6/19/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planner Challacombe believed that was rejected by the DER for water quality reasons. The other alternative was to extend the pier to deeper water, which staff prefers rather than the channel dredging. Commissioner Scurlock inquired who has the ability to object to this - Fish 6 Game as well as the County - the Audubon Society, etc.? Planner Challacombe confirmed that all of those agencies would have that ability, plus the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Wodtke noted that the Regional Planning Council is very much involved, and he had a problem with this being brought to the Board since he felt it is the responsibility of the Regional Planning Council and the state agencies to work with these type problems. Commissioner Scurlock commented that this situation did not come directly to the Board; apparently, Commissioner Bowman found out that this situation existed and felt it should be brought to the Board's attention before the time period expires. Commissioner Bowman emphasized that time is of the essence in this particular situation and that is the reason for the petition for an administrative hearing. Commissioner Wodtke continued to argue the Regional Planning Council's responsibility, but Chairman Lyons noted that the Regional Planning Council is simply a recommending agency; they do not issue permits. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that if you don't have any input into the permitting process when you have the opportunity to do so, then when the site plan comes through for approval, you are going to be in a more difficult position in regard to requiring changes to the site plan, the site plan obviously be,ing - based on the permit. Question arose as to what comments were made by the Regional Planning Council, and Planner Challacombe reported that the RPC explained that this project was in conflict with their coastal 63 JUN19 1985 BOOK Fa:cr