Laserfiche WebLink
We object to Section 928.06(2)(b). Private property owners should be allowed <br />mitigation credit for wetland enhancement if such State and Federal regulatory agencies <br />approve said mitigation. <br />Our Client objects to Section 928.06(3) in that it takes rights and privileges away <br />from the private property owner without compensation. <br />Section 928.06(4)(a); the mitigation ratio of 10-1 is excessive and should be <br />consistent with 928.06(2)b). <br />Section 932.05(1)(b); during .the permit process, many regulatory agencies comment <br />and may object to portions of a proposed project. Their objections are considered and <br />may be lifted before project approval and final agency action. We request that the <br />words "no objections" be deleted from this paragraph. <br />Our Client makes these objections on the basis that his private property rights have <br />been severely restricted, and that the label of his property being environmentally <br />sensitive and designated Conservation -2 is arbitrary and capricious without a full <br />evaluation of his property. We request that you consider these comments and post -pone <br />the adoption of these proposed Land Development Regulations until these issues are <br />resolved. We call your attention to Objective 14 of the County's Comprehensive Plan, <br />Land Use Element and its policies. We would like an opportunity to discuss these issues <br />as they relate to our Client's particular property. <br />We appreciate your time and consideration. <br />Very truly yours, <br />KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. <br />Michael E. Kiefer <br />After some discussion the Board members indicated this <br />material would be accepted for the record, and Mr. Young stated <br />that if the Board is saying this is entered into the record, he <br />is comfortable with that. <br />SAID MATERIAL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. <br />6. <br />4 <br />SEP 11 '990 21 PAG;E231111 <br />