HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/1966F
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1968-
The
966
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County met in
Special Session on Monday, November 14, 1966, at 8:30 o'clock A. M.
Present were Robert W. Graves, Chairman, D. B. McCullers, Vice Chairman,,
and members Donald Macdonald, Jerre J. Haffield and Dr. B. Q. Waddell.
Also present were Homer C. Fletcher, Tax Assessor., and his Attorneys,
B. T. Cooksey and William O'Neal, County Attorney. John H. Sutherland,
County Administrator Jack Jennings, Alfred H. Webber and Ruth Elliott,
Deputy Clerks, and Holly :lohnson, Official Court. Reporter.
VERO BEACH FRESS-JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian .River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper
published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertise-
ment, being a
in the matter of tb`�
Q I
in the
Court,' was 'pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of
Iti0.0
Affiant further says that :the ,said Vero Beach Press Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said _,indiOn ;•moi' County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously. pubi(she J 9n, id'. dian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as secor)d'yclass mall matter atthe, office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a pep. ofi bile yealoncxt preceeding the first publication. of the attached copy of advei -
tisement f •affiant hirtije'r`says'that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporafiRnyhY discount, 'rebate; commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
ti”enf'`fer . piablicatigri in the 'said _newspaper.
Sworn- ___i.� v
,QQ Y . .
•
•Y• P1 / • ••..•
(SEAL), • • . , • • . •
(C of the C cul; Cou Indian River County, Florida)
The Chairman called the meeting to order
as a Board
Notice.
and
NOTICE OR` IIECESSED
EQUALIZATION hiEETINQ'
Notice is, hereby given that the
Tax Assessor of Indian River Coun'
ty, Florida, will meet with the
1 Board of County Commissioners of
• Indian River County, Florida, at
the offices sof said Board in the
Indian River County Courthouse,.
Vero. Beach, Florida, at The hour
of 8:30 A. M. on Monday, Novem-
her 14, 1988, for the purposes of
hearing complaints and receiving
testimony as to the value of any
property, real or personal, as fixed
by said Tax Assessor of Indian Riv.
.'er County, Florida, and reviewing,
1 analyzing and perfecting the assess.
r Ynents as fixed by said Tax As -
F;; sessor of Indian • River County,
Florida, on the Tax Assessment
Rolls of Indian River County, Fior-
lda, for the year 1988, as shall ap-
pear by said Tax Assessment Roils
to be submitted to the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian
• River County, Florida; at that time,
and said Board will- continue in'
¢ : , session for those purposes from day
to day for one week, or longer,
as shall be necessary.
'This 19th day of October, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COM-:
• MISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY; FLORIDA'
By /s/ ROBERT W. GRAVES,
' Chairman
Oct. 27, Nov. 3, 10, 1988.
the Board re -convened
of Equalization as provided by law,.. and pursuant to
the foregoing
Mr. Fletcher stated that he had rejected the application of Mr.
Warren G. McLaughlin, Lot F, Block 3, Replat of McAnsh Park, for homestead
exemption because the homestead was abandoned, house vacant, and occupancy
is one of the qualifications for homestead exemption, therefore the applic-
ation was disapproved. Mr. Fletcher presented the facts, as he found them
in his investigation. Mr. McLaughlin was present at the meeting and
gave reasonS.3whyhe felt he was within his rights in asking for homestead
exemption.
After discussion, Commissioner Waddell moved that the application
NOV 14 1966 Dom 10 PACE 43
be denied, stating that he feels there is no question that Mr. McLaughlin
was not a bona fide resident of Indian River County on January 1, 1966.
Commissioner Macdonald seconded the motion and it was unanimously carried.
The Tax Assessor, Med with the Clerk to the Board, and presented
to the Board at this meeting, the following applications for homestead
exemption together with original notice of disapproval of said applications,
with entry of service upon the respective applicants, and same were reviewed
by the Board, disapproval thereof was duly consideredand reviewed as follows:
1. Mrs. Elaine -Fiske Francis, Lot 40, Block 1, Summerplace Unit'I,
On -Motion by Commissioner Waddell, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald., and
unanimously carried, the application was denied.
2. Mr. Rieder Lee, Lot 17, Block 3, Whispering Palms Unit No. 1,
On Motion by Commissioner Waddell, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,
and unanimously carried, the application was denied.
3. Mr. George E. Bass, Lot 18, Block 3, Indian River Highlands,
' Unit 2,c.. -;Mr. Fletcher stated that this was rejected because no title of
record on January 1, 1966, -and on Motion by Commissioner McCullers, seconded
by Commissioner Haffield, and carried, the application was rejected.
4. Mr. James T. Carling, Tract 1325, Twp 31, Range 37, No title
of record on January 1, 1966, Commissioner Waddell moved that the application
be denied, seconded by Commissioner Haffield and unanimously carried.
5. Mr. Edward Lanier, Lot 11, Block 10,.Tropical Village Estates
No. 2, No title of record on January 1, 1966. Commissioner Macdonald
moved that the application be denied, seconded by Commissioner McCullers
and unanimously carried.
6..Mr. B. G. Miller, Lots 11 & 12, Block 1, Lone Palm Park S/D. no
title of record,on January 1, 1966. Commissioner Macdonald moved that
the application be denied, seconded by Commissioner McCullers and unanimously
carried.
7. Mr. John Mirwald, Tract 5, less W 30 A & Rd r/w and W 20.82 A
of Tract 6, less road r/W, Section 8, Twp 32, Ragge 39, no title of record
on.January 1, 1966. Commissioner Macdonald moved that the application be
denied, seconded by Commissioner Waddell and unanimously carried.
NOVO 1966
BOOK 10 PACE 44
8. Mr. Leonard P. Painter, part of Section 33, Twp. 31, Rge 39, Le-
- Base
ea.,Base S/D- the description on deed does not convey proper titles Commissioner
Macdonald:moved that'the application be denied, seconded by Commissioner
McCullers and unanimously carried.
9. Mr. Donald Peters, Lot 3, Block 6, Royal Court Subdivision, no
title of record on January 1, 1966. Commissioner Macdonald moved, seconded
by Commissioner Haffield and unanimously carried, that the application be
denied.
10. Mr. Ed Thomas, Lot 113, Block 8, W. E. Geoffrey Sub, no title
of record on January 1, 1966. Commissioner Macdonald moved, seconded by
Commissioner McCullers and carried that the application be denied.
11. Mr. Ralph J. Webb, Lot 11 and South 30 feet of Lot 12, Block 11,
Florida Ridge S/D- no title of`record on January 1, 1966. Commissioner
Macdonald moved, seconded by Commissioner McCullers and unanimously carried,
that the application be denied.
12. Mr. Howard Wright, E 65 feet of N 150 'feet of S 180 feet of
S 1/2 of E1/2 of E1/2 of SE1/4 of SW1/4, Section 24, Twp 33, Rge 39. (RE 311)
no title of record on January 1, 1966, Commissioner McCullers moved, seconded
by Commissioner Waddell and unanimously carried, that the application be.
denied.
13. Mr. David Wynn- Commencing at Nw corner of E 12.50 A of W 20 A
of Tract 1, run S along W boundary of Said 12.50 A for distance of 100 ft to
`.J
POB, etc. (RE 15320, 1966) No title of record on January 1, 1966. Motion:
was made by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded.by Commissioner Haffield and
unanimously carried, that the application be denied.
14. Mrs. Joyce E. Aleman, Lot 4, Block A, Orange Park Estates Sub.
Unit 1- rented, Motion by Commissioner Haffield, seconded by Commissioner
Waddell that the application be denied, unanimously carried.
15. Mrs. Nina Allen, Lot 14, Block 7, Vero Beach Highlands S/D No. 1,
House rented. Commissioner Macdonald moved, Seconded by Commissioner.
Waddell and unanimously carried, that the application be denied.
16. Mrs.Alma Braman, Lot 8, Block 4, Helmond Park Sub.- house rented.
Commissioner McCullers moved, seconded by Commissioner Waddell and unanimously
!d
carried, that the application be denied.
NOV 14 1966
600c 10 PAGE '45
17. Mr. Burie W. Clements, Jr"e , Lot 13, Block 2, Grove Estates
Sub, - rented. Commissioner Hatfield moved, seconded by Commissioner
Waddell and carried, that the application be denied.
Blockl8
18. Mrs. Mary Bertha Medley, Lots 1 & 2 and part of Lot 3, /McAnsh
Park Sub., house rented. Commissioner Macdonald moved, seconded by
.Commissioner Waddell and unanimously carried, that the application be denied.
19. Mrs. Dorothy Salter, Lot N, Block 28, Replat of Blks 24 & 28,
McAnsh Park Sub., house rented. Motion by Commissioner McCullers, seconded
by Commissioner Waddell that the application'be denied, unanimously carried.
20. Mr, Leon N. Snyder, Lot 2, Rivenbark & Son Sub.- rented, Motion
by Commissioner Waddell, seconded by Commissioner McCullers and carried,
that the application be denied.
21. Mr. L. M. Stroud, Jr., Lot E, Blk 28, Replat of Blks 24 & 28,
McAnsh Park Sub., house rented, Motion by Commissioner Waddell, seconded.
by Commissioner McCullers and unanimously carried, that the application
be denied.
22. Mrs. Lee Byrd,, Lots 9 & 10, Block 13, McAnsh Park Sub. -
House abandoned. Commissioner Waddell moved seconded by Commissioner
Haffield and unanimously carried, that the application be denied.
23. Mr. James N. Cowin, Lots 8,9,10, Block 27, Townsite of Roseland,
owner did not reside on property- Commissioner Haffield moved, seconded by
Commissioner Waddell and unanimously carried, that the application be denied.
24. Mr.William Henry Watson, Lots 15 & 16, Block 2, Tropical Park
Subdivision, house unoccupied on January 1, 1966- Motion by Commissioner
.-•••McCullers, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and. unanimously carried that.
the application be denied.
Mr. Webber read a letter from Rabbi Mortimer of Temple Beth El -lo -
him of Greater Miami, protesting the refusal of the Tax Assessor to give
tax exemption to 250 lots in City of Fellsmere which. are set aside for
purposes of religion, education and charity purposes. Mr. Fletcher stated
that these are vacant lots, purchased by Mr. Shotkin for taxes, and transferrec
tO the Temple. His position is that the property must be used exclusively
for that purpose. Commissioner McCullers moved, seconded by Commissioner
Waddell and unanimously carried, that the application be denied.
NOV 14 1966 BOOK 10 PACE 46
Mr. Fletcher announced to the Board that the Petition No. 1,
filed by W. Kenneth Coxe, and Petition No. 2, filed by G. Kendall Sharpe on
behalf of. the owner, Zilli Construction Corporation, have been resolved.
Petition No. 3, filed by A. C. and Fay Honaker, Palm Bay, Fla.,
Lot 19, Block 187, Sebastian Highlands Subdivision Unit No. 8,
was considered, with Mr. Fletcher stating that the area is zoned commercial,
:ands adjacent and comparable to this are assessed at $1,400. Mr. Honaker
J
was not present. Commissioner Waddell moved that the application be denied,
seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and unanimously carried.
Mrs. Katinka S. Ozee, sister of Mrs. Ella Jo Stollberg Wilcox,
was present in regard t6 Petitions No. 4 and No. 5, filed by Mrs. Wilcox.
requesting that the .a9166i.(aissessmentotetrettiihedtoOtbbapte44ous assessment
as there has been no development or substantial change in the area or to
the property for the last two years. Mr. Fletcher cited several parcels
in the same general area (ALA, nortih end of county) where there has been
re -activity, giving the purchase price and the 1966 assessed value and stated
that none of these were under protest. The Board, after discussion and
consideration, agreed that the lots appear to be valued equally to the other
lots in Ambersand and Commissioner Waddell moved that the tax assessment
stand. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and unanimously
carried. (as to Petition No. 5)
Petition No. 4 covers property immediately south of Ambersand
Subdivision, is ocean to river frontage, and•is 358 feet ocean frontage
and 962 feet in depth. After considerable discussion, comparing depth of
parcels cited by Mr. Fletcher and the property in this petition, Commissioner
Macdonald moved that the application be denied, seconded by Commissioner
McCullers and unanimously carried.
PetitLons.No. 6, 7, and 8, filed by Birgal Corporation, and
Petition No. 9, filed by the Estate of dames M. Breeding, and signed by
Inez Breeding Brickman, who was also present, felt that the assessments
of the described property, tip be:excessive. This is the same area as
property described in Petitions 4 and 5, ..and the same unit value and depth"
factor was used on this property. Commissioner Waddell moved that the
assessments remain as they are,. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Macdonald and unanimously carried.
L_ NOV 14 1966
BOOK 10 PAGE 47
The Tax Assessor informed the Board that Petition No. 11,
filed by Henry G. and Dorothy S. Gennert, on Lot 5, .B1ock3 1, eRivers id a Park,.
has been resolved.
Mk. Harold Winner was present and protested the assessment of
Lots 11 to 15, inc., less hwy r/w, Ambersand Beach Subdivision No. 1, & 2.
Mr. Fletcher stated that this property was assessed likewise on the same
unit value, is 275 feet frontage and 400 ft'depth. After discussion,
Commissioner McCullers moved, seconded by Commissioner Haffield and
unanimously carried, that the Tax Assessor's assessment be accepted.
The Board of Equalization then recessed and reconvened as
Board of County Commissioners in special session.
Mr. Jimmy Walker, chairman of the building code committee,
.,,,,pubmitted to the Board aaiisto®fttecommendations for the proposed County
Building Code Committee, which was accepted by the Chairman for consideration
and study.
Mr. Jennings, County Administrator, stated that the City of
Vero Beach,.had requested assistance from the county of heavy equipment•to
move the refugee boat which has been on the Southeast corner of Old Dixie
and 16th Street for some time) tothe•_:sdhoot to be used for the "burning
of the Eagle" This has been cleared with the fire department and the
immigration authorities. Motion was made by Commissioner Macdonald, that,
the Administrator be authorized to move the boats Seconded by Commissioner
Waddell and unanimously carried.
The County Attorney presented a Petition of General Development
Co*poration'to vacate. the plat of Vero Shores Unit Two, together with
Exliibit "A" a reduced plat , and Exhibit "B", a certificate from Title
& Trust Company of Florida, statd.ng that General Development Corporation
is the fee owner of record:: as to the whole of the -tract covered by the
subdivision known as Vero Shores Unit Two. On Motion by Commissioner
Waddell, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and unanimously carried, the
Petition was accepted and ab.pubiiblhearingwas 7s•_et:l.for'Decembefi(7_3, 1..966',0
at 11:00 o'clock A. M.
NOV /4 1966
BOOK10 PACE 48
On Motion by Commissioner Macdonald,' seconded by Commissioner
McCullers the following Resolution was unanimously adopted,WI4thuthQded
amendment -"and construction" added to SR -607, Emerson Avenue. This has
been verified by the Administrator with Mr. Clarence Davidson and Mr. Bob
Johnson of . the State Road Department.
RESOLUTION
I0. 66-45
WHEREAS, Indian River County has requested a loan from the Highway Secondary
Trust Fund for the following projects•:
•SECTION ROAD NO. DESCRIPTION TYPE WORK
88030 605 • . Glendale Rd. to 19th Street
(Old Dixie), (Vero Beach) R/W.
88050 510 , . SR 5 to West Shore Indian 'River
(Wabasso Rd0 ! R/W
88060 60 Proposed Interchange 1-95 to FEC RR R/W
88520
S-611 Citrus Road to SR 60
!(Clemanns Ave.)
88570 S-607 South Relief Canal to SR 60
(Emerson Ave.)
• R/W 6 Construction
R/W &
Constructior
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of said projects exceed $5000000 which is the.
maximum amount of funds that can be secured from the Highway Secondary Trust Fund,
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, IN OPEN MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED, that all costs for the above listed projects
in excess of funds available from the requested Highway.Secondary Trust Fund Loan will
be paid from Indian River County 'secondary funds•; and the completion of said projects
shall have first priority for the use of such secondary funds.(
BE IT. FURTHER RESOLVED, that,'upon the approval of the requested loan by the
Boa d of Highway Secondary Trustees, the State Road Department of. Florida is hereby
authorized to. allot from Indian River County 1966-67'Secondary Funds an amount not less
..,...than $80,000 to provide funds for the,completion of.the projects.
e aY * ' e
Mr. Jennings reported that he had contacted the School Board
Superintendent regarding the building permits for the two schools, and was
told that they are subject to State audit and are not authorized to make any
expenditures for the permits, and cannot do it in the manner proposed by the'
Board. (November 9) Mr. Marshall O. Mitchell, Attorney for the School Board,
was present, felt the matter could be resolved and offered to take it up
with the School Board. NOV 14 1966 BOOK 10 PAGE 49
Commissioner Macdonald,noting that we have not heard from the
Zoning Board regarding their recommendation on the land use plan for AlA,
moved that they be requested to give this.Board a report the first meeting
in December for consideration and action. The.Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Waddell and unanimously carried.
The Board of County Commissioners then adjourned, and re -convened
as Board of Equalization.
Petition No. 13, filed by Cornelius T. Walker,cAttorney, on
behalf of Mariam P. Phinney et als, 188 acres in Sections 14 & 23, Township
31 S, Range 38 E, parcel bisected by the Sebastian River. Mr. Walker stated
that the.1966�:aseessed value is $750 an acre and complainant considers the
fair market value to be $350; this property is presently in condemnation
for right of way for Sebastian River Bridge and the county wants his clients
to sell for $350 an acre; if this Board would lower the assessment to $350
"we will get rid of condemnation suit". After discussion, Commissioner
Macdonald stated that there is no evidence that there is any inequality
in assessment and moved that the Assessor's assessment be approved. Motion
was seconded. by Commissioner Waddell and unanimously carried.
Petitions Nos. 14 through 26, inclusive, filed by Attorney
James T. Vocelle, representing the owner, Harold M. S. Richards. These
petitions cover Lots 10 and 11, Block 49, Original Town; Lot 3, Block 1,
Knights Addition, and all of Gloria Gardens Subdivision Mr. Vocelle stated
owned by Mr. Richards.
"that it may be that this property is being assessed in proportion..to
surrounding properties, but maintains that it is far beyond the market .
value". He cited as examples, recent sales and present negotiations of
the City of Vero Beach to buy property in this.ar.ea. In as much, as
Mr. Vocelle has not been able to discuss this with the Tax Assessor,
Commissioner Waddell suggested that he meet with. Mr. Fletcher and resolve
as much of this as possible and the matter will be taken up later this
afternoon. Mr. Vocelle asked that the record show that all of the Petitions
(nos 14 through 26, incl) were filed and made a part of the record and that
he has made formal protest on all of these assessments.
iOli 14 1966 BOOK 10 PAGE 50
Mr. Edwin Helseth appeared btefore the Board, protesting the
assessment of Lots 4 and 5, and Lots 10 and 11, Block 44, Original Town,
City of Vero Beach, and requested that it be assessed either on residential
basis or commerical basis, not both. Mr. Fletcher cited to the Board
the assessments of the lots adjacent to Mr. Helseth's property, pointing out a;
that the same unit value was used on all the land immediately adjoining;
that the City of Vero Beach has zoned this area as downtown commercial; that
Mr. Helseth's home was written down to salvage because it still has a
utility value to him as long as he lives in it, and that the rented house
was written down because it is mis-placed as far as zoning. After discussion,
Commissioner Waddell, stating that he does not see any inequality, moved
that the assessment stand as it is. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner
McCullers and unanimously carried.(Petition No. 27)
Mr. Ralph Stogner appeared and protested the assessment of the
:_ the Air Control Building ( Lot 4, less N 20 feet, and Lot 5,
Block 18, Highland Park Subdivision), stating that the building,as far as
he was concerned,was a detriment to him, and compared•. the City of Vero
Beach valuation to the County's. Mr. Fletcher stated that his appraisal
on the land is $8,800 which is the same front foot value as the others
in the area. On the building- Mr. Fletcher stated that Mr. Stogner has not
given him any loss of revenue, andif he will produce the necessary
information (which is the burden of the taxpayer) on any piece of property
that can prove economic loss, he would be glad to review it next year.
Commissioner Waddell moved, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and unanimously
carried, that the assessment be sustained on the Stogner property.
Mr. Alonzo H. Barth appeared before the Board and protested
the assessment of his lot in Paradise Park (Lot 10, Block E, Paradise Park
Unit No. 1),stating that it was assessed at $600 and he bought it ten years
ago for $345; would be glad to take $400 for the lot.but can't sell it.
Mr. Fletcher stated"that Mr. Barth's lot is assessed using the same unit
value as allc,other lots. There has been considerable activity, - particularly
along the road, since 1-95 started coming down there, west of Paradise Park."
After._discussion, Commissioner McCullers moved that, since it was all
assessed the same, that the assessment. stand. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Macdonald and unanimously carried.
NOV 14 1966 took 10 PACE 51
The Board of Equalization then recessed, and the Board re-
.
convened as Board of County Commissioners -in Special Session.
The Chairman presented a letter from Mr. Thomas H. Trent,
Civil Defense Director, requesting that Mr. Samuel A. Hunter, principal
of the, Gifford High School, be authorized to attend a Shelter Manager
instructors course, to be held in Orlando in early 1967 for four days,
with particular emphasis in training sheltermanagers for natural disaster.
On Motion by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Waddell
and unanimously carried, the request was granted.
The Board then recessed att11:45 =,A.9M., and reconvened at
3:30 o'clock P. M.
N.rz Jimmy Walker outlined to the Board the procedure he expected
to follow regarding the Building Code, and requested that the Board appoint
all of the persons recommendedand he will break: t down to approximately
seven chairmen. Commissioner Macdonald moved that the following list
be approved for appointment, with the addition of Mr. Frank Zorc and Mr.
Joe Egan, as Alternate, as requested by the Taxpayers Association, with
Mr. Jimmy Walker,Chairman of the entire committee'.
)tRCHITECTS: C. Ellis Duncan, David V. Robinson, William G. Taylor
BUILDING TRADES: Vernon Wolfe
COMMISSIONERS -ELECT: Richard p. Bogosian, Jack Dritenbas
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS: Norman R. Jackson
ENGINEERS: E. E. Carter, R. F. Lloyd
FARM BUREAU: J. Pat Corrigan, Dudley Clyatt, Art Karst
GENERAL CONTRACTORS John Crowell, Ralph Profeta
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Bob Jennings
INSURANCE:
Bub Dalrymple, Louis Schlitt
PLUMBING CONTRACTORS: Bob Maxwell
REATORS: Dave Albrecht, Al Scattergood
SEPTIC TANKS: Everett Bobo
SIGNS: Larry Holter, Dick Kletty
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION: Robert Jackson, Added by the Board: Frank Zorc and
Joe Egan
WELL DRILLERS:
ATTORNEY
SECRETARY
Billy McCullers
Graham W. Stikelether, Jr.
Ralph Harris
NOV 14 1966
Mr. Walker then asked the Board's opinion of him taking.a
delegation to the outlying areas of the County to explain the proposed
code to them. The Board felt this permissible., while the municipalities
would not be covered, they could accept the county code.
-- -•• Mr. Walker asked if the Board did or if they wanted to accept
the proposal presented by the Building Trades Council of IRC submitted at
the November 9' meeting as this will give a basis to work to. On Motion
_a
by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner McCullers and unanimously
carried, the Board accepted the proposal presented by the Building Trades
Council, as follows:
Honorable Robert Graves,Chairman
Members of the Board of Coµnty• Commissioners
of Indian River. County
Courthouse
Vero Beach, Florida
Gentlemen:
October 11._ 1966
For the past few weeks the subject of a county building code has
been before the citizens of. Indian River County through the press and
other communications media. As you know proposals dealing with a
county wide building code are not new in Indian River County, however,
the needs are more critical now than they ever have been in the past.
The construction trades of Indian River County have been inter-
ested, for may years, in such a building code being adopted for the en-
tire county. At the present time, the City of Vero Beach and the City of
Sebastian have building codes in effect and have building departments
with the various inspectors as required, therefore the scope of this let-
ter will except those two communities, and will deal solely with the re-
maining portion of the county which has no official building code or super-
vision or guidance whatsoever from the county government.
At the outset, we would like it clearly understood that the general ,
contractors and architects of Indian River County do an excellent job of
constructing various buildings throughout the county in conformity with
good building practices and in adhering to one or more of the better standard
building codes, whether it be the Southern Standard Building Code, or the
South Florida Building Code, both of which are very good. However, it is
our opinion that the South Florida Building Code is the better of the two in-
asmuch as this code is designed for a specific small area in which the
climate, temperature, wind velocity, rainfall and other variables are quite
similar. It is not to be inferred that the Southern Standard Building Code
is inadequate, but it covers a large geographical area which contains many
extremes insofar as variable climatic conditions, having a direct bearing
on the sound construction of buildings, both commercial and residential.
The Building Trades Council of Indian River County would respect-
fully offer its services, facilities and the thousands of years of cumulative
knowledge of its combined members to thecitizens and government of this
county in an effort to resolve,once and for all, at ,least a minimum building
code for the county. We do not pretend to be the last word insofar as every
phase of a good building code is concerned, but from our past experience in
all phases of building and construction, we have had occasion to be the per-
P:O 1966
gea 10 PAGE 53
Mr. Robert Graves, Chairman -2- October 1966
sons most closely connected with the reconstruction and repair of build-
ings that have been damaged or destroyed by fire, weather or other con-
ditions which could have been eliminated and, in some instances the damage
reduced to a great extent, had there been certain building practices set
forth and supervised by the bounty government.
As was stated earlier in this letter, we are aware of the recent
publicity in the newspapers;. and there appears that there is no dissenting
voice insofar as the need for a cdunty wide building code is concerned,
however, the advocates of the building code have offered no specific guide-
lines or concrete proposals to the county and its citizens. Without appear-
ing to be presumptuous, we would offer the following as a basis for con-
sideration as a start toward a building code:
1. Inasmuch as the City of Vero Beach and the City of Sebastian
have building codes and supervision in effect, we would submit that any
county wide building code exempt these two municipalities and any other
municipalities which, in the future, desire to adopt a building code that
would not fall below the minimum requirements of the county code, if and
when one is adopted by our county.
2. That certain agricultural buildings and construction be exempted
from the building code. The members of the construction trades of Indian
River County are well aware that buildings used in connection with the
agricultural industry (agricultural is meant to include all phases of citrus,
dairy and other generally recognized agricultural pursuits) are unique and
vary greatly according to the individual, whether it be a person, partner-
ship or corporation, and the particular needs of each and the requirements •
necessary to each. We are also well aware that, although cumulatively we
may possess a vast knowledge of the building industry, we do not presume to
assert that we would be in a position to have knowledge, insofar as the indi-
vidual needs of everyone engaged in the agricultural industry is concerned.
Thus it will be seen that we would confine ourselves to residential and com-
mercial buildings throughout the county.
3. We are also cognizant of the fact that generally speaking, in areas
outside of the county, the need for an extremely strict, and what, in some
cases might appear to be unreasonable, fire code, within the building code,
is not necessary insofar as the close proximity of buildings one to the other
is not present, and consequently buildings, generally speaking, could be of
frame or masonry or a combination of both and still conform with good sound
building practices. This could be accomplished and is necessary inasmuch
as the type of construction throughout the county would vary according to .each
individual, his aesthetic tastes and desires.
'65S BOOK 10 PAGE 54
Mr, Robert Graves, Chairman
October 1966
4. The supervision and enforcement of a county wide building code
could be most economically and efficiently handled through the County
Engineer's Office and it is anticipated_ that the revenue obtained from the
issuance of building permit would be sufficient to cover the cost of said
administration and enforcement. Should it appear or be suggested that
the immediate future might not make the system self-sustaining, we sub-
mit that the security and peace of mind gained by the assurance of county
wide sound building practices, would more than warrant any initial expense
entailed.
5. We concede that one of the major arguments of anyone in opposi-
tion to a county wide building code, would be the large area involved and
the difficulty that might appear to be present in the administration and en-
forcement of such a code over the area. We submit, however, that per-
haps 40, 30 or even 10 or 20 years ago, this was much more of a real pro-
blem than it is today. It is our feeling that foresight in the accomplishment
of our county government in conjunction with the state has resulted in an
excellent road system enabling those charged with the responsibility of en-
forcing such a building code to do it much easier now than in the past. It
is interesting to note and naturally follows that as a result of the excellent
road system serving the county, together with the future plans for improve-
ments and expansion of the same, the need for a county wide building code
is more apparent than ever inasmuch as citizens of this county, both new
and old, now have access to areas of the county in which to build their homes
and businesses that have not been accessible prior to this time, and thus
have expanded the need for uniform building practices and the security of all
of those citizens living or planning to build in the county.
6. There are several codes governing good building practices which
are available to the county, and these can be altered, modified or amended
to better provide the protection deserved by the citizens. However, it is
not suggested that any one of these be adopted in its entirety, but it is sub-
mitted that one of these codes available can readily be fashioned, in a short
time and with a minimum of confusion, into a relatively simple and efficient .
method for the good of the community.
Once again we would point out to the commission that the construction
industry in this county consists of extremely reputable firms that build ac-
cording to and follow sound construction principles, inasmuch as general
contractors and architects in our county are dependent upon the quality of
their construction for continued success in their field. We would also point
out that we do not wish to penalize the individual who might want to build his
own home, but we would point out that such a code would provide an efficient
and simple method whereby the individual involved would have available the
BOOK 10 PAGE 55
NOV 14 1966
•
Mr. Robert Graves, Chairman -4-
October 1966 '
minimum standards so that: his personal investment of money and labor
would be afforded greater protection at little or no increase in cost to
him. We do, however, hope to accomplish by. the enactment .of a county
building code, the means whereby the people of the county would be pro-
tected from unscrupulous, transient profiteers who pray upon respectable
people everywhere, and who, being without proper knowledge and advice,
buy and live in homes, which are chosen on the basis of looks and floor
plan and subsequently find that their dreams as well as their lives may
decorate the landscape.
As we stated earlier in this letter, the construction trades organization
of the Building Trades Council of Indian River County stand ready to assist the
county government or any other local governments in the county in any manner
whatsoever, to the best of our ability in providing for better building for the
citizens of Indian River County.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Birch, President
fe, Secretary
1
The Board then re -convened as a Board of Equalization as provided
by law. The Board then considered Petition No. 10.
Marshall 0. Mitchell, as attorney for and on behalf of Riomar
Bay, Inc., owner of Riomar Bay Subdivision, presented his case to the Board
on 36 out of 53 lots of Riomar Bay Subdivision, which have not been sold•
and are presently owned by the developer, on the grounds that the assessment
is inequitable, overvaluation and improper method. of assessment. He felt
it'was within the prerggativeoofl:this_.:Boatd to suggest to Mr. Fletcher
that he should use a different acreage figure for his base, and that
valuation should be the average of the three most•recent sales. Mr.
Fletcher presented his case, and after much discussion, Commissioner
Maddonald moved that the Tax Assesment be approved. The Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Waddell and unanimously carried.
NOV 14 1966
COOK 10 PACE 56
Mr. James T. Vocelle, Attorney for .Harold M. S. Richards,
protested the assessments of Lot 10 and 11, BloCk 49, Original Town
the Block Building and Arcade- ?atit On Nos, 14 and 15), his contention
being -that it is over -assessed, that the assessments are unequal to
surrounding properties and that some relief should be granted. He again -i
cited current negotiations of the City of Vero Beach to purchase downtown
property for parking and recent sales of the Anne Tavern property and the
O'Malley property(this he felt was.more valuable than Richard's.property)
and competed the City of Vero Beach assessments with the county's. Mr.
Fletcher stated ''that " he had requested.Mr. Richards to furnish documentary
information as to the ecomomio condition and the earnings of these buildings,
and up to this time Mr. Richards has failed completely to submit this
information. The negotiations•for the .perking lots are recent and were not
available to me on January 1, 1966. In the absence of Mr. Richards failure
to give me any information, did write these buildings down for ecomonic loss
to 40% on the two story and on Lot 10, to 35% condition,on the basis of
the best information available to mea 1 submit the front foot values are
uniform."
After considerable discussion and consideration, Commissioner
Waddell moved that the Assesses r s assessment be sustained. The Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and unanimously carried,,
On.Petitionn No. 16, Lot 3, Block 1, Knight's Addition, Mr. Vocelle's.
position was the same- the property is assessed beyond market. value. After
comparing surrounding property, Commissioner Macdonald stated that there
does not appear to be any inequity and moved that the Assessor's assessment
be sustained. The motion was. seconded by Commissioner McCullers and
unanimously carried.
Regarding Petitions Nosel7 through 26, inclusive, which cover
all the, lots. owned by Mr. Harold M. S. Richards in Gloria Gardens Subdivision,
Mr. Vocelle stated that "he accepts the statement of Mr. Homer C. Fletcher
that they are assessed uniformly, but my position is that they are over -
assessed". Since there was no question about inequities, Commissioner
Waddell moved that the Tax Assessor's figures be sustained, seconded by
Commissioner Macdonald and unanimously carried.
"O V 1 1966 dddlt 10 PAGE 57
Mr. Joe Kerley, Attorney and Mr. Mcaunkins, Vice -President
of General Development. Corporation, protested the assessment of the land
General Development owns in the E1/2 of Section 35, Township 33S,Range 39 E,
and the WA of Section 36, Township 33S, Range 40E, Vicar Vero Highlands Sub)
' 0
contending that this property is being leased for cattle grazing and is
over -assessed when compared to surrounding agricultural' land. They
submitted a map showing the various assessments of General Development land
and ad j oin3.rig jproperty. Mr. O'Neal, Attorney for Mr. Fletcher, .questioned
and brought out facts. regarding the contract General Development uses
to sell lots, whereby they retain possession of the property until final
payment is made. It was bought out that some of the area under cattle
grazing lease has been adjusted by, the Tax Assessor. After considerable
,.... discussion, Commissioner McCu}lers.moved that.the Assessor's recommendation
be upheld by the Board,"because General Development is not in the cattle
business to start with. If Mre Chesser owned the property under lease
it would be different". The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Macdonald
and unanimously carried.
Mr. Kerley then protested the valuation of General Development
property in Sebastian, .which is under cattle lease also, pointing out on
a colored map,the valuations of their property and surrounding property.
Mr. Fletcher stated that therehave been sales made from this area in question
and because of the same identical type of lease, did not consider it a bona
fide agricultureal pursuit by General Development Corporation. Mr. Mc-
Junkins pointed out"that in March; 1966, this Board had agreed that the
land which GDC owns and which was unplatted and under bona fide cattle lease
would be certified to the Tax Assessor that it should be properly zoned as
agriculture- and presumed that the fact of the agricultural use of this
property is not. bo be challenged at this time The Board questioned. Mr.
o
Fletcher if the area determined in the Spring to beingeused as:_agricuiture,
had he given tax relief to?r Mr. Fletcher responded'that"he could not
rconcile all of them to be bona fide agricultural use- there were sales
being made there and for that reason we did not feel that that could
properly be considered only as pasture:' After considerable discussion,
Commissioner Macdonald stated that it appeared to him that the Assessor's
treatment of this question is fair and equitable and moved th the pp
-666 600K 1U PACE 50
.1
h
estimate be approved. The Motion was seconded•by Commissioner McCullers,
and unanimously parried.
Thereupon, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board
of Equalization recessed until Wednesday, November 16, 1966, at,7W00
o'clock P. M.
ATTEST
•
H HARRIS, CLERIC.
es„
• R BERT W, GRAS,CHAIRMAN
NOV 14 1966
BOOK 10 PAGE 59