8/23/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M s Mrs. Offutt noted that we talk about environmentally "sensitive" and now are are talking about environmentally "important." She wished to know the difference. Director Keating advised that something can be important but not sensitive, and Planner Sasan Rohani believed sensitive refers to the wetland and important refers to the upland. Director Keating clarified that we had designated as environmentally sensitive not only all the wetlands area, but also some upland areas, such as sand pine habitat, and the problem we ran into is that our ES policy recommendations are very strict in relation to wetland areas, and we needed to differentiate that for some of the upland areas that may be perfect for development but are environmentally important because a certain amount of them should be saved. That is why changed it so environmentally important is the more encompassing, and it includes not only wetlands but certain upland areas. out. Commissioner Eggert felt there should be a definition set Commissioner Bird asked about any size criteria incorporated in this, and Mrs. Offutt noted that POLICY 7.3 sets out that any development activity beyond single-family home construction shall require an environmental survey. Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois advised that within the Conservation Element, environmentally important is referred to under the policies with reference to upland sensitive commun- ities. Environmentally sensitive is under the wetlands section. The reason for the distinction between the two is the recognition that the restrictions which would normally apply to environmentally sensitive are more restrictive in development, and it did not seem reasonable to apply them to uplands as well as wetlands. In discussion, Commissioners Bowman and Eggert felt it should say sensitive/important, and that was generally agreed. AUG 2 1989 ' S BOOK �' c 74'