Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
degradation by dredging and filling that lagoon and impact that <br />wetland and call it the public interest is an incentive for others <br />to do so. Mr. Evans predicted that if this goes through, next year <br />the Board will see ads in the yellow pages for Consultants on <br />Degradation reading, "Let me show you how to let your lagoon slip <br />into a state of degradation and go to the state and county and they <br />will allow you to construct more lots on your property." He <br />described this as a trade-off and the trade-off uses the public <br />interest when there is no public interest. Mr. Evans thought we <br />should figure out how to persuade an owner to improve a wetland <br />that has fallen into a state of degradation without adding two more <br />lots. Mr. Evans contended that this permit is based on private <br />interest only and that the issue of these two lots has to do with <br />marketing. A marketing expert would look at this piece of property <br />and tell you that the lot closest to AlA is worth X, the next one <br />is worth X+1, the next one is worth X+2 and so on. <br />Mr. Evans questioned why the floodplain issue is not being <br />addressed. <br />Mr. Evans concluded that staff's decisions were well thought <br />out but they reasoned arbitrarily. He urged the Board to decide in <br />the interest of conservation and in the interest of the environment <br />and in accordance with USFWS, who serve the public interest. <br />Attorney Steve Henderson, representing Mr. Jack Krovocheck, <br />came before the Board and agreed that it would be nice if <br />government could find a way to force land owners to clean up <br />degraded wetlands, but land owners are not inclined to clean up or <br />improve wetlands just for the sake of improving the environment. <br />That is why, over the course of the last 15 or 20 years, the <br />concept of mitigation has come into play in permitting law. <br />Attorney Henderson recounted that when Mr. Krovocheck was <br />forced to defend his property from rezoning, the subject plan was <br />laid out and the Board was informed of the intended improvement of <br />2 lots by some filling of the lagoon. Mr. Krovocheck at that time <br />asked for the opportunity to jump through the hoops and the <br />opportunity to show sufficient mitigation to allow his ultimate <br />proposal and has spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars <br />on this project. Staff has been put to time and effort in <br />defending their position in recommending the issuance of the <br />permit. The easy thing in this case is to deny the permit and <br />everybody can just go home. Mr. O'Haire is challenging permit <br />issuance at every level and is likely to continue the challenge at <br />the local level and perhaps through litigation under chapter 163. <br />Attorney Henderson objected to Mr. O'Haire's appeal because he does <br />not have property which adjoins the lagoon. Mr. Luther, another <br />19 <br />JUN 0 21992 BOOK � FACE �`:� <br />