6/2/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUR 62 M2 BOOK 66 PM..i1i bo1 neighbor, was involved during the P&Z process but is not present. Chairman Eggert announced that John Luther had sent a letter to the Commission saying that he agreed with Michael O'Haire on this matter. Attorney Henderson also objected to the procedure because this is an appeal from a decision by the Planning & Zoning Board under Section 902. There are some appellate concepts in play here and one of them is that the decision of the county official is presumed correct, and the decision of the P&Z Board is presumed correct. There must be a clear showing by Mr. O'Haire and his attorney that the P&Z decision is wrong and error was committed. Other appellate fundamentals are that you should only look at the issues that were presented before the P&Z. Mr. Henderson realized that the County Attorney advised the Board otherwise and was raising the points for the record. He felt it is not appropriate to consider matters not raised before the P&Z. Attorney Vitunac explained that the County Commission decided to allow the widest possible opportunity for interested parties to become involved. He also responded to Mr. Henderson's argument regarding Mr. O'Haire's position by stating that our code has the power to define "substantial interest" and does that in a more lax manner than the State would. In his opinion the Board is on sound ground to hear the matter as it is being presented and to make a decision based on the evidence with the one proviso that the motion must conform to the reasons given in the code. Commissioner Scurlock led discussion regarding the correspondence from USFWS in which they recommended denial of the permit. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the subject permit is conditional on the applicant getting all these other permits. Discussion continued along this line with Director Keating clarifying staff's actions to the present time. Attorney Henderson pointed out that staff's findings were based on the four areas set forth in 902.07. While Mr. Evans feels that staff have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, there has been no submission of any scientific or technical evidence that would tend to show that they have acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Mr. Krovocheck has submitted substantial technical and scientific studies and information to staff and their decision on that information has not been challenged. Staff has found that the fill proposal is reasonable and appropriate and is more than offset by the substantial environmental enhancement which is achieved through mitigation. Mitigation is the key word here.