Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT <br />F. INDIANRIVER COUNTY <br />1. POINT-TO-POINT CONTIGUITY <br />County's Community Development Director, Bob Keating, stated that <br />both of the items with which the County had issues had already been discussed to some <br />degree, one being the Point -to -Point contiguity, which issue he understood Sebastian has <br />withdrawn. The County had concerns that the annexation of the Graves property could <br />result in some really poor jurisdictional types of situation where it is difficult to provide <br />services. Based on that, County staff is generally in agreement with Sebastian's proposal <br />regarding eliminating the Point -to -Point and identifying the Graves property as a property <br />that can be annexed, subject to the allowances of Chapter 171.2. <br />Director Keating admitted that the County does have a few concerns, <br />because it seems, by looking at the map, that the proposal would create some enclaves; it <br />would create some 40 -acre tracts that would be in the County, and completely surrounded <br />by the City of Sebastian. The County has concerns about how that would actually work. <br />Speaking on the County's behalf, and from a staff perspective, they did not have a <br />problem with what Sebastian wants to do. <br />Z. SECTION 1O(F) AND EXHIBIT `F' <br />Director Keating stated that the County's other issue was related to <br />Section 10(F) of the proposed Agreement, and Exhibit `F', which both relate to the issues <br />brought out by the City of Vero Beach, relating to Exhibit `F', which are the criteria for <br />development of the Fellsmere parcels that were annexed after May 22, but prior to date of <br />this Agreement, and the land use criteria that would apply to them. He said, the way <br />Section 10(F) is currently written, the criteria in Exhibit "P would not apply to the <br />0 <br />December 15, 2008 / Joint Workshop <br />ISBA, Sebastian <br />