Laserfiche WebLink
� 1 <br />conservation element policies to encourage restoration of degraded <br />wetland and deepwater habitat, staff concluded the public benefits <br />of the development proposal with habitat restoration outweigh the <br />public benefits of fewer lots and an unrestored degraded habitat. <br />Under this premise, staff proceeded to require minimized filling <br />associated with proposed lots to the north of Mr. Krovocheck's <br />private lagoon. Through the application review process, Mr. <br />Krovocheck was required to modify his original proposal of creating <br />+125 foot deep lots by reducing lot depths to +117 feet, and was <br />required to provide more mitigation than was originally proposed. <br />The +117 foot lot depth was arrived at after scrutiny of county <br />regulatory requirements such as minimum yard setbacks, drainage <br />easement width, upland edge buffer requirements, building <br />"envelope" width, and slope width for fill stabilization. Staff <br />concluded that the overall revised plan reasonably minimized <br />filling and provided appropriate mitigation. <br />Subsection 930.07(2)(d): flood plain storage capaci <br />isation. <br />LDR Subsection 930.07(2)(d) provides that "an equal volume of <br />storage capacity must be created for any volume of the base flood <br />that would be displaced by fill or structures", unless a waiver is <br />granted by the Board of County Commissioners. <br />Environmental planning staff have coordinated with county <br />engineering staff and Mr. Krovocheck's engineer on this issue. The <br />applicant's engineer has indicated that he plans to file for a cut <br />and fill waiver with the Board, in association with the submittal <br />of a proposed subdivision plat for the subject property. While the <br />need for a cut and fill waiver prior to wetland filling is not an <br />explicit condition on the issued wetland resource permit, the <br />applicant has been informed that this Assue must be addressed prior <br />to wetland alteration. <br />Conclusion <br />As reflected in the analysis provided herein, staff: <br />followed appropriate review procedures; <br />did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner; <br />adequately considered the effects of the proposed development <br />to public health, safety and welfare; and <br />appropriately evaluated the application with respect to the <br />comprehensive plan and land development regulations. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny Mr. <br />O'Haire's appeal. <br />L_ <br />13 <br />NOK <br />