Laserfiche WebLink
JUN 989 � 7 <br />BOOK l <br />applicant hire historic preservation experts to address the <br />historical integrity issue. <br />Furthermore, Attorney Kevin Doty, retained by the Society, <br />has stated that Bill Thurston of the Division of Historical <br />Resources has stated that any realignment with complete <br />abandonment (no public access) to the original alignment <br />could and probably would adversely impact the historical <br />significance of the Trail and keep it off the National <br />Register. Attorney Doty also states that the applicant has <br />not precisely detailed in writing what the applicant intends <br />to do with the segment proposed for abandonment. Succinctly <br />put, Mr Doty believes that "...this matter is not ripe for <br />consideration". <br />Extensive comments from Mr. Doty and other members of the <br />Society are included in the draft Planning and Zoning Commis- <br />sion meeting minutes (attachment #6). Additional comments <br />received from Mr. Doty as a follow-up to a staff/Society <br />meeting held on June 14th, are included in this report under <br />attachment 413. <br />Realignment Criteria Findings <br />The following are staff's findings regarding the six realignment <br />criteria specified in the Management Plan. <br />[Note:, attachment #15 is the applicant's response letter that <br />addresses these 6 criteria]. <br />a. Does the applicant own or control property on both sides of <br />that portion of the trail to be abandoned? to be created? <br />(including northernmost segment, "BB".) <br />Yes, the applicant holds title to property on both sides of <br />the existing alignment and the proposed realignment roadway. <br />In all cases the proposed realigned roadway is surrounded by <br />adjacent easements and buffer areas. <br />Also, the applicant has added an additional 20' buffer north <br />of. the proposed east/west segment ("BB") of the proposed <br />realignment. This will ensure that the Management Plan <br />protected area requirements will be accommodated regardless <br />of the type of development on the property north of this <br />segment. <br />b. How does the request enhance or improve traffic safety? <br />(address alignment and grove traffic routing/re-routing) <br />enhance scenic quality? <br />1. As discussed previously, the proposal would increase <br />presently restrictive turning radii. The roadbed width <br />would be standardized to 18' (no variations down to a <br />15' width as presently exists). Tree clearance concerns <br />and road surface construction should be specifically <br />addressed via a County (Public Works) right-of-way <br />permit if the realignment is approved. <br />2. The applicant has stated verbally that existing grove <br />traffic would be adequately accommodated along the <br />proposed new segment and that affected grove owners have <br />been contacted and do not object to the use of the new <br />alignment. The applicant should provide letters of no <br />objection from affected grove owners prior to any final <br />approval of the request. <br />3. Scenic quality would be enhanced in that the existing <br />road is lined with predominately exotic vegetation <br />interspersed with some oak and palm tree groupings while <br />the proposed road is longer and for a major portion <br />traverses a mature hammock. The future "scene" along <br />the existing segment would be oneof residential devel- <br />opment and golf course areas with vegetative buffering <br />to be determined by the Town of Orchid and the <br />34 <br />