10/17/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

r the County Code set fortis wetland protection criteria,,. but did --not require a separate county permit (or associated fee) in addition to state and federal dredge and fill permits. The objective of Comprehensive Plan wetland protection policies is to prevent "net loss of wetland functional values in the County, which is generally accepted as a reasonable balance between resource protection and private development opportunity. The county wetland resource permit was established mainly for two reasons: to cover the cost of county review in implementing land development regulation (LDR) requirements; and to establish a wetland project tracking system by means of permit issuance. Also, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, a fee -in -lieu of mitigation alternative was established, and the permit serves as a mechanism to process and keep track of mitigation projects. Occasionally, there are circumstances when a county permit is required yet state and federal permitting -exemptions apply; for - example filling of an isolated fresh water wetland under 1/2 acre. The .state _and ,federal exemption 1s a "flat" Exemption .and does not take into account wetland functional value; the county permit allows for a qualitative review and mitigation relative to functional value. Concerning Mr. HedinIs letter indicating that he has spent over $10,,000 for. wetland mitigation, it should be noted that a large -portion of that amount relates to his opting for payment of a fee in lieu of on-site preservation or mitigation. It is staff's position that the $75 county review fee is not unreasonable, given that county environmental planning staff conduct field reviews; coordinate with site planners, other jurisdictional agencies, and applicants; and keep a database to monitor and inspect mitigation sites for maintenance and compliance. Alternatives It is staff's position that the present permitting system has a number of good points. Not only does this system -provide a mechanism for county review and monitoring of mitigation projects; it also allows the county to maintain an accurate mitigation database. In addition, through its permit fee structure, the county can partially recoup its costs associated with development projects, instead of having those costs borne by taxpayers. Despite those characteristics, there are alternatives to the present system. One Alternative to the present wetland permit requirement would be to eliminate county permit and wetland protection criteria altogether, relying only on state and federal permitting. This alternative, however, would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and State approval, which may not be forthcoming. Another alternative is to maintain the county's wetland protection comprehensive plan policies and LDR ordinance largely intact, but eliminate the requirement of a county permit. This would result in some local say in wetland dredge and fill activities, but would not 22 BOOK 96 fA.GE�i OCTOBER 17, 1995