Laserfiche WebLink
M M <br />T- . <br />\\ 9 1 Ix 1 13 14 16 <br />MCOVE \\� <br />COVE \ <br />GOV. LOT I <br />SUBJECT SITE --*.21;1 <br />S 4 S 8 7 6 91rr-- <br />I 12 7 4 S 6 7 6 9 <br />uv 1 <br />10 1. R 1! 14 1S 16 T— 1 <br />rnv t nT.-I <br />�1 <br />GOV. LOT 2 1 <br />A� <br />\ I <br />\ GOV. LOT 3 <br />N \ <br />4 � S 6 7. 8 •_ <br />cuv� _nalv_E ': <br />-41x� x1x�ror'� <br />RS -3 <br />J <br />_ 1 <br />G. L. 3 I <br />SEAGROVE WEST <br />Commissioner Scurlock questioned the wetland mitigation <br />recommendation of .19 acre against filling approximately .28 acre. <br />He understood that the requirement is 2 to 1. <br />Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois responded that <br />ordinarily the requirement is 2 to 1 when creating a wetland from <br />non -wetland area, which allows for some failure. The critical <br />factor in evaluating mitigation is the net improvement in the <br />functions and value of the wetland. Since this is a proposal for <br />mitigation to enhance an existing wetland, the ordinance allows for <br />some discretion, and staff determined the mitigation offset as <br />recommended is net improvement. <br />15 <br />JUN 021992 MOK <br />