My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/27/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
1/27/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:37 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:54:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/27/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Henderson asked the Board to please note the salt <br />fish were indicated as south, whereas, the shellfish beds were not. <br />Mr. Jim Thomas, Biologist for <br />addressed the Board. He stated as a biologist it was his role in this <br />development process to look for environmental problems and try to address <br />them in various stages of development. He said he had not had a chance <br />to see, or hear about the letter Mr. Challacombe mentioned he had re- <br />ceived from the Fish & Game Commission, till now. He felt this was not <br />the place to get into technical discussion of this sort. He said he could <br />certainly contest chemical stratification and other things mentioned in <br />the letter to the Board but asked that he be allowed to remind the Board <br />of the process they must follow after this stage of receiving County approv- <br />al was made. Mr. Thomas noted the DER, Corp of Engineers and by that <br />time, at least eight (8) state and federal agencies would review the <br />technical aspects of this process; the proper place for the Fish & Game <br />Commission letter, would be at that point. He also noted that one of <br />the departments answering to the DER was the Game & Fish. Mr. Thomas <br />explained how the DER had a technical staff capable of evaluating that <br />type of thing (data) and most Counties did not have qualified staff capable <br />of evaluating the technical data required. He stated without DER approval, <br />this project could really not be built. He wanted to submit to the Board, <br />the proper place for that letter to be submitted would be in the permitting <br />1. <br />process that comes after County approval. <br />Mr. Thomas offered to take the letter, piece by piece, <br />and contest the technical things there, for the Board; but again he <br />submitted this was not the proper time. <br />Mr. Jones asked Mr. Brandenburg to what extent in the site <br />plan approval, do these technical questions intrude or influence the <br />Board's decission in this matter? He also asked if the point Mr. Thomas <br />was making was'a good one? <br />Mr. Brandenburg thought even though the project has to go <br />through subsequent processing to other governmental agencies, this Board <br />should judge this project on its own; as if it did not, under County <br />standards, by itself; and take a look at all the aspects of it and review <br />it carefully. He thought Mr. Thomas was correcting in stating this was <br />not..(he injected this was not his job to feel one way or the other, whether <br />this was a technical form for that type of scienctific analysis of strat- <br />ification, etc,), <br />JAN 27 1 :Z <br />-21- <br />E-m 4 �S" PAGE I U � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.