3/10/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F - MAR H 1992 800K ' FAl'iE 14 vi Talmage Rogers, 5445 Rosewood Road, member of LAAC, spoke against the motion. He felt strict requirements help the committee interpret its responsibilities and felt the motion broadened it quite widely. He believed most of the land the committee has considered is land that, once acquired and in the public domain, can serve a variety of uses. He was concerned about the issue of wetlands and the problems the committee has discussed in that regard. Wetlands were not a part of the County's Comprehensive Land Use Regulations which were the debate that sparked the promotion of the committee in the first instance, nor are they the responsibility of the county. They already fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and some of those powers are passed to the state and those are quite defined. To pass the responsibility of wetlands into the hands of LAAC or anyone else at the local level introduces into the problem another layer of government; it is already overregulated to the point of confusion. Commissioner Bird clarified, and Mr. Rogers concurred, that the scope of LAAC should be limited to uplands, coastal/tropical hammock, xeric scrub, pine flatwoods, prairie, and keep the wetlands and recreational sites out unless a recreational site would be part of that uplands. Chairman Eggert withdrew her suggestion that Commissioner Bowman amend her motion to include recreational and other public needs that necessitate the acquisition of land. Commissioner Bowman stressed that the most economically significant ecosystem in this county is our wetlands, our fisheries, our shell fisheries, because everything depends on wetlands. She cautioned that our wetlands are not adequately protected by federal or state law. Mr. DeBlois agreed with Mr. Rogers that we have many restrictions to development of wetlands, so they are fairly well protected compared to most uplands. In the sequence of evaluating property many times the conclusion would be that wetlands are protected to a point where acquisition by fee simple purchase might not be appropriate. However, there are specific policies in the Comprehensive Plan beyond Objective 6 that specifically reference that the County must consider the acquisition of wetlands. For example, policy 5.2 of the Drainage Sub -element requires specifically that by October 1990 Indian River County will purchase a minimum of 100 acres of 100 -year floodplain lands for preservation and management. In most cases, that is wetland. In 22