My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/24/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
10/24/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:40 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:16:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/24/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
IN FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, IT <br />WAS NOTED THAT THE LETTER FROM THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT SUBMITTED BY <br />MR. FAIR IS FROM THE OVERALL REGIONAL DISTRICT, NOT THE LOCAL <br />DISTRICT DIRECTLY INVOLVED. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE HAD NOT ENVISIONED THAT <br />THIS WOULD BE A FULL 120 HEARING AND ASKED MR. FAIR IF THEY DID NOT <br />HAVE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS AND NOTICING REQUIREMENTS TO MEET. <br />MR. FAIR REPLIED THAT THEY DID PROVIDE NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS <br />BUT DID NOT PUT AN AD IN THE PAPER. HE STATED THAT THERE IS NO <br />NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION BECAUSE THE STATUTE <br />DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THIS SITUATION. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT IF WE WERE TO APPROVE <br />THE REQUESTED CHANGE, IT IS POSSIBLE THE MICROWAVE TOWER COULD <br />REQUIRE FP&L TO MOVE ANOTHER 1,000, AND WE WOULD HAVE NO FURTHER <br />JURISDICTION. <br />MR. FAIR INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEIR POLICY WHEN THEY ARE <br />ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY IS TO TRY TO GET AS CLOSE TO <br />IT AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID. -A HIATUS, AND THEY WOULD STIPULATE TO THIS <br />IF DESIRED. <br />SAM SHANNON, DIRECTOR OF THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING <br />COUNCIL, REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF THIS MATTER WITH THE BOARD, NOTING <br />THAT IN JANUARY OF LAST YEAR, THE COUNCIL DID CONSIDER THIS TRANS- <br />MISSION LINE AS A DRI AND FILED A REPORT RECOMMENDING THAT THE PRO- <br />POSED ALIGNMENT BE APPROVED WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS. INDIAN RIVER <br />COUNTY THEN ADOPTED THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WHICH CAME BACK TO THE <br />REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL LAST MARCH AND WAS NOT APPEALED. SUBSE- <br />QUENTLY, IN AUGUST ST. LUCIE COUNTY ADOPTED THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDER <br />WHICH REQUIRES MAJOR REALIGNMENT OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE, AND IT <br />NOW DOES NOT MATCH UP WITH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. THE REGIONAL PLAN- <br />NING COUNCIL UPON REVIEWING THIS SITUATION RECOMMENDED THAT AN APPEAL <br />BE FILED UNDER THE DRI STATUTE; THE APPEAL WAS FILED AND IS NOW BE- <br />FORE THE ADJUDICATORY BOARD. <br />MR. SHANNON COMMENTED THAT THIS MATTER MUST BE RESOLVED, AND <br />THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS. ONE WOULD BE TO COME BACK TO INDIAN RIVER <br />OCT 2 41979 _ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.