My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/5/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
2/5/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:00 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:28:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/05/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chairman Scurlock believed we did offer our comments re the <br />proposed amendments, but the Regional Planning Council turned <br />them down and apparently the developer is willing to go along <br />with the Planning Council. <br />In discussion, Board members indicated that they still feel <br />the requirements are ridiculous, and Commissioner Lyons noted <br />that he argued this at the TPC meeting to no avail. <br />Commissioner Wodtke wished it understood, if we approve <br />this, it will not be up to the county to do any•of the enforcing <br />involved as he could not see how it can be enforced. <br />The Chairman agreed the screening requirement is absolutely <br />unenforceable, and felt we should stipulate the cost of such a <br />monitoring program would be borne by the developer. <br />Commissioner Wodtke inquired whether a violation goes to the <br />operator of the boat, to the vehicle itself, or what? <br />Attorney Vitunac pointed out that this is not a state order; <br />this will be a county development order; and these are restric- <br />tions we are adding to our order; so, it is our job to make sure <br />they are complied with. Since our order goes to the developer, <br />not the boat owner, we would have to take action against the land <br />owner to live up to these agreements. Although it is tough to <br />enforce, it will be our responsibility and we will be involved. <br />Director Keating explained that this relates to the <br />ownership of the slip facilities, not the use of the marina <br />generally. It will be the responsibility of the developer to <br />submit annual reports, and we will just monitor to see that they <br />did do these checks. If they did not comply, that could be <br />considered a substantial deviation from the Development Order and <br />could be the basis of the project being terminated. Director <br />Keating continued that staff did communicate to the Regional <br />Planning Council staff that we did not think this was workable <br />and that anything like this should be done on a statewide basis, <br />and he believed the TPC has developed a Resolution re the state <br />taking some action re manatee protection on a statewide basis. <br />47 <br />FEE 5 1986 BOOK 63 P,4 536 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.