Laserfiche WebLink
r I <br />MAY 19�� <br />F'A.CE •3 9 <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that when the state comes in, <br />they could override our approval, and this was confirmed. <br />Director Boling next addressed the 5' height requirement for <br />dock structures, explaining this is added to a Section we already <br />have in the Code about locating structures and designing them so <br />they have minimum impact on grass beds and other things. What we <br />have gone to there is requiring 5' above mean high water level <br />where aquatic vegetation exists or potentially exists and then <br />determining that either through site inspections or grassbed <br />inventory maps. <br />Vice Chairman Wheeler did not like including the word <br />"potentially." <br />Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, noted that <br />when this was brought up at the first hearing, we pretty much <br />reflected the state's policy in requiring the 5' height just <br />where grassbeds existed. After talking with Army Corps and DNR <br />representatives, it was felt it was a little too much to require <br />this in all cases in the river because there are certain areas <br />where it definitely could not occur, such as dredged areas and <br />that this should mostly come into play when grassbeds exist <br />within the vicinity of the dock. It is not an exact science to <br />determine in what amount of time a grassbed could extend from an <br />existing bed; so, Mr. DeBlois felt that having this dealt with by <br />site specific review in conjunction with the grassbed inventories <br />was a reasonable approach. <br />Director Keating commented that although he generally does <br />not like having statements in ordinances which aren't specific <br />and allow staff a lot of discretion, when you look at the <br />alternative of having this discretionary with general parameters <br />as opposed to a lot of specific criteria, he felt what is <br />proposed is the best way. <br />Director Boling continued that the third matter of concern <br />was basically what kind of structures would be grandfathered in. <br />Staff's recommendation is that there is no need to address this <br />specifically in this ordinance, but just allow.our existing <br />non -conformity section in the LDRs to address it. Under that <br />section, anything legally established in terms of county <br />approvals required when a structure was built would be grand- <br />fathered in, and this would affect only things that are developed <br />after the effective date of this ordinance. <br />County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that if someone put up a <br />dock without a permit, that then was not legally established, and <br />they would have to comply with the new ordinance. <br />Director Boling confirmed that if someone was to come in now <br />for an application that was after the fact to legalize something <br />4 <br />