Laserfiche WebLink
JIJV ru 2 1992 <br />aJ0 FFA,;E acs <br />Mr. DeBlois pointed out that during this process Mr. O'Haire <br />raised the question of the description of the property which was <br />sent to DNR. Mr. DeBlois stated that staff relied on the <br />description as attached to the application. <br />The appellant, Michael O'Haire, came before the Board and <br />contended that the deed attached to the application which was sent <br />to DNR described the property called Little Harbor Subdivision and <br />not Mr. Krovocheck's property. <br />The Board members agreed that was substantial new information <br />and discussion ensued regarding the property description. <br />Todd Smith clarified that DNR originally determined this <br />lagoon was not in the aquatic preserve. After Mr. O'Haire raised <br />the issue which is now being discussed, DNR reviewed the <br />application a second time with the same result, and Mr. Smith felt <br />confident DNR fulfilled their responsibility in reviewing the <br />application. <br />Director Keating advised that staff's position was that Policy <br />2.1 did not apply because it is not in the aquatic preserve, but <br />even if it were, it would meet the requirements. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt this information presented new <br />circumstances and wished to amend his motion, and Chairman Eggert <br />requested he.restate his motion. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bird, to deny the appeal contingent <br />on a determination that the lagoon is found not <br />adjacent to or part of the Indian River Aquatic <br />Preserve and based on the following: The official <br />did follow appropriate review procedures; the <br />official did not act in an arbitrary or capricious <br />manner; the official did consider adequately the <br />effect of the proposed development upon surrounding <br />properties; and the reviewing official did evaluate <br />the application with respect to the Comprehensive <br />Land Use Plan. <br />Community Development Director Bob Keating explained staff's <br />interpretation of adjacent means the shoreline under consideration <br />has to border the aquatic preserve, and since Mr. Krovocheck is <br />proposing to alter his east and south property line, it is not <br />adjacent to the aquatic preserve. The original intent of the comp <br />plan was not to include finger canals or other protrusions from the <br />aquatic preserve. That was the criteria and that is how staff <br />constantly applied it. <br />24 <br />