Laserfiche WebLink
F_ <br />MAY 1 1985 Bou 60 PAGE 786 <br />TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 29, 1985 FILE: <br />of the Board of County <br />Commissioners <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 16Q-20: FLORIDA AQUATIC <br />SUBJECT: PRESERVES RULE REVISION <br />Robert M. Keats g, CP <br />Planning &,Develop ent Director <br />FROM:Art Challacombe REFERENCES: FL Aquatic <br />Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:MISC1 <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their <br />regular meeting on May 1, 1985. <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: <br />The Department of Natural Resources is presently revising its <br />rule for Florida's Aquatic Preserves. The proposed rule adds <br />substantial management criteria for leases and incorporates <br />several regulations regarding pier construction with the <br />Aquatic Preserves. Indian river County presently contains a <br />,s <br />portion of the Vero Beach - Fort Pierce Aquatic Preserve. <br />Generally, the Indian River County portion of the Preserve <br />encompasses all State owned submerged lands south of the 17th <br />Street Bridge to the south County line. <br />A portion of the Malabar - Sebastian Aquatic Preserve is also <br />located within Indian River County; however, its location is <br />limited to state owned submerged lands adjacent to the <br />Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area. <br />E <br />F ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: <br />The proposed rule contains several restrictions relating to <br />dock size, width and length. Under the rule, for example, <br />single docks would be limited to four feet in width and multi- <br />ple dock facilities would be limited to six feet widths. Other <br />restrictions contained in the rule relate to dredging and <br />filling within the preserve. <br />On April 25, 1985 the D.N.R. held a public workshop regarding <br />the proposed rule. Of particular importance to the D.N.R. was <br />local reaction to the following issues. <br />1) Should private, residential single docks which meet <br />required sizes, etc., be deemed to meet the public <br />interest requirement? <br />2) Should the issuance of new marina leases be contingent <br />upon local governments adopting a marina siting element in <br />their comprehensive plan by July 1, 1986? --- <br />These and other concerns, however, were raised by staff. <br />Private Residential Single Docks <br />Indian River County presently regulates and issues building <br />permits for private residential docks as accessory uses. If a <br />dock requires a state or federal permit, County staff is <br />70 <br />