Loading...
10/25/1982 SpecialY 0 003g 1 1 1 Special Meeting Board of County Commissioners October 25 & 26, 1982 Plantation Key, Florida This meeting was called per publicized legal notice as a special meeting of the County Commission to be held in the Courtroom in Plantation Key, Monroe County, Florida, for the purpose of considering a proposed development order for that development known as Port Bougainville to determine whether or not said development application and plan were a substantial deviation as is described by Florida Statutes 380.06 (17) Roll call reflected that all Commissioners were present, to wit: Commissioner Blair, Commissioner Harvey, Commissioner Hernandez, Commissioner Sorensen and Mayor Do1ezaI. Mayor Dolezal called the meeting to order and announced that the hearing was to be held and that the Proponent would be.first heard. Prior to the proponents statement, oral motion based on written argument was made both by Mr. Thomas Pelham and Michael Chenowith opposing the public hearing was heard by the Commission. Mr. Fred Tittle and Mr. Cliff Shoeman, speaking for the Proponent, both described the nature of the proposed development and assured the Commission that the 59 require- ments which were inserted in the Proposed Development Order would be complied with and abided by as concerns their client, Finninvest Ltd. and they urged the adoption of the proposed resolution. At the conclusion of the presentation by Messrs. Title and Shoeman, Mr. Barry Peterson, Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council, then spoke and described the nature and extent of the project. He answered various and sundry questions concerning the review process and the items contained in the Proposed Development Order and in this he was assisted by Sharyn Dodrill, the Assistant Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. The conclusion of their remarks were to the effect that the Order, if approved by the Commission, would result in no substantial deviation and in fact, the mitigation reflected by the various component parts of the Development Order took care of all of the requirements and needs con- cerning the Proposed Development and that in their judge- ment, the development was the most proper use of this , property in that there were vested rights to a development of this land to contain 2,806 units. A description wasImade by them as to the time that the review had taken place and that the review had resulted in a written report consisting of approximately 160 pages. This report and the proposed major development order had been made available to all the Commissioners and had been distributed to the various agen- cies that had been involved in the joint review process. Mr. Garretson, the Director of the Department of Community Affairs, spoke and stated that they were aware of the review process, in that they had participated in the same,. and that they were aware of and familiar with the pro- posed development order and that they were in accord with it and did find that as far as the Department of Community Affairs was concerned, it did not reflect a substantial deviation. On the question if they waived the process, he gave no concrete answer but stated that the D.C.A. concurred in the review and the Proposed Order. 93 121 Mr. Alan Lessler, Director of Planning and Zoning for Monroe County next spoke and stated that he concurred in the review document which had been afforded to the Commission which consisted of approximately 160 pages and the development order. He said that in his judgement after reviewing all of this material, that there was no substan- tial deviation. At various intervals, Mr. Thomas Pelham and Michael Chenoweth interupted the proceedings with explanations that the proceedings should be halted for the reasons that they had expressed int he record and that the Commissioln should not hear this matter at this time because an appeal had been filed by the Friends of the Everglades, Inc. and the Upper Keys Citizens Association under the special act providing for the same. They had taken exception to and appealed t-o. the Commission the acts and conduct of the Zoning Board. It was announced in the record that the zoning Board had on the previous Friday, October 22, 1982, held'a hearing after advertisement to the County Commission the acceptance of the proposed development order as being the proper course to be followed by the County Commission based on the evidence incurred by them. The County Commission acting through the Mayor refused to continue the hearing and denied the Motions by the attorneys for the respective organizations to post- pone the hearing. A total of 16 speakers arose in succession and spoke against the development and against the approval of the major development resolution. Certain scientists from the University of Miami were of tahe opinion that the ' Commission should not approve the development order without further study and further hearings because of the impact upon the traffic flow and the impact upon the environment including the Pennekamp Reef, and other reasons. Other per- sons spoke in objection to the proposed development order, contending that there had been insufficient study made -of this proposed development and that there had not been suf- ficient and adequate notice to the public of this review and also contending that there had been insufficient input from the public at large. It was also contended by a number of speakers that the mechanics and the procedures followed both by the Zoning Board and the County Commission were improper and illegal. It is to be noted that Mr. Pelham had con- tended both before the meeting and when he was privileged to speak that the agreement which had been entered into setting up the review process in Tallahassee on August 22, 1982 bet- ween the DCA, the developer and the County was illegally done under the Florida Administrative Code. One citizen spoke in favor of the project fromthe floor. He contended that this project would be beneficial to the County in that it would make available jobs and aid and help in the economy. Each Commissioner was then privileged to speak and they all expressed their sentiment about the proposed deve- lopment order after which time a vote was taken on a motion made by Commissioner Hernandez and seconded by Commissioner Sorensen to pass a resolution finding no substantial deviation in the proposed development order that had been recommended by the three agencies mentioned herein and upon the vote being taken, the following result occured; those who voted in favor were; Hernandez, Sorensen, and Mayor Dolezal; those who voted against; Blair and Harvey. The Clerk announced thatthe resolution was,,adopted and passed by a vote of three to two. RESOLUTION NO. 277-1982 See Res. Book No. 30 which is incorporated herein by reference. 1 C C Y 141' Following motions made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 5:25 A.M.