12/15/2008 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT that there may be some minor tweaks, like Exhibit `F', which they have revisited in response to Vero Beach's concerns regarding DCA's comments. Mr. Nunemaker argued that when you are processing land use amendments of that scope, typically there are going to be issues that come up. But Fellsmere has been "subjected to a level of scrutiny that heretofore few cities have been subjected to." He mentioned the implementation of HB 697 that has not been promulgated by DCA, but has been further refined because of the questions raised. They have tightened up the sprawl issues; and the biggest issue has been the needs analysis, that DCA has taken a much more stringent perspective on, and on which they are fully prepared to deal with DCA. He offered that, in the spirit of working cooperatively, they could certainly take another look at Exhibit `F', which was the direction from Council. He expressed the City's reluctance, if this effort were prolonged for some period of time into the future. Mayor Susan Adams said that during Fellsmere's last Council meeting, and during discussions about the ISBA, they expressed that they did not have a problem with the Point -to -Point annexation (contiguity) that Sebastian had requested; they were a bit concerned with dragging this process out; and they were under the impression that, based on the last staff meeting, staff had come to a certain level of comfort and wanted all the elected officials to get back together and weigh in and then move forward. She urged the Panel to air all the issues and give staff direction of where to go, to avoid an indefinite negotiation period. She suggested they appoint a member of each Council to go to the staff meetings, similar to the school concurrency issue, so that direction is given back to staff, to Council, and the Commission, to go ahead and move forward on this issue. 7 December 15, 2008 / Joint Workshop ISBA, Sebastian