Laserfiche WebLink
JUL 18 1983 13 N. <br />Mr. King explained that under the column entitled <br />"Proposed Policies", they have listed any new policies in <br />the report; if we had current policies established that were <br />very much akin to these but not a direct relationship, the <br />page numbers of our Master Plan which address this were <br />listed opposite. If there was no clear cut policy which <br />related, they identified it as N/A (not applicable.) <br />Some discussion arose regarding policy as to <br />transportation levels and transfer of density, and <br />Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern about the makeup of <br />the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Committee. He <br />wished to know if Mr. King had checked to see if we could <br />send two County Commissioners to act as voting members <br />rather than putting the burden on staff of making a policy <br />statement as opposed to a planning statement. <br />In further discussion, it was noted that the makeup of <br />the committee was set by the Governor, and it is doubtful <br />that it could be changed. <br />Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that this <br />puts Mr. King in.a very difficult position when you have a <br />Commission that may or may not be divided. <br />Commissioner Bowman informed the Board that Indian <br />River County has eight votes on the Hutchinson Island <br />Committee, and Chairman Bird emphasized that we would like <br />to have solidarity on those eight votes, which is why it is <br />so important to review and finalize the amended report so <br />that it is ready to transmit to the Committee in an official <br />form. <br />Considerable discussion ensued on the fact that the Ad <br />Hoc Committee's revised plan includes density transfers <br />which are quite different from those allowed under our <br />present Comprehensive Plan, i.e., "Not more than one unit <br />per 10 acres" rather than one unit per acre. <br />8 <br />