My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/1/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
5/1/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:16:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/01/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Commissioner Bowman didn't feel that grass beds would occur <br />in a canal with steep sides, but Commissioner Wheeler was con- <br />cerned about who would determine "wherever seagrass may occur". <br />Director Keating advised that if we could limit the 5 -ft. <br />requirement to the aquatic preserve areas, it would exempt <br />man-made canals and man-made basins, and it essentially would <br />affect all the portions of the Indian River lagoon that are in <br />the unincorporated area, as well as the St. Sebastian River. If <br />we do that, it at least would take care of the problem with the <br />canals, the Grand Harbor basin, and other basins like that. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt we need to have some sort of <br />language stating that after a certain date, all existing docks, <br />permitted or non -permitted, will have to comply with all these <br />other requirements, but Director Keating felt that the current <br />language "shall be constructed" takes care of that because <br />"shall" implies in the future. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that the language "shall be con- <br />structed" still leaves out the issue of existing non -permitted <br />docks, and Director Keating agreed to put in a date. <br />Mr. DeBlois suggested that if there is going to be a grand- <br />fathering allowance, it be specific to the 5 -ft. dock requirement <br />so that it couldn't be interpreted to grandfather in other <br />aspects that might be more of a problem. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked that we have the appropriate <br />wording for the next meeting. <br />Nancy Offutt, representing the Vero Beach/Indian River <br />County Board of Realtors, had two questions. The first one <br />concerns Item 5 on page 3 of the proposed ordinance regarding <br />application time limitations which sets a time of one year from <br />the submittal date to the County until it is expired. She <br />wondered if that one year is enough time to allow submittals to <br />travel back and forth to Tallahassee. <br />Director Keating felt that one year does allow enough time. <br />We only accept submittals twice a year during the window time of <br />January and July, and after the first public hearing by the <br />Board, the amendments are sent to Tallahassee for review, and <br />that takes 90 days. After that, it comes back to the Board in a <br />second public hearing. It takes roughly 8 months to process a <br />submittal. <br />Commissioner Eggert understood that as it stands now, it <br />could be active for longer than one year if the delays weren't <br />the fault of the applicant, and Director Keating confirmed that <br />to be .the case. <br />Mrs. Offutt didn't have a problem if everyone feels it is <br />sufficient time. Her second question concerned the increased <br />��AY 11991 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.