4/9/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attorney McKinnon explained how going from 24' to 80' would cause a serious problem for the club. He believed that, once the developer decided to go forward, the members of Hawk's Nest would be willing to discuss the matter further. Commissioner Eggert wanted it noted for the record that the MPO is not an advisory committee,__ to the BCC. It is a state committee. Commissioner Macht asked if the MPO had actually recommended that there would be no need for Storm Grove Road until the year 2020. Attorney McKinnon understood the MPO had studied the needs of the county through the year 2020 and determined there was no need for that road through the year 2020. Commissioner Macht felt they must be in consultation with the "Psychic Friends Network" to know that, since no one knew what would be built there in the next five years. Commissioner Bird felt that many things hinge on the word "need". He felt the determination had already been made that it was not "needed" as a County thoroughfare. He asked whether the definition of the word "need" is to give a developer access to his property or there is a "need" to comply with an agreement. To him, that definition was at issue today. Director Davis interjected that the MPO had specifically addressed the capacity need for the road, i.e., to enhance emergency response time and detour routes. Staff has taken the position that Storm Grove Road is needed for other reasons beyond just capacity. It was his opinion that the road is needed for a system -related purpose, so that our county road system has a number of corridors that can be shared to reduce emergency response times and to make a system that is not dependent upon a few particular roads, but to spread it out toward the grid system that was developed in the 19201s. Commissioner Eggert recalled that the MPO's discussions went far beyond merely a capacity need for the road. Attorney Buck Vocelle, representing Vero Sand Pines, reviewed some history of Storm Grove Road and reminded the Board that the Court found that the County must determine whether the "need" exists. He believed a need does exist because the developer has submitted a preliminary site plan application. While he appreciated Mr. McKinnon's arguments, he did not understand them because the agreement is very clear that the predecessor to Hawk's 47 April 9, 1996 97 PAGE �ooK 74 N