Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER NOTED THAT ANOTHER PROBLEM IS THAT <br />THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN HAS NO DRAINAGE ORDINANCE SUCH AS THE COUNTY'S. <br />HE FURTHER NOTED THAT MR. FLETCHER IS NOW TAKING HIS APPEAL TO THE <br />CITY OF SEBASTIAN BECAUSE OF THE ANNEXATION. <br />SENIOR PLANNER MARSH COMMENTED THAT IN PLANNING, THEY HAVE <br />TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE CITY SHOULD LOOK TOWARDS ANNEXING THE <br />ISLANDS it AND "ENCLAVES" ON THEIR OUTSKIRTS, BUT THIS IS AN ENTIRELY <br />DIFFERENT MATTER IN THE PLANNERS' OPINION._ IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT <br />WAS POINTED OUT THAT BY THE ANNEXATION THEY HAVE CREATED ANOTHER <br />ENCLAVE, AND MR, MARSH QUESTIONED IF THE__CITY-HAS THE CAPABILITY OF <br />PROVIDING THE NECESSARY SERVICES. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHAT THE ATTORNEY IS -SUGGESTING, AND <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE IS ALARMED BY THE SITUATION AND WANTED <br />THE BOARD TO BE AWARE OF IT AND SEE, FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, WHAT <br />SORT OF POSITION THEY WISH TO TAKE, <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THIS IS A VERY BAD THING FROM A <br />PLANNING STANDPOINT, AND ALSO THAT THE WHOLE THING IS A SUBTERFUGE TO <br />AVOID THE NEW MINING ORDINANCE. HE SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY <br />ASK FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THE NEXT <br />MEETING AS TO THE PROBLEMS THAT THE ANNEXATION PRODUCES AND A REPORT <br />FROM THE ATTORNEY AS TO WHAT ACTION WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE IF IT <br />WAS DECIDED WE FELT THIS ANNEXATION WAS NOT IN THE GENERAL INTERESTS <br />OF THE COUNTY. THE BOARD HAD NO OBJECTION. <br />ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NEIL NELSON CAME BEFORE THE BOARD <br />TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING MEMO AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ADMINISTRATOR <br />KENNINGS RE TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AND INSTALLATION. <br />n <br />5 <br />MAR 191980 - BooK 43 ?AGE 55 <br />