2/5/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of Adjustments on August 8, 1988 in the Fred Mensing appeal case**, is that provisions in Sections 23.1 and 23.2 of the old site plan ordinance give staff the right and responsibility to ensure that submittals are not accepted until they are complete enough to review and contain the information necessary for review. Section 23.1(e)(2) states that the planning. and development director "...shall coordinate the review of the [site plan] application.", and shall notify the applicant "...should any [application] errors, omissions or deficiencies be identified". Subsequently, this section states that: "Each department shall review the application and submit all comments in writing to the planning and development division. Complete applications and comments shall be assembled and forwarded to the technical review committee". Thus, the TRC is not to consider an application until a complete application is assembled. [**Note: the Mensing case centered around the issue of whether or not staff could reject an application for review if a submittal requirement, such as submittal of homestead verification was not satisfied.] Section 23.2 establishes site plan submittal requirements. Section 23.2(a) states that the purpose of the section is: "...to ensure that all site plan applications include sufficient information for local officials to ensure compliance with applicable county regulations." Thus, it is the expressed intent of the ordinance to ensure that the site plan submittal includes all necessary information and complies with all county requirements. Issue #2: Application Rejection Due to Incomplete Submittal (lack of complete environmental survey). Staff contends that the application was incomplete due to lack of a complete- environmental survey. The appellant contends that Section 23.3(f)(1)(a) was improperly interpreted as an application requirement, since that section is listed as a "review standard" and not as "required application information" which is covered in another section, 23.2. It is the appellant's position that all necessary information was submitted to the County. According to the appellant, the county made an error in requiring submittal of an environmental survey as part of the application. Thus, the appellant contends that the "incomplete submittal" determination was based upon an error. Staff's position is that both the Comprehensive Plan (adoption and effective date February 13, 1990) and sections 23.3(f)(1)(a) and 23.2(a) of the old site plan ordinance required an environmental survey to be part of any submittal request to develop property (such as the subject property) designated as environmentally sensitive on the future land use map. Coastal Management Element Policy 1.4 requires an environmental survey to be submitted with any application to develop the subject property (designated as environmentally sensitive), and states the following: "Policy 1.4: The county shall require an environmental survey prior to submittal of applications for development in environmentally sensitive and environmentally important areas. The focus of these surveys should identify existing natural vegetation,, drainage, elevations and significant resources such as wetlands, mosquito impoundments, sand ridges, and historic sites, as applicable." FEB 5 1991 17