6/19/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN 1 BOOK P':GF 9�oaa, 985 and Commissioner Bowman felt it was simply because the Commission has more clout. Further discussion ensued as to whether the Aquatic Preserve Bill has been signed and is in effect, and the Administrator noted that even if it is in effect, the application was in prior to the law and it could involve a question of being "grandfathered." Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that the Bill has been on the Governor's desk for seven days; so, it is now in effect. Re the question of "grandfathering," the Comp Plan does not specify anything as to state changes in law; so, the law is effective when it comes into effect. Administrator Wright believed that Mr. Muller has a permit for this project already; so, all we are arguing today is whether we are going to appeal it. Commissioner Bowman felt the permit should be appealed on the basis that the DER issued this permit in the face of findings of our local biologists, etc., and she would like to have the evidence reviewed. Administrator Wright was not sure we can give credence to what a biologist has said as opposed to what the DER has said. Discussion continued at length re the use of an existing channel, the habitat, the length of time for a hearing, etc. Mr. Muller felt if could just clearly identify the remaining problem, it could be solved. He emphasized that they are trying to act responsibly and have responded to every problem; they do not want to create a disaster to the river. He informed the Board that the DER has allowed them to relocate the oyster beds, and he believed it gets down to the grass in the area where the channel will be dredged and the possible turbidity from using the channel. Mr. Muller emphasized that the DER is a responsive and competent agency, and they did come out in force and study this particular area before issuing the permit. 66 He further noted