3/21/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F, BOOK ! L L puts the County in a very awkward position. Mr. Evans explained how the development ended up before the PZC (using a sketch showing two structures, and a site plan with a plat overlay). Otherwise they would have been looking only for a construction permit. He stressed that the Bert -Harris compensation was not what his client had in mind; his client wanted his site plan approved and the denial was not within the Board's purview. The responsibility was that of the State and, on March 7', the Board took it out of that realm. He also discussed how the Board had clarified that their decision was site specific, and he felt the hole was getting deeper. Commissioner Macht felt Mr. Evans was correct and to defend this in court would be ill advised. He believed the complaints and concern should be with DEP and that the Board ought to rescind their action of March 7' regarding that property. He thought they might want to add on all new construction a provision to preclude the builder from coming back to the County for an emergency armoring permit if they build beyond the CCCL. Mr. Evens understood that once someone builds outside of the 1987 CCCL and the DEP checks/approves all the details, the owner is on their own. He understood further that the owner could not go to DEP for armoring because the nature of the construction is designed to withstand water. Further, if the structure comes down due to storm damage, then it cannot be rebuilt. Mr. Tabar stated that Mr. Evans was accurate. The way the law reads now, if you have a house built under the existing CCCL-program, you are not eligible for a seawall. There are two homes in south county where that was recently challenged, and through engineering analysis, they were able to show that certain elements of the house were not up to standards, and they were issued permits for seawalls. So, the law is being stretched somewhat. March 21, 2000 124