6/2/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

lots could be platted under current laws. That was sufficient justification to the Army Corps of Engineers to show that this dredging is not being done to create "fast land." Mr. Smith addressed the Fish and Wildlife Service letter and reported that USFWS is a supporting agency to the Army Corps of Engineers and makes recommendations to the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers' position is that having considered the USFWS comments as well as those of the National Marine Fisheries, which has recommended approval, they intend to permit. They have thrown the ball back in Fish and Wildlife's court saying that this letter was not notification enough to the Army Corps of Engineers to deny the permit and it is up to USFWS if they want to appeal to Washington, D.C. Mr. Smith answered Commissioner Bowman's concern about storm water management by describing the type of system to be used and noting that the system has been accepted by Public Works. Mr. Smith said that St. Johns River Water Management District recommended dredging the silt from the lagoon because the continued silt accumulation deters the diversity of fauna and smothers oxygen supplies. He assured the Board that the silt which will be 'dredged will be hauled away and not used because it is not a suitable soil for structural foundations. He also mentioned that the removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation is required by County code. Mr. Smith addressed the issue of the alternative of least impact. In his opinion it is better to put up six homes and restore the lagoon than to put up six homes and not do any restoration. He felt doing nothing to the lagoon was not the alternative of least impact and that the public will gain by Mr. Krovocheck's project. Ralph Evans returned to the microphone and stressed that Mr. O'Haire's position was that scientific evidence is not required to interpret the Statutes. He stated that the definition of "adjacent" and the question of the public interest would be decided by the Board. Mr. Evans pointed out that Mr. Krovocheck and Mr. Smith stated they did not need to dredge and fill the lagoon to accomplish their purpose. He felt that was clear indication that they can complete the development without impacting the lagoon. Commissioner Bird asked whether the information that was presented to the Board is basically the same information presented to Planning & Zoning Commission. Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois responded that it is basically the same information. The additional points raised before the Board was the planned development requirement in C-2, the threat to endangered species, and the issue of addressing the cut and fill waiver. 22