My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/09/2025 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2020's
>
2025
>
09/09/2025 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/15/2025 12:37:04 PM
Creation date
12/15/2025 12:32:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/09/2025
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
Board of County Commissioners Meeting Minutes - Final September 9, 2025 <br />There was no discussion on the Capital Improvement Sub -element. <br />Conservation Lands Sub -Element <br />Commissioner Moss commented on Objective 5, quoting, "There will be no net loss <br />of the natural functions and values of wetlands or deep -water habitats in Indian River <br />County." She noted that the phrase "to the greatest extent possible" had been added, <br />which she found to be unnecessary. She believed that this hedging undermined <br />commitment; it should either adhere to the Objective or not. She expressed a <br />preference for the original wording. <br />Commissioner Adams expressed that she does not necessarily disagree; she <br />questioned whether committing to a strict no -net -loss policy would provide enough <br />flexibility to adapt in the event of unforeseen circumstances, noting that such a finite <br />statement might limit their ability to maneuver. <br />Administrator Titkanich suggested using language that has previously worked, <br />specifically, the language "practical and feasible". In other words, a study would be <br />conducted to demonstrate that the approach taken was indeed practical and feasible. <br />This aligned with the phrase used earlier, "to the greatest extent possible," while <br />offering clearer guidelines. <br />Ms. Yanchula stated that part of the reason this was worded in such a manner was <br />that it allowed for mitigation. The process of mitigation banking could have resulted in <br />potential changes to the value of the wetlands. Additionally, natural changes may <br />occur in wetlands that could affect their functional value. <br />Chip Landers raised concerns about the County's efforts to find a relocation site for <br />displaced Gopher Tortoises, noting that no site had been established yet. He <br />highlighted that relocating tortoises was expensive, costing between $8,000 - $10,000 <br />per Tortoise. <br />In response, Parks, Recreation, and Conservation Director Beth Powell <br />acknowledged the challenges in creating suitable relocation sites. She mentioned that <br />Indian River County had successfully relocated about 80 Tortoises from the Lost Tree <br />development without needing a recipient site. The County faced limitations due to <br />existing Tortoise occupancy in current conservation areas, although many sites were in <br />good condition for such efforts. Ms. Powell indicated that the County was exploring <br />new acquisitions and strengthening Conservation Easement Agreements to facilitate <br />future relocations. She noted that the goal was to develop strategies for potential <br />recipient sites and that they could set parameters in line with the Florida Fish and <br />Indian River County, Florida Page 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.