Laserfiche WebLink
AUG 2 6 1996 BOOK 65 Fe,cr� <br />1) No dock construction shall be permitted by Indian River <br />County for the proposed dock facility until the requirements <br />of all local ordinances pertaining to the project have been <br />addressed. <br />2) Review of the proposed dockage facility indicates that the <br />project does not satisfy criteria set forth in Chapter <br />16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code, relating to the Indian <br />River Aquatic Preserve. <br />3) Construction of a dockage facility within the previously <br />dredged marina basin is a preferred location to what is <br />proposed, in the interest of minimizing impact to the Indian <br />River Aquatic Preserve. <br />4) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other <br />appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumulative <br />impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee. <br />5) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other <br />appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact of <br />the project on ecologically significant submerged bottomlands <br />such as seagrass beds in the Indian River. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize <br />staff to forward to the DER the comments as set out in <br />the above memo. <br />Under discussion, Charles Sauget, Vice President of Pelican <br />Pointe, Inc. stressed that they.were given very short notice of <br />- t -his meeting, and circulated an aerial photograph of the area in <br />question. He explained that they are requesting 10 additional <br />slips, mainly for sailboats which require deeper water. He noted <br />that they don't have a full-scale service marina at Pelican <br />Pointe, and are not an interval ownership development. <br />Commissioner Lyons noticed that the photograph shows that <br />the L -shape pier ends up in a weed bed, and pointed out that the <br />Commission has an allergy to dredging and would like to avoid it <br />at all costs. He pointed out that most of the comments <br />recommended by staff are based on State law, and Chairman <br />Scurlock felt that the only time the Commission would step in and <br />change the recommendation to the DER is if any of the comments <br />developed by staff were not valid. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion <br />was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). <br />26 <br />