Laserfiche WebLink
recommendation, Section #4 (2)(d)(6) Littoral Zone and <br />Water Management, conditioned upon additional wording to <br />still require the planting of the trees, but not the other littoral <br />zone plants, until the site is converted to a non-agricultural <br />use. <br />Director Boling began discussion on the areas of the proposed Ordinance which <br />had not yet been approved or reviewed at the December 8, 2008 Public Hearing. <br />Director Boling acknowledged that Section #4, Item (3)(d), regarding setbacks <br />from the excavation areas, had not yet been approved, and outlined the five setbacks, as <br />presented on page 36 of the backup. He recalled that most of the December 8, 2008 discussion <br />had involved Item (3)(d)(4), the proposed 300 -foot setback to adjacent public conservation lands <br />or conservation easements, with the argument being that Item (3)(d)(4) was not resource based, it <br />was property ownership based, regardless of whether or not there was an environmentally <br />sensitive resource right up to the property line. <br />Commissioner Solari could not figure out why a public conservation land or <br />conservation easement deserves more protection than private property. <br />Vice Chairman Flescher discussed the County's obligation to Treasure Hammock <br />Ranch, owned by the Sextons, and supported the 300 feet as being the most appropriate distance <br />for the setbacks. He wanted to see language added to Item (3)(d)(3) "300 feet to known off-site <br />jurisdictional wetlands or native uplands" to include "or improved pasture lands", and to delete <br />Item (3)(d)(4), "300 feet to adjacent public conservation lands or conservation easements". <br />9 <br />December 19, 2008 <br />Special Call Mining Regulations <br />