2/5/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Scurlock understood that the main reason staff found the submittal to be incomplete hinges on the incomplete environmental survey, and Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, explained that a environmental study was submitted, but the information given didn't satisfy the following basic informa- tional requirements: 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 4"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 1_vegetation characteristics as required in 23.3(f)(1). In staff's opinion, fundamental information required as part of the environmental survey was lacking. Commissioner Scurlock understood that if this appeal is denied, a new application could be submitted, but it would be considered under the new land development regulations (LDRs). He further understood that there is no attempt here not to let this property be developed. Attorney Vitunac asked if Director Boling had treated this piece of property any more severely than other properties, and Director Boling replied that he had not. With other environ- mentally sensitive properties, completed environmental surveys usually are turned in during the pre -application conference stage, and Mr. DeBlois then goes out in the field with other jurisdictional teams. He wished to point out that there have been cases in the past where staff said the submittals were not complete and that the applicant needed to provide additional information before it is deemed complete and routed for review. Chairman Bird asked if the wetlands waiver would be any different with the new LDRs, but Mir. DeBlois didn't feel there would be any difference except for densities with regard to what the ratio would have been with mitigation. However, as of February 19, 1990, we still would be applying the one unit per 40 acres to wetlands with a 1 upa transfer. 21 mor t �' PnF 579