My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/5/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
9/5/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:01:03 PM
Creation date
6/15/2015 4:53:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/05/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
SEP 5 198 7 <br />Chairman Wheeler commented that he feels about the same as <br />Commissioner Bird about sending mixed signals, but he would hate <br />to purchase all that property and lock the DOT into that location <br />if all the questions have not been answered at this point. <br />Discussion continued, and Director Davis commented that at <br />this point in time we do not intend to buy it. <br />Commissioner Scurlock wished some clarification. As he <br />understood it, we have almost every environmental agency opposed <br />to Alternate #3, and he asked if it isn't the normal process as <br />this moves forward that they have the option not to issue permits <br />and then this couldn't move forward. <br />Director Davis explained that most of the agencies that have <br />written letters of concern do not have permit status - they have <br />comment status on the Corps permit. The Corps will consider <br />these comments, but sometimes they decide that the public benefit <br />from a project supersedes the environmental impact. <br />C. C. "Bud" Kleckner came before the Board speaking as <br />acting chairman for the Indian River County Conservation <br />Committee. He noted their initial involvement in this project <br />was receiving inquiries from the Game & Fresh Water Fish <br />Commission, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Mosquito Control <br />Commission, and other environmental agencies. They made three <br />different trips through the impoundment and everyone was saying <br />that the County's conceptual plan for mitigating impoundment #22 <br />was excellent and let's not disturb it. Alternate #3 goes right <br />across all the work that would be done here and would not <br />"destroy" it, but would certainly impact it in an adverse manner. <br />Mr. Kleckner believed people have taken their eye off the <br />real reason for replacing the bridge, which is improving the <br />traffic level of service and evacuation time between the island <br />and the mainland, and referred to his letter, which is as <br />follows: <br />44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.