4/11/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ‘21444-2-01 dam, Robert M. Keat g, rP Community Devel pme Director FROM: Roland DeBlois10 Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: March 30, 1989 SUBJECT: JUNGLE TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on April 11, 1989. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: The Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1982 (and thereafter amended), established Jungle Trail as a scenic and historical road. In 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 85-64, entitled "Scenic and Historical Roads," which sets forth objectives and general guidelines per- taining to roads identified as having scenic and historical significance. Section 18-26 of the .1985 ordinance provides that the public works, parks, and community development departments shall imple- ment guidelines for the maintenance of scenic and historical roads. The ordinance further specifies that management plan guidelines are to be adopted by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed Jungle Trail Management Plan is presented herein for adoption considerations. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Staff conducted a series of three (3) public workshops at which a draft of the management plan was developed, reviewed, and dis- cussed in detail. While there was some concensus on certain aspects of the plan, it was evident from the workshops that a dicotomy of viewpoints exists as to what constitutes the scenic and/or historical aspects of Jungle Trail to be preserved (or enhanced) in light of private property rights and public interest. Controversial issues of the plan discussed at length during the workshops include: extent of preservation/enhancement of the jungle -like quality of the trail vs. preservation/enhancement of private development's view of the lagoon; public recreational access along the trail vs. trespassing on private property; county shoreline stabilization responsibility vs. property owner respon- sibility; preserving historic alignment of the trail in develop- ment areas vs. selective realignment with enhanced scenic quality; and, generally, private property rights vs. public interest. Several portions of the proposed management plan warrant specific consideration by the Board. These include buffer area vegetation, travel way alignment, and cost. APR 11 4989 28 RUN 76 F[4/