My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/22/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
3/22/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:40:49 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:10:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/22/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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
The St. Johns River Water Management District, has determined <br />that 25 feet MSL is a minimum average elevation that should be <br />preserved on the Sand Ridge. Maintaining a minimum average <br />elevation of 25' MSL on the Ridge serves the function of <br />preserving soil overburden for filtration of potential ground- <br />water pollutants, and for preserving hydrostatic pressure which <br />in turn acts as a barrier against salt water intrusion from the <br />Indian River. In acknowledging that the Sand Ridge has been <br />impacted by previous development on the Ridge, preservation of <br />a minimum 25 foot MSL elevation is proposed to prevent further <br />degradation of Ridge overburden. <br />Recommendation: <br />Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission forward <br />a recommendation of adoption of the revised mining ordinance to <br />the Board of County Commissioners. <br />Commissioner Bowman asked if they had worked out the <br />littoral zone problem, and Robert Keating, Director of Planning & <br />Development, advised that there were a number of issues that <br />arose during the workshops in the preparation of this ordinance, <br />One of the most controversial subjects was the littoral zone, <br />which is the creation of the habitat areas that are on the edge <br />of the water body. Staff started out with a pretty conservative <br />figure from the standpoint of creating quite a bit of littoral <br />zone and quite a bit of habitat. However, staff went back and <br />did some cost analysis to determine how much fill would be lost <br />if the littoral zone was extended and if the 6 to 1 ft. slopes <br />were extended further out. The Fish & Game Commission and some <br />others recommended that any lake that is created have 30% in a <br />littoral zone. Staff looked at a number of standards, and <br />instead of the recommended percentage figure, felt that the <br />standard should be 15 -ft. of littoral zone for every one foot of <br />shoreline. Further, it does not have to be consistent all the <br />way around the water .body, but can be clustered in a certain <br />area. Staff feels that is an acceptable compromise as it <br />provides the applicant with more fill from his pit and provides a <br />substantial amount of habitat creation. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked about the compliance bonds, and <br />Director Keating explained that staff has gone back and looked at <br />31 BOOK <br />MAR 27 198 <br />71 PA E330 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.