10/3/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F, improvements to the wetland area, State and Federal agencies would request an explanation of intent to develop the area. The plan would need to include demonstration of avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts prior to considering a mitigation plan to offset wetland impacts. Approximately 29± acres of the wetlands area are considered to be forested wetlands. Since the time of the report, staff had held numerous meetings (on-site and in the office) with St. John's River Water Management District staff. Options staff has researched are as follows: 1. Develop the entire site, less forested wetland area. St. John's River Water Management District staff stated that the County would have to mitigate for the remainder of other wetlands (lesser quality) and demonstrate avoidance to minimize wetland impacts. Mitigation ratios range from 3:1 to 20:1 or more. Mitigating the remaining 55± acres would result in mitigation lands larger than the entire site. 2. Develop remaining portion of project, totally outside wetland area This would result in approximately 198 lots able to be developed. The problems with this option are: A. The main access to property is the perimeter road of 98`" Avenue and onto 26`h Street. This is approximately one mile of paving on two roads that are existing %z rights-of-way (35 feet wide). - - B. Services being provided to the 198 lots would raise assessments dramatically since fewer properties would benefit from the improvements. The property owners would be assessed more than the value of the property. C. Satisfying water quality requirements for SJRWMD will probably result in stormwater retention other than within road right-of-way, which would require purchasing some of the buildable lots, thereby reducing, even more, the number of buildable lots.. The attached colored rendering shows a concept in which the red and purple areas are an absolute minimum the County would have to acquire and preserve before St. John's River Water Management District would consider permitting the rest of the project (the Florida Power & Light easement would require a letter from them stating that they would never develop the property). 3. If the County were to drop the project from the list of active projects, property owners would still be able to get permits to build. State agencies could -not deny property owners of building on their lots, but the property owners would have to work with the agencies to fulfill possible mitigation requirements. Staff feels there are no viable solutions to the problems associated with this project that would be financially beneficial to the property owners or Indian River County. Staff recommends abolishing the past assessments and dropping the project from the County list of active projects. Since 1995, staff has spent countless hours with wetland studies, concept drawings, agency meetings, etc., and to date we still do not have a feasible project. Staff also recommends the costs of such studies, $6,143.55 (actual cost paid to consultant), be absorbed by the County and not assess the property owners. October 3, 2000 - BK 1 15 PG 330