02/11/2025 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of County Commissioners Meeting Minutes - Final February 11, 2025 Mr. MacKenzie stated his firm had conducted the traffic study analysis, examining scenarios with and without the proposed Venetian Groves Development. It was important to note that the developer of Venetian Groves would be accountable for installing a traffic signal if the project moved forward. Conversely, if the development does not materialize, the traffic signal would not be required. Chairman Flescher noted that the Board was examining the non -empirical aspects of traffic studies as they related to this application and development. There was a concern about what might happen if another subdivision progressed more quickly than anticipated. Mr. MacKenzie stated the Harmony Isles Developer had no control over the Venetian Groves Development. Still, an agreement had been established that protects the County's investment in both scenarios, whether or not it developed. This ensured that Venetian Groves' Development paid its fair share, and he trusted that it would be accountable and responsible. Attorney Prado informed the Board that, per Florida Statute, staff must assess developers' agreements annually to ensure they comply with specific requirements, including traffic enhancements. Staff undertakes this review on a yearly basis to confirm that developers fulfill these responsibilities. If any modifications were required, the County could suggest an amendment to the agreements. Nonetheless, as Florida law requires, an amendment would be required go through two additional Public Hearings. Agreements could be altered to incorporate additional items or eliminate existing ones. The Board could terminate an agreement if a developer does not follow the agreed-upon terms. County Attorney Jennifer Shuler responded to Chairman Flesher, stating that the Board could table the Item and reschedule the second hearing if more negotiations needed to take place. The Board could either deny it or table it for a new second hearing. Attorney Sweeney expressed his confusion, noting nothing had changed since the first Public Hearing. Not a single detail, name, or timeline had been altered. He was open to further negotiations and discussions with staff. Chairman Flescher addressed Attorney Sweeney, stating his intention was to tackle the concerns raised in order promote progress. He sought a clear pathway forward but felt reassured that the Board could revisit the issue if necessary. Commissioner Earman and Commissioner Adams expressed their desire to move this Indian River County, Florida Page 13