My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/5/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
11/5/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:46:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/05/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
M i M <br />varying sizes; some are 1.10, 1.2, 1.15, 1.6 acres, but,are called <br />"an acre and a quarter." She said in order to build a retention <br />pond 43 pine trees would have to be removed, which would lower the <br />elevation. She described all the trees growing on the property and <br />asked whether an exception could not be provided for these lots in <br />Vero Lake Estates. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked how long it will take to make the <br />exemption change from one-half acre to one acre. <br />Director Keating said this issue will be discussed at the <br />special meetings on November 20 and December 4. <br />Chairman Bird asked whether there is any flexibility in the <br />FEMA guidelines. <br />Director Davis responded that the Board has the ability, in <br />the FEMA guidelines, to not make that a mandatory provision.' The <br />recommendation from FEMA is that we either require these structures <br />to be up on pilings and reduce the fill or if the Board, after <br />consideration, finds it should not be mandatory, then the <br />flexibility is within the code. Staff is concerned about the <br />cumulative effects in an area as large as Vero Lake Estates, 2600 <br />acres, if there is a house built on every lot. The Professional <br />Advisory Council along with staff have wrestled with this point and <br />have come up with the one -acre threshold. If the Board feels a <br />larger than one -acre threshold would be better for the community, <br />that is the Board's choice. <br />Roger Cain explained the logic behind the decision of the 1 - <br />acre threshold. It has to do with the insurance wherein property <br />damage, even in small amounts per parcel, over 2600 acres, could be - <br />a large total outlay for an insurance carrier. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked what the result might be if the <br />threshold were placed at one and a half acres. <br />Director Keating said staff did a study of all subdivisions <br />over a half acre that were in the flood plain and there were not <br />that many. He felt if you went over an acre there would be more <br />lots but not a substantial number. <br />Director Davis said you don't have problems where the <br />elevation is 20.to 25 feet, but the problems come when you push <br />that water into the areas where there is three to ten feet of <br />elevation; those are the people who will be affected. <br />Commissioner Wheeler felt that adding three feet of fill to a <br />25 -foot elevation could not affect the situation that much. <br />Chairman Bird felt the discussion is good but wondered if this <br />issue needed a decision, or is it something that will be coming <br />before the Board at a future time. <br />47 <br />BOCK 04 FAUU I <br />� NOV 0 51991 J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.