed, our Client's property has not been appropriately evaluated to deem the land environmentally sensitive and therefore his property should not be limited to the one unit per 40 acres. Our Client objects to Section 927.08(4)(a). We request that dead mangroves be allowed to be removed in their entirety and consistent with State regulations. We object to Section 928.03 in that no distinction as to the quality of the wetlands in determining which wetlands arc deemed environmentally sensitive. Our Client objects to Section 928.05 in that it does not allow a private property owner to demonstrate that he has a permitable project. There are cases where a private property owner can demonstrate to the regulatory agencies that alterations may be appropriate for a project, which do not adversely affect the function and value of the habitat and thus are not contrary to the public interest. We request that a paragraph D be included to provide such an opportunity, Our Client objects to any and all sections of the Land Development Regulations which refer or rely upon Section 928.05 and "Environmentally Sensitive Estuarine Wetlands" language and restrictions until such properties are appropriately identified. 20 - M M