3/25/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

motion to table. of a second. BOOK 1 UJ PAG030 7 There was none; the motion to table died for lack MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, to approve an approximate alignment along the top of the bluff and have the engineer proceed with the drawing for submission to the County, regardless of whether DEP will or will not approve it. Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn asked Mr. Mosby why he put the setback from the Millar residence at 21 feet, and Mr. Mosby advised they had gone out and measured the wall under construction at the Jelmby's and superimposed it on the DEP aerials of Indian River County and did offsets from the coastal construction line and came up with the alignment to match the Jelmby seawall. Commissioner Adams thought because this motion was still not very specific that the Board will be in the same position they were in the Gerstner seawall issue. County Attorney Vitunac thought the parameters were there, the long string between the two defined points will be one particular line and Mr. Mosby will have to give a copy of that to the County's engineers and that is where the owner can either build and take the risk that DEP will not require them to remove it, or they can wait and try to get a permanent permit from DEP. The risk switches to the homeowner. In response to Chairman Eggert's query, Mr. Millar advised that he was willing to take the risk. Mr. Stewart encouraged the Board to deny the motion insofar as it talks about making a final resolution. He based it on what he considered it to be process, fair process. He believed that the Board would be setting a very poor precedent if they approve the motion, which indicated that the Board was encouraging someone to show up 5 minutes before a hearing, present a plan, avoid staff, and have the Board make a decision. He felt that Mr. Mosby's assertions should be tested. He felt it was a mistake to prohibit the most affected landowner to the south from having an opportunity to make an effective comment on these plans. He encouraged the Board to bring it back in a couple of weeks to allow additional comment from interested parties. Commissioner Ginn advised that the Board had delayed it a week, and Mr. Stewart commented that nothing was different from last week. There are no plans, there were no plans last week. 34 March 25, 1997