Laserfiche WebLink
they could get it done because they have developed a much better relationship since they <br />begun. <br />2. COUNTY VIEWPOINT <br />Director Keating, speaking from the County's perspective, reported that <br />County staff was happy to see Fellsmere pull back and significantly reduce its reserve <br />area. With respect to Exhibit "F", `The standards', he felt everyone knows it applies only <br />to the area that Fellsmere has already annexed (the 21,000 acres); and when the staff <br />working -group started negotiating the ISBA, the initial thought was that the ISBA would <br />include that 21,000 acres as part of the general requirement in the ISBA that there would <br />be unanimous approval required to change the land -use and density. Fellsmere was <br />unwilling to incorporate that within the ISBA, so the Exhibit "F" standards came as a <br />default. <br />Director Keating related that the County's principal concerns are that <br />those standards do not protect agriculture in this area, and do not specifically set aside <br />large amounts of open space that would be structured as green belts or overall agriculture <br />preservation areas. The standards also do not mandate that there would be good <br />development, such that development in that 21,000 -acre area would not affect <br />jurisdictions east of I-95. That is one of the things they are looking at, good <br />development there, so that the impacts are internalized instead of externalized. There are <br />other issues like density and height, among others that are not adequately incorporated <br />within the standards. But the County believes the principal items are open space, green <br />belt and agricultural preservation. <br />10 <br />July 23, 2008 / Joint Workshop <br />ISBA, Sebastian <br />