1/15/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAN 15 1986 BOOK 63 EXISTING CONDITIONS: This project was brought before the Planning & Zoning Commission on March 28, 1985 and the Board of County Commis-. sioners on April 10, 1985. In both instances, the Boards found that the project was in conflict with the policies set forth in the following documents: The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the Indian River Comprehensive Plan; Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives & Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan. As such, it has been the County's concern that the project would have a negative impact upon the Indian River's benthic ecosystem by eliminating light penetration, thus precluding seagrass and photosynthetic algae survival. This was also the opinion of the Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission based upon a field inspection and analysis. (attachment enclosed). ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The revised application includes structures over water with coverage of 8,700 square feet. This is a fifty.percent reduc- tion in size from the previous application. In addition, the applicant proposes to plant 2,500 square feet of Spartina alterniflora along the shoreline and re-establish a portion of the submerged bottom with live oysters. All construction will take place on privately owned upland and submerged land. Although the revised application has added a number of positive aspects to the overall plan, it is staff's opinion that the preemption of 8700 square feet of submerged bottom for habitat purposes will outweigh the proposed mitigation. In addition, staff feels that the permitting of this project may create a precedent that would encourage other non -coastal dependent uses to be developed in the Indian River. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners autho- rize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. recommending against the issuance of a permit for this project. ---'----_-'- Fred Mensing came before the Board representing Sembler & Sembler. He noted that the county has 14 days to respond, but timely notification was not received by Mr. Sembler, who would like the opportunity to be here personally; he could not be here today. Chief Planner Challacombe advised that there is a problem with responding; the 14 days expired yesterday. Director Keating confirmed that we are only given 14 days to respond from the date we receive the notification, and going 62