Laserfiche WebLink
7 January 1999 <br /> Page 4. <br /> it property right. That is a separate issue that he will have to cantered with. <br /> Mir. Sherman stated he has not had a chance to look at it's relevance to our <br /> performance standards. It is land subject to coastal storm flowage under the <br /> Act which has no specific performance standards and under Chapter 172, it <br /> has performance standards relative to the natural vegetation on anygiven lot <br /> that is left intact. If it meets performance standards of our local regulations, <br /> and it appears that it might, a Negative Determination would be issued. <br /> Atty. Osol asked if when he was talking about a percentage of land not <br /> affected he was talking about the road or all the lots? Mr. Sherman stated <br /> this is an unusual project because it involves crossing different lots so he <br /> would have to look at each lot it crossed and the amount of land it takes up <br /> an each dot and see whether it stays in compliance with our standards for <br /> letting a certain percentage of land stay natural and that percentage on any <br /> given lot is dependent upon the size of the lot and whether or not it actually <br /> is in direct contact with the wader. He cannot give an answer tonight. <br /> Atty. Osol stated he wanted to be straight on what Mr. Sherman is <br /> measuring because his understanding is that any of these trees that they <br /> want to remove and the brush they want to remove is not an any lot, it }.9 OII <br /> the paper road. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated then you get into the aspect of who owns it and so forth. <br /> Atty. Osol asked, when you analyze it, are you going to take the lots or are <br /> you going to take the road, or the combination of all the lots and the road. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated be did not knew. This is all new ground and be thought <br /> we would end up doing, since confounded with many situations which are <br /> even more vexing than this one, make a determination whether right or <br /> wrong and het it be sorted out by those who want to challenge it. There is a <br /> right to appeal for any determination we make. To get into property issues of <br /> who owns the road is something we are trying to avoid, nor should we get <br /> into it. We do not have the time or the authority to delve into this. <br /> Atty. Osol asked if it would help ff they gave him a copy of the pious for the <br /> road? He referred to the plan. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if these lots extend all the way to Manomoscoy Road? <br /> Atty. James Canery, representing the Saladygas stated, as existing, they do. <br /> Each description of the dots say it is bounded by the road. <br />