4/21/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fr- -7 APR 2 11992 BOOKS Commissioner Bird asked how the 7 -ft. height requirement was determined, and Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, advised that it was adopted late last year to bring it within State requirements. However, the County and the State allow another avenue for view, which is a thinning of the mangroves below the 7 - ft. height, up to 25 percent. So, there could be some strategic windows trimmed within the mangroves to allow for a view even below the 7 -ft. height. He circulated photographs taken'by staff of the alleged violation. Commissioner Bowman felt there was another violation here because it says that some of the altered mangroves were below mean high water line, which is absolutely prohibited. Christine Panico, Senior Environmental Planner, advised that we don't have an exact survey of where the mean high water line is in order to determine what was actually prohibited in our regulations. This matter came up when she was investigating dock violations in that area with the Department of Natural Resources and they noticed the hedging of these mangroves. Commissioner Bowman felt she could eyeball a mean high water line. Attorney Chuck Garris, representing Dr. and Mrs. Branigan, wished to make it clear that his clients did not cut the mangroves. In his opinion, staff is bringing this before the Board with absolutely zero proof that anyone has trimmed any mangroves. Staff has no witnesses to say that anyone trimmed any mangroves. Staff has not found any cut mangroves nor have they found any cuts on the mangroves. They have cited their opinion, and as far as he knew, no one on staff is a horticultural specialist. They are taking a position without any basis in fact. Staff has taken an arbitrary and capricious position that mangroves were cut. When his client went to them and said he had pictures to show that the mangroves were not cut, they responded by saying they didn't care, that they are saying that they were cut. Period. End of discussion. Secondly, Attorney Garris wished to announce that he is here on consent today because it is his opinion that there is no provision in the ordinance to attend this meeting. When you look at the penalties and enforcement provision, it doesn't contain any ability to have an appeal to this County Commission. He notified the County Attorney's office and informed them he would attend because he would love to address this and would love for the Commission to make a decision on this and find his client not in violation of cutting mangroves. However, he will not waive any rights that he has as to the defects that he finds in the ordinance. If you compare Section 928 of the LDRs to Section 927, Section 928 specifically states that you do have remedies to -the 50 W M