6/2/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JON Uri A92 Commissioner Scurlock questioned procedure and asked whether the Board was limited to considering the 7 points raised before the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z). County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the P&Z ruling is presumed correct. It is up to Mr. O'Haire to show otherwise, and he is not limited to the record before P&Z. He can introduce whatever he wants to the Board, except it must go to the facts of our ordinance. His written appeal has done that and staff is giving their answer to the appeal. Therefore, the Board should consider the 7 points plus anything else presented. In response to Mr. O'Haire's first allegation, that the issued permit conflicts with Land Use Policy 1.5, Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that Land Use Policy 1.5 was never intended to require single family docks go through the planned development process. Regarding Conservation Policy 2.8, Commissioner Bowman argued that this is a dead-end canal and there could be no tidal exchange unless there is a strong west wind. Commissioner Scurlock asked, and Mr. DeBlois confirmed that'a benefit of the dredge and fill permit will be a deeper lagoon, but the intent is not to obtain fill for the upland development. He expected Mr. Krovocheck's engineer to elaborate on that point. Regarding Conservation Policy 7.2, Commissioner Scurlock felt the critical phrase was "support or contribute to threatened or endangered species habitat." Mr. DeBlois stated that staff determined that the property neither supports nor contributes to the habitat of threatened or endangered species, even though they may occasionally come into the area. Mr. DeBlois directed the Board's attention to two letters from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in which they said there was a small but measurable loss, and recommended denial of the permit. This recommendation was taken into consideration by the Army Corps of Engineers and the County. Commissioner Bowman thought this lagoon is in the aquatic preserve, and Director Keating agreed that it is adjacent and it is public access, but the Department of Natural Resources reviewed it and they concluded it does not fall under their purview under the aquatic preserve. Chairman Eggert led discussion regarding the procedure for granting various permits, and stated she was not in favor of granting conditional permits. Director Keating explained that we usually approve projects contingent upon the applicant getting all other local and state or regional permits because state and regional permitting requirements 16