2/5/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Scurlock understood then that there were two deficiencies and the applicants were put on notice that they were deficient but never complied with updating their data to make it sufficient. Robert Keating, Director of Community Planning, confirmed that to be correct. He noted that it is difficult to identify specific components that are deficient, but staff looked through their entire submittal to try to find the specific pieces of information. We never got the specific wetland acreages nor the specific wetland boundaries. Those could have been in graphic form or they could have given us the wetland boundaries by a particular survey description or by metes and bounds. They came close to giving us the wetlands acreage by giving us total site acreage and acreage of upland berms, and in response to a letter, they gave us acreage of non-functional wetlands. However, no acreage of wetlands appeared anywhere and no specific boundaries. Chairman Bird asked Mr. Lappeman to focus his arguments on whether the application was complete, and Mr. Lappeman explained that it is Kimley-Horn's contention, as well as his own, that the submittal was complete; otherwise, these last two petitions would never have taken place. Reading again from the Appeal of Decision, Mr. Lappeman pointed out that Section 23.3(f)(1) is not an application requirement: E. Section 23.3(f)(1) is not an application requirement; it merely recognizes that boundaries of wetlands area may not be accurately depicted on the County Comprehensive Plan, and thus must be identified at the time of site' plan review based on an analysis of certain factors: - 1. Analysis of vegetation and wildlife 2. Analysis of soil types 3. Duration of surface water and elevation of water table There is no requirement that this information be collected and given to the County by the applicant. The section only requires that the County use. these criteria to determine if a site is wetlands. ' FE 5 1991 L_ 25 Ci P..°:GEJ