My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/03/2006 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
10/03/2006 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2022 1:12:15 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:11:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/03/2006
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
3125
Book and Page
131, 470-561
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
3021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
80
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Sam Jolley <br />, 13590 N. Indian River Drive favored the water main installation. He <br />however thought the County was “really messed up” in doing a square footage instead of a linear footage <br />that would continue with the same frontage price for everyone. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lowther recalled about three (3) years ago when Westside subdivision <br />came along and a certain resident did not want the water. He asked how did the County deal with that. <br />Mr. Chastain explained that those were included in the assessment that was approved and they did use the <br />square footage method. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lowther commented on septic systems leaking into lagoons. He did not <br />know if that would become an issue later but thought that would be something to look at in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Chastain confirmed as correct Commissioner Davis’ assumption that the assessment <br />method along Indian River Drive is being done on a square footage method for the lot and not a frontage <br />or unit basis. <br /> <br />Ms. Turner <br /> wanted to clarify that they have sewer on Indian River Drive. <br /> <br />Richard Maerz <br />, 13275 N. Indian River Drive (south of Roseland Road) felt they have not <br />correctly addressed shoreline stabilization. He handed out pictures taken after Hurricanes Francis and <br />Jeanne showing two places south of his property where the road was washed out. He understood that the <br />proposed water main would run approximately 30 inches below the ground and he could not see how, <br />without some proper shoreline stabilization, they would not be vulnerable at the next storm. He also did <br />not think they addressed correctly the amount of concrete debris that was dropped, after the storms, to <br />temporarily stabilize the roads, which has never been taken care of properly. He agreed with Mr. Jolly <br />about assessment procedure and does not think it is fair. He also opposed the installation of a water main. <br /> <br />Chairman Neuberger felt that the comments on the shoreline were a separate issue but was <br />sure it would be addressed in a contract. <br />October 3, 2006 <br />37 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.