2006_1113_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting-10123106 DRAFT Minutes - Page 25 Mr. McDaniel opined that his key point was that some of the original plats shown, whether wetlands or wet lands, were drawings shown and utilized by developers and contractors laying out wetlands and properties when speaking to prospective buyers and during the permitting process; and that he was unaware of staffs "Attachment D being used for discussion purposes and delineation determinations. Mr. McDaniel provided his historical perspective of the property development, providing visual aids; disputing the validity of staffs documents and the suggested invalidity of his documents. Mr. McDaniel opined that "Attachment D referenced by staff was not an accurate rendition of the 1995 wetland area; and suggested that a professional be hired to determine the real boundaries. Additional Council discussion ensued, with Mayor Klausing summarizing his interpretation of how to approach the suggested original wetland demarcation with a proposed expansion within the required setback; staff and the Variance Board finding no basis for a hardship by strict application of the code; and the Council's need to determine if there is a hardship that had not been perceived or the land could not be put to reasonable use without a variance. Mayor Klausing outlined another approach that the entire case was based on a faulty premise, and a determination could be made that the wetland setback is inaccurate; with additional information required to be provided by the applicant for consideration Mayor Klausing questioned the applicant as to what additional information or evidence he would be able to garner by hiring an expert. The applicant advised that he would seek evidence from an organization expert in delineating wetlands. Community Development Director John Stark clarified that the actual debate is not the 2006 wetland delineation, but the test for the Variance Board and City Council was to determine in 2006 if