5/25/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

83-444 DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE _ May 23, 1983 TO John V. Little DEPT City Manager FROM Wal ter R 'You-Qg DEPT Planning Director �f�� ►i�'i�l!11i�i�i�L�IW �it��:::ftYcli[sl��t�ti�,+�•��t�oei�+��s�=tea The Growth Management Plan of the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Committee will impact future development of the -barrier island in Vero Beach. Policies dealing with environmentally sensitive resources, potable water/wastewater, capital improvements programming and transporta- tion are being considered for recommendation by the Committee to the Governor through the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs. The impact on Vero Beach cannot be adequately eval-uated due to the general nature of the policies and the incomplete definitions. The general implication of the Growth Management Plan is that if adopted Vero Beach would be required to amend its Comprehensive Plan and develop- ment ordinances in accordance with the development guidelines proposed. Many of the general policy statements are adequately addressed in the Vero Beach Comprehensive Plan. Those _policy statements which would require additional consideration include: 1) Shoreline Use (page 15) The policy statement recognizes non-dependent and non - related uses which would cause irretrievable commitments of coastal resources as a fifth development priority. This would include residential, motel/hotel, as well as general commercial uses. Approximately eighty (80) per- cent of -the Vero Beach ocean and river frontage is devoted to such uses. The Vero Beach Comprehensive Plan designates a majority of the ocean and river frontage for residential and commercial use. 2) Beach/Dune Stabilization (page 17) A long-term multijurisdictional management plan -that uti- lizes natural coastal dynamics will be required. The pian will be required to provide for dune stabilization and,where appropriate, restoration. Incorporated into the plan will be provisions. for restricting development and access along the beach/dune system; establishment of a "dune preservation zone" landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line; establishment of a "coastal preservation line" seaward of the existing Coastal Construction Control Line; not per- mitting any new construction that would threaten the sta- bility of either the primary dune or beach itself; and requiring those who benefit from shoreline stabilization efforts to provide the necessary funding. The impacts of this requirement are difficult to determine. The dune preservation zone is not defined. The impact depends on how many feet landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line the new dune preservation line is established. There is also a question as to if land beyond the dune pres- ervation line will be considered in calculating density for development. Another question which arises concerns the renovation of existing structures. This renovation may be considered development, and the structures which require renovation may have a questionable status. The question who benefits from shoreline stabilization also remains un- answered. 13 MAY 2 5 1983 c�c Pic