2/5/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB 5 1991 BOOK 8.21 P, ,�E 5 f In addition to this policy requirement, Conservation Element Policy 5.6 also affected consideration of the subject application. Policy 5.6 states: "Policy 5.6: Until the county develops and adopts a wetland and deepwater habitat protection ordinance as described in Policy 5.1 of this element, the county shall continue to implement wetland protection and mitigation regulations as set forth in the county Site Plan Ordinance." Site plan ordinance section 23.3(f)(1)(a) states that "... Wetland areas shall be identified by a survey at the time of the site plan review...". It is staff's position that no meaningful staff review can begin without the submittal of an environmental survey. As section 23.2 states, submittals must include sufficient information for review. Sufficient review information for a site designated as environmentally sensitive includes an environmental survey. In accordance with 23.3(f)(1), the environmental survey was required to determine wetland areas, using wildlife, vegetation, soils, surface water and water table information. Neither the September 10th submittal nor subsequent correspondence received on or prior to October 10th satisfied the following basic informational requirements: 1. Boundaries and acreages of all wetland areas. Boundaries shown on a "Vegetation Survey" did not depict wetland areas, nor could wetland areas be discerned from subsequent correspondence received from the appellant. No acreage amounts of wetlands areas was ever given. 2. The "Vegetation Survey" contained insufficient information showing a vast portion of the site as "VACANT". "Vacant" on a vegetation survey is not meaningful and does not describe vegetation characteristics as required in 23.3(f)(1). In staff's opinion, fundamental information required as part of the environmental survey was lacking. Issue #3: Applying the new LDRs. The appellant contends that the new LDRs cannot now be applied to a submittal that began on September 10, 1990: When new regulations are adopted, the county's policy is to allow complete applications submitted prior to the effective date of the ordinance to be reviewed under the old regulations. In this case the new LDRs went into effect on September 21, 1990; however, staff established an additional_ "grace period" for submittals, giving applicants until 5:00 p.m. October 10, 1990 to submit complete applications for review under the old LDRs. This grace period deadline was even more lenient than the County's normal policy. Several items should be noted regarding the October 10, 1990 deadline. • The deadline was almost a full month after the well-publicized adoption date of the new LDRs, and went beyond the actual "effective date". The local professional engineers group, which- includes professionals from most of the community's engineering firms, was verbally informed of the deadline in September. A record number of complete applications (seven) was received on October 10, 1990, indicating that the deadline was well known. • Staff sent letters confirming the October 10, 1990 cut-off date a week before the deadline. Letters were distributed to all local professional engineering and architecture firms. The letters stated specifically that only complete applications received prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 1990 is M M