Laserfiche WebLink
BocK J3 r{Uc 71 <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Nancy Offutt, government coordinator for the Vero Beach -Indian <br />River County Chamber of Commerce, spoke in opposition to a Land <br />Development Regulation that would increase the cost of housing with <br />discernible tangible benefits. She believed that requiring more <br />than six inches does not create additional benefit. <br />Chip Landers, builder, developer and realtor, was concerned <br />about the additional cost. He pointed out that $1100, $1200 is not <br />serious money in some instances, but in the case of Vero Lake <br />Estates, for example, it is serious money. He pointed out that the <br />cost of building supplies has gone up, and he urged the Board to <br />follow the recommendation of PSAC and P&Z and limit the requirement <br />to six inches. <br />Public Works Director Jim Davis emphasized that FEMA and other <br />regulator agencies look at tolerances when they do a final <br />inspection. They point out that FEMA's language is .5 foot or more <br />and that language should be in our ordinance. We do not want to <br />mislead the surveyor or contractor. If he is just 1/100th or <br />2/100ths off, he is below that threshold. The half a foot is the <br />tolerance that is allowed in the regulatory enforcement. <br />Chairman Tippin announced that it is the consensus of the <br />Board to limit the requirement to .5 foot, no less than .5 foot, at <br />least half a foot. <br />Commissioner Adams asked, and Community Development Director <br />Bob Keating clarified that the elevation is measured when the form <br />boards are set. The elevation certificate which is maintained in <br />our records and which FEMA inspects is done as part of the <br />Certificate of Occupancy. <br />SECTION 9 <br />Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II explained Section <br />9, Bonding Requirements for Moving of Structures. When local <br />affordable housing providers wish to move a structure they must <br />post the bond to bring it up to building code. This is a financial <br />burden on those agencies and the Board directed staff to carve out <br />an exception for these circumstances. The intent of the bond is to <br />prevent people from removing old shacks and moving them onto <br />somebody else's property to get rid of a nuisance. These housing <br />providers move structures with the intent to renovate and bring <br />them up to code. The proposed revision would allow the Board to <br />16 <br />August 15, 1994 <br />