Laserfiche WebLink
those improvements. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn was not in favor of creating more traffic there. <br />Chairman Macht was surprised to learn there is no time line for improvements at that <br />intersection. <br />Director Keating explained why not and when concern for liability was expressed, <br />County Attorney Collins explained there is usually no liability because there is a distinction <br />between planning functions and operational functions. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn was opposed to conditional concurrency and suggested it is time <br />to review our Comprehensive Plan because the increase in densities is causing us to have a <br />change in the quality of life in Indian River County. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in <br />this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. <br />Bruce Barkett, Attorney at 756 Beachland Boulevard, appeared on behalf of the <br />applicant. He introduced other members also present for the applicant. He explained that <br />the County has sovereign immunity and absolutely no liability for planning level functions. <br />He reminded the Board they had recently approved a project with the same deficiency and <br />conditioned it on improvement of the intersection. At this stage his client is only asking for <br />rezoning. He stressed that concurrency will apply when the project is developed. The fix <br />for the intersection is in the works. <br />Chairman Macht asked for clarification as to when the improvements to the <br />intersection would begin, and Director Keating explained state law and other requirements <br />allow 2 years from the first certificate of occupancy. <br />Chairman Macht was concerned that while it may not be a legal obligation to require <br />the traffic fix before build -out of the development, he felt a moral obligation and could not <br />September 23, 2003 <br />20 <br />