My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/23/2004
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2004
>
03/23/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2018 9:21:35 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:03:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/23/2004
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
2927
Book and Page
126, 721-766
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
416
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
support her position. She asked the Commissioners to apply the regulations to ensure the <br />preservation of our natural resources. <br />Ralph Evans, attorney for applicant, addressed issues raised by the public and the <br />Commissioners. He reviewed staffs presentation and believed that all statutory criteria in Indian <br />River County have been met for adoption of this rezoning request. Concerning the issue of the (on <br />paper) easement in favor of the SRWCD, he had proposed abandonment of that easement at one of <br />their meetings. The two property owners have agreed to abandon it and the engineering for water <br />management is being done. This property had been a grove and the wetland is off the property to <br />the north. He stated the water on the property does not have a drainage impact on the canal. <br />David Knight, Knight, McGuire and Associates, representing the applicant, <br />specified that this property will have to meet all state and local discharge regulations and <br />requirements of stormwater retention. Currently this property is not draining naturally and there is <br />virtually no retention, so what the developer proposes will be a significant improvement to the <br />quality and quantity of discharge into the Sebastian River. <br />Mr. Evans restated that conservation zoning is not available for this property. His <br />client is willing to commit to doing a PD (planned development). The 8 acres have been removed <br />from the zoning and will remain A-1. The present plan calls for mitigation on the property. There <br />is a plan to plant vegetation where ditches exist through the north 8 acres to restore them to <br />whatever the natural state may be. There is a commitment to resolve this issue as it buffers the River <br />as well as an additional 100' buffer. He then explained the 4-3 vote at P & Z's meeting. He believed <br />he had presented the evidence and that criteria have been met. There is no criteria which requires <br />that the development wait until the agencies have done their modeling. He expressed concern that <br />perhaps the quasi-judicial nature of this hearing might have been compromised. In conclusion, he <br />asked for the Board's favorable vote. <br />Commissioner Macht understood that the client has agreed to make this a PD and <br />inquired whether or not the developer would commit to a conservation easement of the 8 acres in <br />favor of the County. <br />March 23, 2004 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.