04/22/2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM PUBLIC HEARING LDR AMENDMENT (LEGISLATIVE) TO: Joseph A. Baird County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Stan Boling, AICP• C unity Development Director FROM: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney DATE: April 7, 2014 SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Section 973.04, Section 973.06, and County Code Section 403.08 for Nuisance Abatement Special Assessment It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 22, 2014. BACKGROUND On October 22, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") requested the County Attorney's Office to research the feasibility of a nuisance abatement special assessment. After a presentation from the County Attorney's Office on December 3, 2013, the Board directed the County Attorney's Office to draft a nuisance abatement special assessment ordinance utilizing the uniform method for the levy, collection, and enforcement of non -ad valorem assessments as set forth in Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes. This memorandum 1) points out how the nuisance abatement special assessment is used in other jurisdictions, 2) explains the tax deed sale process, and 3) describes the attached nuisance abatement special assessment ordinance (the "Ordinance"). The proposed ordinance will amend Chapter 403 of the County Code (not a part of the land development regulations), and Chapter 973 of the land development regulations (LDRs). Because the ordinance amends a portion of the LDRs, Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) consideration was required. At its regular meeting of March 27, 2014, the PZC considered the proposed ordinance. After a lengthy discussion about the potential expansion of the County's use of the nuisance abatement procedure, about the use of the tax roll and "threat" of tax deed sale to recover abatement costs, and about the current reliance on tax payers in general to bear the cost of most nuisance abatement actions, the PZC voted 3-3 on a motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (see attachment #3). Because the motion to recommend approval did not have 4 or more votes, the motion did not carry. Consequently, the PZC's action is treated as a recommendation to not approve the proposed ordinance. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Nuisan.Abatement.doc 43