6/19/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r JUN 1 � ,�� BOOK -1 MGE 3 3O zone policy plan and their wetlands policy and recommended the permit not be issued. Commissioner Scurlock felt the RPC did not look at this from the local perspective but more from a regional standpoint. Planning Director Keating explained to the Board that when an application is submitted to the DER or the Corps, the permitting agencies contact a number of local jurisdictions and interest groups and ask for comments from all of them. Ideally, they all look at it from different perspectives with different concerns and different policies. The bottom line is the permitting agency, DER, took all these recommendations and apparently discounted a lot of them, and they have issued the permit without conditions. There is a 14 day period in which to appeal the permit. Commissioner Scurlock commented that it seems we have identified that there are certain channels to get us to the Intracoastal Waterway and basically they are perpendicular to the shore. As a policy decision, where does it place us if we suddenly have a channel parallel to the entire shoreline of the Indian River. If you set such a policy, what is the overall picture going to be? He further wished to know if we have sufficiently identified that this specific area is unique in its general characteristics in regard to getting from their project to the nearest channel or does this same situation exist all along the shoreline. Planner Challacombe stated that most grassbeds in the county are along the shallow area of the shoreline. The criteria staff uses to review various projects is identical, but they look at the actual resources on a site by site basis. Commissioner Bird inquired as to the effect an administra- tive hearing has over the permit the DER issues, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the DER presides over such a hearing and you go through the 120 process; then if you still are not satisfied, you take it to the District Court of Appeals. 64 _ M M