HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/7/1973a
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1973
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE,
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1973 AT 8:39
O`CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE ALMA LEE LOY, CHAIRMAN; EDWARD J.
MASSEY, VICE CHAIRMAN; WILLARD W. SIEBERT, .JR.; .JACK U.
DRITENBAS AND RICHARD P. BOGOSIAN. ALSO PRESENT WERE JACK G.
.JENNINGS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; PAUL D. BURCH, ATTORNEY TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; ROY KIRKLAND, ELIZABETH FORLANI,
DEPUTY CLERKS; L. S. THOMAS, COUNTY FINANCIAL COORDINATOR AND
.JAMES REAMS, DEPUTY SHERIFF.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ASKED
IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1973.
COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS REQUESTED ON PAGE 6, FOURTH
PARAGRAPH, THIRD SENTENCE, THE WORD "SWAILS."-BE CHANGED TO
"SWALES".
COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS REQUESTED ON PAGE 16, FOURTH
PARAGRAPH, THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE BE ADDED TO THE END OF THAT
PARAGRAPH: "RETRO—ACTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1973".
CHAIRMAN LOY REQUESTED ON PAGE 6, FIRST PARAGRAPH,
THE FOLLOWING BE ADDED AFTER THE FIRST SENTENCE:
"THE ALCO—HOPE REHABILITATION CENTER HAS BEEN
DESIGNATED AS THE ALCOHOLIC RECEIVING CENTER FOR THE FOUR COUNTIES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER AND
THE DISTRICT 18 MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE MEYERS ACT."
CHAIRMAN LOY REQUESTED ON PAGE 8, FOURTH PARAGRAPH
FIRST SENTENCE, THE WORD "WESTON" BE CHANGED TO READ "WESTERN".
NOV 71973
coax PAGE178
I
I
s
CHAIRMAN Loy REQUESTED THAT ON PAGE 2, LAST PARAGRAPH,
SECOND SENTENCE BE CHANGED TO READ; "THIS SURVEY WAS PRESENTED
TO COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, WHO IS CHAIRMAN OF THE FIRE STUDY
COMMITTEE."
THESE CORRECTIONS HAVING BEEN MADE ON LOTION BY
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF OCTOBER 24, 1973, AS WRITTEN.
THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF NOVEMBER
1, 1973 WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER
21, 1973.
FRANK ZORC, REPRESENTING ST. FRANCIS MANOR CORPORATION
APPEARED TO REQUEST THE BOARD S APPROVAL TO LEASE 40 FEET OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG 20TH AVENUE, AT THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED
ST. FRANCIS MANOR APARTMENTS.
0
ON AUGUST 8, 1973, THE BOARD APPROVED A 99 YEAR LEASE
OF COUNTY OWNED LAND TO ST. FRANCIS MANOR OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
TO BUILD APARTMENTS FOR THE AGED AND HANDICAPPED. MR. ZORC IS NOW
REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL 40 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE USED AS
PARKING.
MR. ZORC-STATED THAT THERE IS A LAKE ON THIS
PROPERTY AND ACCORDING TO THE SURVEY OF THE LAND IT IS LARGER
THAN EXPECTED, ALSO THERE ARE MANY BEAUTIFUL TREES ON THE
PROPERTY AND SINCE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE PLANNING STAGE, -IT
IS HIS OPINION THAT THE TREES SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED TO PROVIDE
PARKING SPACES IF IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE AND THIS IS HIS REASONS
FOR REQUESTING THIS ADDITIONAL 40 FEET WHICH WILL BE USED FOR
PARKING.
ISR. ZORC EXPLAINED THAT 20TH AVENUE HAS 140 FEET`OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IN SOME AREAS THERE IS NOT ONLY THE 149 FEET OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT AN ADDITIONAL 40 FEET. THIS ADDITIONAL 40 FEET
OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IS IN THE AREA WHERE ST. FRANCIS MANOR APARTMENTS
ARE TO BE BUILT. SINCE THIS 40 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DOES NOT
RUN THE FULL LENGTH OF 20TH AVENUE, MR. ZORC HAS REQUESTED THAT THE
BOARD LEASE THIS PORTION TO ST. FRANCIS MANOR CORPORATION.
2 .-
NOV 719734 so`o'k 18 PAGE179
r
THE BOARD AGREED THAT BECAUSE OF THE HEAVY TRAFFIC
AND CONGESTION FROM SCHOOLS IN THE AREA THAT THEY WOULD NOT
LEASE THE 40 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IN QUESTION AND MR. ZORC
WITHDREW HIS REQUEST.
MR. ZORC THEN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT WAS DISCOVERED
IN A LAND SURVEY THAT A UTILITY TIE DOWN FOR CABLES CONNECTING
TO THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ANTENNA WAS LOCATED INSIDE THE EAST
BOUNDARY LINE OF THIS LEASED PROPERTY AND ST. FRANCIS MANOR
WILL RELINQUISH THIS PARCEL OF LAND,
THE BOARD INFORMED MR. ZORC TO PREPARE AN EASEMENT
AND HAVE IT RECORDED AND PRESENT 'IT TO'THE SHERIFF.
SAM BLOCK, ATTORNEY AND EDWIN SCHMUCKER, ENGINEER
APPEARED REQUESTING TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF SEMINOLE SHORES
SUBDIVISION.
MR. SCHMUCKER MADE THE PRESENTATION AND STATED THAT
THEY COULD NOT GET WATER TAPS FOR CITY WATER AND THIS DEVELOPMENT
WILL PUT IN ITS OWN WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM,
JEROME KRAMER, REPRESENTING THE BEACH t!SSOCIATION
STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE LOT SIZES BE
ENLARGED TO CONFORM WITH THE LOT SIZES IN THE AREA AND HE ALSO
QUESTIONED HOW THIS DEVELOPMENT FITS IN WITH THE MASTER PLAN,
BOB BERG, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR STATED THAT
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENCOURAGES LARGER LOT SIZES, BUT THIS
DEVELOPMENT IS WITHIN ZONING REGULATIONS. MR. BERG ALSO
STATED THAT THIS PLAN DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE MASTER PLAN.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TENTATIVE
APPROVAL TO SEMINOLE SHORES SUBDIVISION, AS PRESENTED BY
EDWIN SCHMUCKER.
PETER SABONJOHN APPEARED REQUESTING TENTATIVE
APPROVAL TO REPLAT A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS YORKSHIRE SUBDIVISION.
MR. SABONJOHN DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND THE BOARD
INSTRUCTED HIM ON THE PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW.
- 3 -
V 71973 f P saoK 18 pAcE'IO
o0
rl
r
CALVIN B. BROWN, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A & S PRIVATE
AMBULANCE SERVICE APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD ON OCTOBER 24, 1973
REQUESTING COUNTY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIS CLIENT. MR.
BROWN STATED THAT THIS AMBULANCE SERVICE DEALS STRICTLY IN
TRANSPORTING CONVALESCENT PATIENTS, AND NEW LEGISLATION HAS
BEEN PASSED THAT MIGHT PUT THIS SERVICE OUT OF BUSINESS.
THE NEW FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ACT WAS
PRIMARILY DESIGNED FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, BUT WHEN THE NEW
ACT WAS PASSED IT INCLUDED A DEFINITION OF AN AMBULANCE THAT
WAS SO BROAD IT BROUGHT IN THE SERVICES SUCH AS A & S PRIVATE
AMBULANCE SERVICE. IN ORDER FOR A & S AMBULANCE SERVICE TO
CONTINUE THIS BUSINESS AND SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY THEY ARE
REQUESTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE COUNTY.'
CHAIRMAN Loy WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CHANGES .IN`
LEGISLATION MAY OCCUR BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT MAY, 1974, WHEN
NEW ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT FOR AMBULANCES BECOMES A NECESSITY.
ALSO MATCHING FUNDS MIGHT BE AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME, THAT ARE
NOT AVAILABLE NOW.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT SUGGESTED CONTACTING THE.INDIAN
RIVER LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO HAVE THIS CONVALESCENT AMBULANCE
SERVICE REMOVED FROM THE FLORIDA STATUTE BEFORE THIS ESSENTIAL
EQUIPMENT IS PURCHASED,
ALSO PRESENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION WAS HARRY COX AND
CONNOR ROBERTS, OWNERS OF A & S PRIVATE AMBULANCE SERVICE.
AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION THE BOARD AGREED TO WAIT ABOUT
8 MONTHS BEFORE MAKING A DECISION REGARDING THE COUNTY FINANCING
ASSISTANCE FOR THIS SERVICE.
SHERMAN SMITH III, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING VICTOR
PALISANO, DEVELOPER APPEARED REQUESTING FINAL APPROVAL OF
SUN VILLA WEST SUBDIVISION.
IN REVIEWING THE FINAL PLANS, IT WAS FOUND TO BE
INCOMPLETE. MR.'ePALISANO STATED HE WOULD COMPLETE THE PLANS
AND RETURN THEM TO MR. .JENNINGS.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SI•EBERT, SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED FINAL
APPROVAL TO SUN VILLA WEST SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO THE
— 4 —
OV 7 1973
a Book. �a11
x
0
ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWING AND APPROVING THE FINAL PLANS BEFORE
THEY ARE RECORDED,
THE HOUR OF 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE
DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION
ATTACHED, TO WIT:
VERO BEACH PRESS -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, Jr. 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 advertisement, being
a
the matter of
the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in
the issues of��p_—
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspapers
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ Sz_____ day .__4 A.D. 19
(Business Manager) —
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Board of County Com-
misslonersof Indian River County,,
Florida, have scheduled a public
hearing on November 7, 1973, at
11:00 A.M. in the Board of County
Commissioners room at the Indian
River County Courthouse, Vero
Beach, Florida, on a proposed
County ordinance to be entitled
"Amendment to Indian River
County Ordinance 71.3," Writing
Special Exceptions and Restric-
tions for Mobile Home Use in
Agricultural and M-1 Restricted
Industrial Districts and providing
an effective date thereof.
Board of County
Commissioners
Alma Lee Loy,
Chairman
Oct. 18, 1973.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD,
RAY FARREL OF INDIAN RIVER TRUCKING INC, APPEARED
IN SUPPORT OF THIS ORDINANCE,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING
ORDINANCE 73-12 TO BE EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER H, 1973,
- 5 -
V 71973 of .
8�0!( 18 PAa�SZ
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 73 - 12
AMENDING= INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
t ORDINANCE NO. 71-3
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the following sections shall be added to Indian
River County Ordinance No. 71-3:
SECTION 4: (C) (6). Mobile homes are an accessory use only
when the homes are
(a) on land which has been classified as agricultural
land for purposes of ad valorem tax assessment.
(b) owned by the owner or lessee of the land.
(c) occupied only by a full time employee of the owner
or lessee of the land.
(d) in the opinion of the Zoning Commission necessary
for the operation of the agricultural use of the land.
(e) placed on at least five (5) acres of land per home.
SECTION 22, (B) (4). Mobile homes are an accessory use only
when the homes are
(a) owned by the owner or lessee of the land.
(b) occupied only by a full time employee of the owner
or lessee of the land.
(c) in the opinion of the Zoning Commission necessary
for the operation of the industrial use of the land.
.'4" (d) placed on at least five (5) acres of land per home.
THIS AMENDMENT shall become effective flavember..$,.. `1.973.
6 -
N O V 71973 MEMO
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE CORPS
OF ENGINEER SAJSP PERMIT #73-0980 TO CONSTRUCT 18 DOCKS AND
SETTING MOORING PILES IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE
40 EAST.
MR. HILL REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES APPEARED REGARDING THE SERIOUS BEACH EROSION PROBLEM
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. MR, HILL WILL MEET WITH .JOHN LITTLE
CITY'MANAGER, REGARDING THIS PROBLEM.
THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 12:00 NOON AND RECONVENED
AT 1:35 O'CLOCK P.M.
CLIFF REUTER, DEVELOPER APPEARED FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. REGARDING OSLO
LAKE MOBILE HOME PARK SEWER AND WATER FRANCHISE, BUT DUE TO AN
ERROR IN THE LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT IT WILL HAVE TO BE READVERTISED.
MR. REUTER WILL READVERTISE AND IT WILL BE PUT ON THE AGENDA
OF THE NEXT MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1973 AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE
HAD REVIEWED THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY MR, REUTER AND FOUND IT
TO MEET ALL THE NECESSARY FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS.
THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A LETTER
FROM H. BACH NIELSEN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ADVISING THE BOARD THAT
IN THE DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED COUNTY PURCHASE OF BEACH-
FRONT PROPERTY NORTH OF THE MOORINGS, IT WAS STATED THAT THIS
PROPERTY HAD 78 WATER METERS. MR. NIELSEN STATES THAT THIS WAS
ERRONEOUS, THERE ARE NO WATER METERS SET ASIDE ON THAT PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD
THAT THERE WAS NO FORMAL WRITTEN AGREEMENT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF
WATER METERS AND IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE OFFER OF THE SALE,
THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS RECEIVED A PETITION FROM SOME OF
THE RESIDENTS OF ORCHID ISLE SUBDIVISION REQUESTING THE ABANDON-
MENT OF ROADS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. THESE ROADS ARE DEDICATED
AS COUNTY ROADS AND MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY.
- 7 -
l$4
NOV 71 73 o ox 18 PACE
1,84
I
r
THE BOARD AGREED THAT IT IS NECESSARY THAT ALL
PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS SUBDIVISION SIGN THIS PETITION REQUESTING
THE ABANDONMENT OF THESE ROADS. THERE ARE TWO COUNTY OWNED PARKS
LOCATED IN THIS SUBDIVISION AND ABANDONING THESE ROADS WOULD
MAKE THESE PARKS INACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. THIS MUST BE
INVESTIGATED.
COMMISSIONER„' MASSEY WILL TALK TO THE RESIDENTS AND
THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL WRITE LETTERS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO
HAVE NOT SIGNED THE PETITION EXPLAINING THE BOARDS FEELINGS.
THE ADMINISTRATOR DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD A LETTER
FROM JUDGE D.C. SMITH REQUESTING OFFICE SPACE IN THE COURTHOUSE
FOR THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, AND A COURT REPORTER.
THE PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICES IN THE COURTHOUSE
WILL BE VACATED ON DECEMBER 1, 1973 AND .JUDGE SMITH IS RE-
QUESTING THAT THOSE OFFICES BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR AND COURT REPORTER.
THE BOARD INSTRUCTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE THE
NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS TO MEET .JUDGE SMITH'S REQUESTS.
AT THE LAST MEETING ON OCTOBER 24, 1973, THE AD-
MINISTRATOR INFORMED THE BOARD OF A LETTER FROM HENRY SMITH
WHO REQUESTED THE USE OF A COUNTY OWNED BUILDING LOCATED ON
33RD AVENUE IN GIFFORD TO BE USED BY AN ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS
THE "BROTHERHOOD OF YOUTH” THIS BUILDING WAS BEING USED BY THE
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL AND THE ADMINI-STRATOR WAS INSTRUCTED
TO WRITE DAVID GROTEFEND TO ESTABLISH IF THIS BUILDING IS NOW
BEING USED.
THE ADMINISTRATOR INFORMED THE BOARD OF A LETTER FROM
DAVID GROTEFEND STATING THAT PLANS FOR THE USE OF THIS BUILDING
WERE CONTINGENT UPON O.E.O. FUNDING FOR A YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT. THESE FUNDS WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE AND THIS PROGRAM
NEVER MATERIALIZED. SOME RENOVATION WORK WAS DONE ON THE
BUILDING, BUT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT MONEY TO COMPLETE THE JOB,
MR. JENNINGS STATED THAT IT IS A GOOD CONCRETE
BUILDING, BUT NEEDS WORK DONE TO MAKE IT A USEFUL BUILDING.
.9;M
NOV 7 1973
9BOK iS PA&E185
0
I
COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS STATED HE WOULD WORK WITH THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND GIVE HIS OPINION OF WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO
PUT THIS BUILDING IN GOOD SHAPE,
THE BOARD AGREED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR AND
COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS SHOULD INSPECT THIS BUILDING AND REPORT
TO THE BOARD.
THE BOARD ALSO INSTRUCTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CONTACT
MR. GROTEFEND REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE PLEASANT RIDGE SCHOOL
(WINTER BEACH SCHOOL) WHICH WAS BEING USED FOR THE HEAD START
PROGRAM AND TO REQUEST HIM TO SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE BOARD.
THE HOUR OF 2:30 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE
DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION
ATTACHED TO WIT :
VERO BEACH PRESS -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, Jr. 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 advertisement, being
a ./
the matter of
the __ ___ Court, was pub -
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper. 7
Sworn to and subscribed before me this --_oS -_-- __da of � '-._ D197,3
(Business Manager)
(Clerk of the Gercuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
- 9 -
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
All interested parties are hereby
notified that the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River
County will hold a public hearing
on November 7, 1973, at 2:30 p.m.
to consider the request of Indian -
River Cablevision, Inc., for ap-
proval of a rate increase.
Board of County
Commissioners of
Indian River County
By: Alma Lee Loy
Chairman
Oct. 28, 1973.
N 0 V 71973 18 fAcE .86
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN LEFT THE MEETING AT 2:35 O'CLOCK
P.M.
GIL SWIGER, PRESIDENT OF INDIAN RIVER CABLEVISION APPEARED
AND MADE HIS PRESENTATION.
AT THE LAST MEETING MR. SWIGER WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT
A SWORN STATEMENT THAT THE FIGURES PRESENTED IN THE FINANCIAL
REPORT ARE ACCURATE.
AT THIS TIME MR. SWIGER DID NOT HAVE THAT SWORN
STATEMENT AND ATTORNEY BURCH, ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, ACCEPTED
MR. SWIGER'S OATH THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED
IN CONNECTION WITH THE RATE INCREASE FOR INDIAN RIVER CABLEVISION
IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE STATEMENT TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE,
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO SPEAK.
MRS. PIKE OF WABASSO APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO A RATE
INCREASE,
FRANK YOUNG OF 87TH STREET APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO
THE RATE INCREASE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION
No. 73-70 APPROVING THE RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY INDIAN RIVER
CABLEVISION, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1973.
- 10 -
PACE187
NOV 71973
t
RESOLUTION No, 73-70
WHEREAS, this Board heretofore did grant an easement to
Indian River Cablevision, Incorporated, to use certain rights of way of
Indian River County for the purpose of stringing its cable, and
WHEREAS, in said easement this Board did reserve the right
to control the prices charged by Indian River Cablevision, Incorporated,
for its services, and
WHEREAS, Indian River Cablevision, Incorporated, has made
a request for a rate increase, and
WHEREAS, publication of a Notice of Public Hearing was duly
made, and
WHEREAS, this Board did on the 7th day of November, 1973,
hold a public hearing on said request,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that Indian River
• Cablevision, Incorporated is hereby authorized to make charges for its
service as shown in Schedule A attached to this Resolution.
ATTEST:
County C14ZA
U
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
r'
By
Alma Lee Loy, Chairman
NOV 18 PAGE188
INDIAN RIVER CABLEVISION, INC.
ROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1973
Type
of Service
Installation Charge
Monthly Charge
1.
Single Family Residence:
A. First TV Outlet
$19.95
$5.50
B. Additional Outlets
7.50
1.25
C. Transfer to a New Home
7.50
----
D. Reconnect of Inactive
Outlet 7.50
----
E. Relocation of Outlet Within
Home 5.00
----
2.
Commercial
Shops, Banks, Business Offices, Stores, etc.)
A. First Outlet
$25.00
$5.50
B. Two or More Outlets
10.00
2.00
3.
Prewired Hotels - Motels -
Hospitals
with Master Internal Systems
A. First Unit
$25.00
$5.50
B. All Other Units
-----
2.00
4.
Non -Wired Duplexs - Apartments - Hotels
Hospitals Without Complete
Master Antenna Systems:
A. First TV Outlet
$25.00
$5.50
B." All Other Outlets
10.00
2.00
5.
Annual Prepaid Accounts:
(Commercial and Residential)
Discount of 1 month service charge when account is prepaid
1 year
in'advance........... start
1st of any month (pay for 12
months -
get 13th month free).
(ALL CHARGES SUBJECT TO 4% FLORIDA SALES TAX)
12 -
N 0 V 71973 Ian
OU
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN RETURNED TO THE MEETING AT
2:40 O'CLOCK PA
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN. THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION N0, 73-72
WAS ADOPTED
RESOLUTION No, 73-72
WHEREAS, JOE L. and ROBBIE L. BURTON are the holders
of Indian River County Tax Certificates Nos. 261, 262, 263, and 266 of
the sale of 1968, and
WHEREAS, the Federal District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict -of Florida did determine in Case No. 70-1897 CivCA that the United
States of America owned a three-quarter (3/4) interest in the property on which
the above tax certificates were sold and that the United States of America
was not subject to taxation and said certificates are void as.to the three-
quarters interest of the United States, and
WHEREAS, from the sale of said property Indian River County
was paid the value of one-fourth of said certificates and
WHEREAS, the refund of the money for said certificates has
been approved by the Department of Revenue, and
WHEREAS, JOE L. BURTON has died and JOE M. BURTON has
been appointed Executor of the estate of Joe L. Burton,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County that said certificates are cancelled
and the Clerk of the Board shall pay to the estate of Joe L. Burton and
Robbie L. Burton, his widow, the total sum of One Thousand Four Hundred
Ninety Seven and 71/100 ($1, 497. 71) Dollars to be sent to Joe M. Burton,
830 North Krome Avenue, Homestead, Florida, 33030.
ATTEST:
County CWrk
N 0 V 71973
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IND*N RI7_V'6v1*1
UN Y., LORIDA
n
By / Y1<
Alma Lee Loy, Chairm
47
13 -
• 8fl4K �� fA��4 an
�i
� M6 sTjTP '
01P RAwrumm
32304 r
J. EO STRAUGHN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR October 24, 1973
{
e
Honorable Ralph Harris
Clerk Circuit Court
Indian River County
a
P. O. Box 1028
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
E
Dear Mr. Harris:
y
Enclosed please find a copy of a Requisition For Refund From
County Treasury, Tax Sale Certificates 261of 1968, 262 of 1968,
263 of 1968, 266 of 1968 and a copy of Summary Judgement No.
70 -1897 -Civ -CA. The enclosed requisition for refund has been
approved by the Department of Revenue and the above mentioned
Tax Sale Certificates may be cancelled.
The payment of interest on the refund shall be governed by
Attorney General Opinion 62-84.
If we may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
ohn M. Forrestall, Chief
Assessment Standards Bureau
JMF:RG:cm
Enclosure
- 14 -
NOV 71973
BOOK ...'18 PAGE191
0
M
IN i'fl U:ZT::D STAZ , Di 2;:ICT COURT
IN AND 02 - 80U'TIMT.N D1:,T':ICT
Or i�ZGi�`tDA
12i1V41 TaiV2:iI0111
110. 70 -1397; -Civ -CA
UI ITZD S T�1T,?.:; Or A41►::.ICA . • ;
Plaintiff
V
JUDGi M-, i Aim OR= OF s&E
MR -S. J0TIM TYIW RT, et al.
Defend.zts
- j
•
this cause- is before the Court on the motions for su_'M. ary t
jud '11cnt of defendants, Freda Wri ht, Pira. Secnne nine, 'Mrs. Evelyn
Redi.^,h anil Joa L. Burton, and plaintiff, United States of A:aorica.
Since there 'has been no oppocin mc -mor :ndum fro:a Defendants Ceae
=,orris, Tax Collector of Irniiwn river County and. Ralph Barris, Clerk,
o C-irauit Co.zLt Of IadAian River County, the facts as sc,-. forth
in plaintifz's memorandum are taken as true, in accordance %;it% Local
r=10 105. It was aGreed at a preliminary praitrial conference thst
this matter is --iPO For su�aary Judgment *in that no =terial facts
are in c ispute. -
hx questions before the Court are the riZh-t or t a Tax
%collector 0.s
Incli�:n giver County to levy Property tares un0a a three-
four -11-1a Interest of the United 'St,a.tes in ccrtai.n rCaity, t .^:. Validity
E
of ta:; cc; tificatez hold by persons to whom the real prape:.+.y in
iajV�.:s�:1� was cold by the T.L% to:.i.Cctv`r a- tta.:r• u; l�S, ci:Li f.uL~. `.s LtaL
4CJ Jw a..-: .••.0 �.: �-E: th-, u.�t«L.^1. 1,:.i... ��1I. L�.y to IC,v, 4'�.n. t� mns :.T? ^+•...�+4sri _:
i.
..... L.. ..... _ j .. 1:, ..r%U :.:�. i/•�L'Ti irL t.Y.� �,v V�.L v1�L� C:1 .^...��i .. i:Jii ..a V..1 ...� :�.« • '� Y
• i
.._._....:._. .+{L' 3/.2 1'.". 174, 1/7 c7 .1- 0, cs
MYh. 8*?49E*11
ao
N 0 V 71973
pat;Q 2
' "(� joaseSsiatls. • OL' i:ii•: 1'�dr_rrtl Gnvezn.cnt
itself in tier ri-nenco ni c%press, con-ro.:.ional
cri:ncilt :%ve,, tu•r. ntlh ject to any fora of state
to-C.1C toll. "A
1-o E•rniver of this immunity, which extends to the entire interest
of.. the ,Sovarn.-cnt; has boon shorn in the case. at hand. Titus, the
Tax Collector has failed to carry his burden of showing that the
United States was not entitled to an exemption as to this property.
Jc€ frrsr.:� Crttznt y, Yla._y._ I.T.R. , stmra, at 136; U.S. v. CMIt1ty 01
Son ,. 249 F.Supp. 321 (S.D. Cal. 1966). It follo.rs that the
thrcc-fou,ths interest of the United States teas not subject to the
. tMh asst:.smcrts ti question, and that tzze tat: certificates are void.
I^1 IS� : _,PORRE 0:02= la"M ADJ UD G10 TILT:
1. The realty in question, described in Paragraph V of
the cc p3aint, is jointly mmad in fca simple by -the united States
of America. with an undivided th ee-fourths intcrwst therein, and
'" r ' Tykvart, vith an undiv-idcd fine -fou tiI interc�t the oin.
rlru • *'�tii
2. The interest os na Uaitadl States in the property was
not st:b j ec t to the roal property t= assessments for the yea::s 1967
mad fallo:.ina, levied by the Tat Collector of Indian : vas Caunty,
FIorid, a.
3. T -xe Tax. cart iiicates held by defendants, .roe L. Burton, -
ae'� r...^ S tr�.4pht 1'*.• ea e Hi e' and lar.`'+ Evelyn iad_sti 4i4
1113{ iii V:Z 1 -Trig Agia {., 1i2.�{'� V• 7 { w..� .r�
VO. d, r ♦ 1� i •q.• r -8 �!• ��. .�.� .4 T �.� f7 ��t ti. 4
L., {.� the t'a cv J.G4a.. hs ir•1/C'.=as- Or L1 �O Y�.i. .�2�.' , 1i...� n0aa
TT \7. 250 «r n 7 93', 936% (:54t'a Cd w. l�':'• r•,7 .
7.2
7...'�...0.. 0!:
-_� - , • . .. _ •. r. � � , ��-� iti:iii ff .� .-�-h
to
r • .. ......1i• �.� J.w)4.• G.•^: �.. 1�VaYry4?..•/iiJ l'i:l.. �.:J, '1L• ! 46i V41i. 11.'r �1/vJ
f
N 0 V HOW- JLQ ?AgfL 93
71973
M
M
a
AMM
page 3
r'.afrtul. Etta han any interest in tiie undivided three-fourths
incarest of the United States in the subject real property, and
that title to that three-fourths interest is•quieted in the
United States.
4. The defendants are hereby engoined'from asserting a
claim to tine undivided three-fourths interest of the United States
in the subject property.
5. The real property {.n question, described in Paragraph
V of th- complaint, shall be sold at public auction to the highest
bidder free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.' The proceeds
of sa c, after the deduction of expenses of sale, shall be
distributed as follows#
a) three-fourths (3/4) to the United States of America
b) From the remainin one. (1/4) of the sales
• proceeds, an amount edual to one-fourth '(1/4) of
the total face vc2ue of Tax Certificates : 261,
2620 2632, 2166, 1761, 177, 373, 179, 2112 212, 213
and an unnumbered certificate in the amount of
$576.36s
shall be paid to the Ta:: Collector of Indian River County, Florida.
The additional sum of $1,462.36, representing ane -fourth (1/4) of
the rmount advanced by the United States to satisfy the 1563-66
property tax assessments, shall be paid to the United States. The
balcace of this remainin one-you:•th (1/4) shall be paid to
defendant, firs. Ruth Tykvart.
6. The prerequisites for cancellation of the void tae:
certificates, pursuant to F. S.A. §197.590, 'having been ful:Ullcd,
t e MIJ2 1t oz tha Circuit Court of Indian 'River County; unor
Of i:iwl.'.' L'i: :.i`7 Z::.i: in
aZJovw; S:.all Oiuna -tc tip,, ti,oreor ts.a en -tire 'o-",.unt
recci cc, fo-z the purch'.sc o^ s::ch certificates.
BOOK ?AGE:'
I
j
F page 4
7. Each party is directed to bear its own costs.
8. Upon sale of tie subject property at public auction,
the United States is instructed to submit a proposed fora of
distribution of proceeds in accord with theorders herein
recited.
Et1'TRED at Miami, Florida this 11th day of November,
E
1971.
C: CLYD"' A KINS
United States District Judge
cc. M. Attorney (iia,-lured)
Paul D. Burch, Esq.
William J. Steaa-rt, Esq.
John 'R. Nr izeI., Esq.
Turn= w 111od-on, E--qs.
Robert :,ackson, Esq.
1 n„4i• ^ r.�+, ii�iu:i \iVe3.' LrJui.lty
La4gtr ac i:i:etragen, E:sgs.
Nov 7 1973 TAU*
� J
N Q V 71973
eeor� � PACE Ion
D R- 462
Approved for Refund in
Revised 12-16-70
the amount of $
(Sec. 195.106, F.S.)
this Day of
, 19
Chairman, Board of County
Commissioners
REQUISITION FOR REFUND
FROM COUNTY TREASURY
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE
Pursuant to Section 195.106, Florida Statutes,
Joe H. Burton, Executor of the
830 North Rrome Avenue
Estate of JgE L- BIRITON
of Hnrnpate4d, El. 11030
ayee
R si ence
Hereby makes application to
the Board of County Commissioners
for refund of 107_71 pd,.s
of moneys paid to the
interest
County, and as grounds therefor
sets up the following facts:
(State reason for Refund)
See Summary Judgment attached
qY
and Tax Sale Certificates 261
of 19682 262 of 1968, 263 of
1968 and 262 of 1968
F,L A UVED
Attached hereto is
add i
t claim, as follows:
DAT !2
Sworn and subscri d to
before me this day
DEPARTMENT NUE
of October Q 19 3
Notary Public
oq gy ig �drT
,�� • � ; ,y
a
N Q V 71973
eeor� � PACE Ion
Q
e
VERNE THORNTON.- JR., REGIONAL COORDINATOR WITH THE
DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS APPEARED TO EXPLAIN TO THE.BOARD PLANS
TO PURCHASE APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VICINITY OF
1-95 AND OSLO ROAD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 150 BED PRISON
FOR FIRST TIME YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS.
MR. THORNTON DESCRIBED THE LAYOUT OF THE COMPOUND AND
HE STATED THAT IT WILL BE A SECURED INSTITUTION. IT WILL BE FENCED
ELECTRONICALLY AND THE PERIMETER OF THE COMPOUND WILL BE
MONITORED.
THIS SITE WAS CHOOSEN BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION, THERE
IS UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE NORTH AND GROVES,ON THE EAST AND I-95
TO THE WEST. THE ONLY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA IS A FRUIT
PROCESSING PLANT AND THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY MAKES IT
CONVENIENT TO ALL FACILITIES.IN VERO BEACH. MR. THORNTON
STATED THAT ON NOVEMBER 20, 1973 HE WILL REQUEST THE GOVERNOR
AND THE FLORIDA CABINET TO APPROVE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE
OF THIS PROPERTY,
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN ASKED, "DO I UNDERSTAND THAT
YOU ARE ASKING FOR FUNDS WITHOUT ASKING THIS COMMUNITY HOW THEY
FEEL?"
MR. THORNTON ANSWERED, "WHAT WE ARE DOING IS INFORMING
YOU OF OUR PLANS, IF THE APPRAISAL COMES IN AT THE PURCHASING
PRICE AND THE ENGINEERS APPROVE THE PROPERTY, THIS WILL BE THE
PIECE OF PROPERTY WE WILL REQUEST FUNDS FOR AND PURCHASE,
COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS STATED THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT
THIS COMPOUND COULD BE EXPANDED TO ACCOMMODATE A LARGER NUMBER OF
OFFENDERS.
SIR. THORNTON STATED THAT IT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE
LEGISLATURE THAT THIS WOULD BE.A 150 BED PRISON, BUT THE
LEGISLATURE COULD CHANGE THAT.
20 —
N 0 V 71973 J8 (1*7
VIRGINIA HARRIS, REAL ESTATE AGENT STATED THAT
APPROXIMATELY 97 EMPLOYEES WOULD BE HIRED FOR THIS PRISON AND
LOW TO MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
MURIEL FRIEND ASKED IF STATE OWNED LAND WAS AVAILABLE.
MR. THORNTON STATED THAT STATE OWNED LAND WAS
EXPLORED BUT DID NOT FIT THIS NEED.
LOIS KRAMER STATED THAT THESE EMPLOYEES WOULD
PROBABLY HAVE TO LIVE IN ST. L.UCIE COUNTY.
CHESTER CLEM, STATE REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS A GREAT IDEA IF THE CRIME RATE IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY WAS HIGH, BUT IT IS LESS THAN 1/3 OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY
AND 1/50 OF THE PALM BEACH AREA. THIS INSTITUTION SHOULD BE
IN AN AREA WHERE THERE IS A HIGH RATE OF CRIMES COMMITTED.
.JEROME KRAMER APPEARED AND STATED THAT THIS
INSTITUTION WOULD HINDER THE GROWTH IN THIS COMMUNITY AND THE
r BOARD SHOULD PRESENT A RESOLUTION STATING THEIR REASONS FOR
OPPOSING THIS PRISON IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
MR. NORTON STATED THAT THIS INSTITUTION IS NOT GOOD
FOR THE COMMUNITY, OR BUSINESS AND IT WOULD BE WRONG TO CONSIDER
THIS FOR THIS COUNTY.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN, SECONDED BY
y COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ADOPTING
A RESOLUTION N0. 73-71 OBJECTING TO THIS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
IN ALL.RESPECTS AND THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DRAFT SUCH A RESOLUTION
GIVING ALL THE DIFFERECT OBJECTIONS VOICED TODAY AND THAT THE
CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE RESOLUTION.
- 21 -
NOV 71973
saaK 18 nc IUD
J
R
NOV 7 197300
M M
RESOLUTION NO. 73-71
WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners of5
k'
Indian River County, Florida has been notified that the
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Division
of Corrections intends to purchase land and construct a 150
bed prison for first time offenders in Indian River County,
Florida, and
WHEREAS, said Board did conduct a public hearing
on November 7, 1973 regarding the proposal of the Division of
Corrections and did determine that the citizens of Indian River
County do not wish a prison to be constructed in this County
for the. following reasons:
(a') It would require the expenditure of several
hundred thousand dollars for road construction as
the proposed site is not on or near a paved.road.
-(b) Adequate low or medium priced housing is not available
in Indian River County and most of the proposed 97
employees would have to find housing in St. Lucie I
County.
(c) Indian River County is not an urban county and the
Florida Legislature mandated that this prison be
built in an urban area.
(d) The prison would have a negative impact on the
economy, population and the tourist trade in
Indian River County.
(e) Required local services of schools, hospitals and
utilities are not adequate to meet the prison's demands.
This prison would create a drain on the existing
facilities within this County.
(f) The site location lies in an area of projected
residential use and would have a serious negative
impact on surrounding land values.
- 22 -
��a M PAGEIOU
I_J
r
"I"'
(g) There is no guaranty that this facility would remain
a 150 bed institution in view of the fact that there
is 90 acres of land to be developed.
WHEREAS the Florida Cabinet must approve the ex-
penditure of funds for this project,
Be It Resolved that the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida unanimously oppose the con-
struction of a prison in Indian River County and request the
Governor and Cabinet to deny ..the Division of Corrections'
proposal to locate that prison in Indian River County and the
expenditure of State funds for the purchase of land and request
that the Division of Corrections be ordered to carry out the
mandate of the legislature by locating the prison in an urban
area.
Further Be It Resolved that the Board calls upon all
Indian River County citizens; municipal and town councils
an.d our .legislative delegation to notify the Governor and Cabinet
that Indian River County does not want and does not need a
prison.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
A
0
..
i�M
I
COPIES OF THE RESOLUTION ARE TO BE SENT TO THE
GOVERNOR AND THE FLORIDA CABINET, DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF
CORRECTIONS, MUNICIPALITIES, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, EAST CENTRAL
FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, ALL NEWSPAPERS, RADIO STATIONS
TELEVISION STATIONS AND ANY OTHER INSTITUTION. ALSO A LETTER
REQUESTING THAT THEY ADOPT SIMILAR RESOLUTIONS TO BE FORWARDED
TO THE GOVERNOR AND FLORIDA CABINET AND CALL UPON INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS
TO SEND TELEGRAMS AND LETTERS TO THE GOVERNOR AND FLORIDA CABINET
VOICING THEIR PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THIS PROJECT,
GEORGE BLOIS, OWNER OF BEACHFRONT PROPERTY AND BART
COLLARD APPEARED TO DISCUSS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THE BOARD
CONSIDERED PURCHASING AT THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING ON NOVEMBER
1, 1973. AT THAT MEETING ATTORNEY BURCH WAS AUTHORIZED TO HIRE
AN APPRAISOR TO APPRAISE THE PROPERTY AND TO DRAW UP A CONTRACT.
ATTORNEY BURCH STATED THAT HE HAD CONTACTED AN APPRAISOR
WHO CAME TO VERO BEACH AND LOOKED THE PROPERTY OVER AND GAVE AN
ESTIMATED COST OF $1,200.00 TO $1,500.00 TO APPRAISE THIS PROPERTY.
ATTORNEY BURCH DID NOT HIRE THE APPRAISOR BECAUSE THE COST WAS,
AN HIS OPINION, HIGHER THAN HE THOUGHT THE COMMISSIONERS HAD
ANTICIPATED AND HE WAS BRINGING IT BEFORE THE BOARD FOR THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS.
IN THE MEANTIME THE BOARD WAS PRESENTED WITH ANOTHER
PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS FOR SALE FROM THE OCEAN TO THE RIVER
LOCATED NORTH OF ST. EDWARDS SCHOOL OWNED BY VERO'MAR DEVELOPMENT,
LTD. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN AN UNDEVELOPED AREA.
MR. EARL PADGETT REPRESENTING VERO MAR DEVELOPMENT, LTD.,
APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD AND STATED THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS
24 TO 30 ACRES IN SIZE RUNNING FROM OCEAN TO THE RIVER AT A PRICE
OF $45,000.00 PER ACRE.
CHAIRMAN Loy STATED THAT THIS BOARD HAS BEEN LOOKING
FOR OCEANFRONT PROPERTY FOR THREE YEARS AND WHEN MR. BLOIS AND
MR. COLLARD CAME BEFORE THE BOARD WITH THIS OFFER, THEY DID US A
GREAT SERVICE. THE POSITION WE ARE IN NOW IS THAT WE HAVE BEEN
PREVAILED UPON BY THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA OF THIS PROPOSED
-24-
Book
t
0
NOV 71973
PARK AND THEY HAVE RAISED OBJECTIONS TO THE COUNTY PURCHASING
THIS LAND TO BE USED AS A PARK.
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE
HEARD.
ARTHUR FRIEND REPRESENTING THE VERO BEACH ASSOCIATION
. ..
APPEARED AND STATED THAT THIS ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN ADVOCATING
BUYING OCEANFRONT PROPERTY, BUT NOT PROPERTY THAT GOES THROUGH
A DEVELOPED AREA.
B. J. FLETCHER, PRESIDENT OF FLORALTON BEACH ASSOCIA-
TION, APPEARED AND STATED THAT FLORALTON BEACH ADJOINS THIS
PROPERTY. MR. FLETCHER OPPOSED THE COUNTY PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY
FOR USE AS A COUNTY PARK AS THIS PROPERTY SPLITS PORPOISE POINT
AND FLORALTON BEACH, MR. FLETCHER RECOMMENDS THE PURCHASE OF THE
PADGETT - SUAREZ PROPERTY AS IT IS LOCATED IN AN UNDEVELOPED AREA.
EARL STEWART. FLORALTON BEACH RESIDENT APPEARED IN
OPPOSITION TO A COUNTY PARK IN THIS AREA.
.JANE INGRAM, FLORALTON BEACH RESIDENT. APPEARED IN
OPPOSITION AND REQUESTED THE BOARD NOT TO PROCEED WITH THIS
PURCHASE.
GEORGE RULE, PORPOISE POINT, APPEARED IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS PURCHASE BEING USED AS A COUNTY PARK.
SAMUEL SACK, FLORALTON BEACH, APPEARED IN OPPOSITION
TO A PARK IN THIS AREA.
.JEROME KRAMER STATED THAT HE WAS NOT OPPOSED TO A PARK
BUT TO THE PROXIMITY OF THE PARK,
WALLACE ROE STATED THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL COMMUNITY,
AND HE WAS OPPOSED TO A PARK IN THIS AREA,
ATTORNEY BURCH ASKED MR. BLOIS IF HE HAD ANY OTHER
OFFERS TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY SINCE THE SPECIAL MEETING OF
NOVEMBER i, 1973.
MR. BLOTS STATED THAT HE HAD DONE NOTHING IN RELIANCE
UPON THE COMMISSIONER'S ACT AT THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1973.
HE HAD TURNED DOWN NO OFFERS OR DONE ANYTHING AT ALL IN RELIANCE.
COMMISSIONER MASSEY SUGGESTED PURCHASING BOTH PIECES OF
PROPERTY.
-25-
Boom 5 f'A
a
a
r AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION, A MOTION WAS MADE BY
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, COM-
MISSIONER MASSEY VOTED IN OPPOSITION, AND THE BOARD STATED THAT
ALTHOUGH THEY FEEL THE PROPERTY OFFERED BY MR. BLOIS IS WORTH
$1,350,000.00, BUT BECAUSE OF THE MANY OBJECTIONS OF PEOPLE WHO OWN
PRESTIGIOUS RESIDENTIAL HOMES THAT WOULD SURROUND THE PROPOSED
PARK, THE BOARD FEELS THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE BEST SUITED
FOR A PARK BUT SHOULD REMAIN AS PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED ON A
RESIDENTIAL BASIS.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED REFERRING
THE PROPERTY OFFERED FOR SALE BY VERO MAR DEVELOPMENT, LTD., TO
THE LAND ACQUISITION COMMITTEE FOR THEIR REVIEW.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE PER-
FORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,800.00 FOR WORK TO BE
COMPLETED AT THE MOORINGS, UNIT FOUR.
- 26 -
NOV 71973 ffa ax 1$;: ear[ 203
n
L
N 0 V 71973
PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That THE MOORINGS DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, a Florida corporation, called the Principal, is held and firmly
bound unto INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a Political subdivision of the State of
Florida, in the sum of Fifty -Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and no/100
Dollars ($55,800.00) for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be
made, it binds itself, its successors and assigns, jointly and severally,
firmly by these presents.
WHEREAS, the Principal has submitted to the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, for approval, a plat of a sub-
division known as THE MOORINGS, UNIT FOUR, as provided by Chapter 177,
Florida Statutes, Chapter 29155, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1953, and the
Subdivision Resolution of Indian River County, Florida, and
WHEREAS, the Principal has elected in lieu of the completion and
installation of all the improvements shown upon the plat or required pur-
suant to the resolution to post this Bond and in lieu of its execution by
a surety company to deposit the foregoing sum in cash with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, and in reliance thereupon said
Board has approved said plat conditioned upon the posting of this Bond, and,
WHEREAS, said Board has agreed that the amount of said Bond and
deposit shall be reduced from time to time as the work required to be per-
formed progresses in such amounts as the County Administrator certifies
represents the estimated value of work performed, based upon the cost figures
set forth on the attached "Estimate of Costs to Develop The Moorings (Unit
Four) for Roads, Drainage, Water Mains, and Sanitary Sewers," prepared for
Beindorf and Associates, Inc., under date of November 6, 1973, in certifi-
cates to be issued by the said County Administrator from time to time that
parts of said work have been performed in accordance with the requirements
of the Subdivision Resolution, and,
WHEREAS, said Board has agreed that upon the issuance of any such
certificate, the Clerk shall return to Principal such portion of said deposit
as equals the amount certified therein.
eoo�c 18 rac[.04
8
0
u
NOW THEREFORE, the condition of this obligation is such, that if
the Principal shall construct all streets, alleys, rights of ways, fill,
culverts, drainage facilities, water mains, and sanitary sewers, and all of
the improvements shown upon said plat or required by the Subdivision Resolu-
tion of Indian River County, Florida, in the manner there required within
one year after the approval of the final plat on August 8, 1973, and in the
event they are not so completed within that time the County shall proceed
with the work and hold the Principal responsible for the cost thereof or
when the County Administrator certifies to the Clerk that all of the improve-
4
meats have been constructed on the land the balance of the cash deposit shall
be returned by the Clerk to the Principal, then and in that event this Bond
and obligation created herein shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in
i
full force and effect.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DATED this 6th day of November, 1973
(Corp. Seal)
RECEIPT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt from The Moorings
Development Company of cash in the sum of Fifty -Five Thousand, Eight Hundred
and no/100 Dollars ($55,800.00) to be held and paid out in accordance with
the terms of the foregoing Bond.
This 4 l"` day of 1973
RALPH HARRIS, Clerk of the Circuit Court
in and for Indian River County, Florida
CLERK
BOOK 8 vkGE205
.1
f
- sb
A
REVISED ESTIMATE OF COSTS TO COMPLETE
THE MOORINGS UNIT FOUR
FOR ROADS, DRAINAGE, WATER, AND SANITARY SEWERS
I, James L. Beindorf, of Beindorf and Associates, Inc., an Engineer in good
standing with the Florida State Board of Engineer Examiners, do hereby certify
that the work required to be performed in accordance with the attached
Performance Bond of The Moorings Development Company, as Principal, given to
Indian River County, a -political subdivision of the State of Florida, to
complete all of the improvements required by that County which has not been
completed, which said items are:
1. Soil cement base and asphalt surface
for public streets $24,500.00
2. Catch basins and storm sewers 1,950.00
3. Concrete curbing for public streets 14,500.00
4. Grading 900.00
5. Water main and services 3,000.00
6. Sanitary sewers 6,400.00
$51,250.00
p
t
t
This 6th day of November, 1973.
BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By -
James L. Beindorf
NOV 7`1973 40
a�
r
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE
FOLLOWING ANNEXES THAT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA AND INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY,.FLORIDA DATED JANUARY 11, 1973, AND AUTHORIZED THE
SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN.
30 -
NOV 71973 Boos : ?Ac -E"7
Lu
n
0
NOV: 7 1973
ANNEX I
t
This ANNEX is appended to and made a part of that particular AGREEMENT
between the City of Vero Beach, Florida and Indian River County, Florida
dated the 11th day of January, 1973 hereinafter called "THE AGREEMENT".
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Article 10, Page 8 of THE AGREEMENT provides for one or more
annexes to be appended thereto; and
WHEREAS, the County has caused to be prepared a report entitled "Master
Plan for Area Wide Water and Sewerage Plan" prepared by Sverdrup & Parcel
and Associates, Inc. and Beindorf and Associates Inc. dated April, 1973,
hereinafter referred to as "The County Master Plan"; and
WHEREAS, the County has entered into a separate agreement with the Town of
Indian River Shores, dated the 25th day of October, 1973 which includes the
Town in the County's sewage service area;
Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth herein-
after, the parties do agree to modify, expand or spell out in detail the
terms and conditions of THE AGREEMENT in the follm7ing particulars and no
others:
1. CLARIFICATION OF SERVICE AREA DELINEATIONS
By mutual consent, the City and County agree to clarify specific
service area delineations and the responsibilities of each
party to provide the service described herein. Article 2, page
2 of the AGREEMENT establishes the City's responsibility for
providing water supply and sewage treatment service to Region II.
The Following describes the areas of responsibility to provide
water distribution and sewage collection service and to retail
these services to customers within the area defined:
ON THE MAINLAND PORTION OF THE COUNTY
The City shall provide water distribution service and sewage
collection service to the area within the City Limits of Vero
Beach. The City may continue to serve those customers connected
BOX M
to the City systems as of date of this Annex, until the County
r
Is capable of and authorized to take over such service. The
'
County may provide sewage collection service and water distribu-
tion service to the mainland outside the City subject to
paragraph 5, Page 4 of the AGREEMENT, as it relates to City
owned water distribution facilities.
ON THE BEACH PORTION OF THE COUNTY
The City shall provide water distribution service and sewage
collection service to the area within the City Limits of Vero
Beach.
In addition, the City shall provide water supply and distribution_
service to the Town of Indian River Shores in accordance with
the.Contract between the Town and the City for such water supply
and distribution dated the 18th day of December, 1968, and may
also provide water supply and distribution service to that area
between the South City Limits of the Town of Indian River Shores
and±North City Limits of the City of Vero Beach.
i
In Wition, the City may also provide water supply and distribution
,
ser{ice in the area bounded by the South City Limits and the
s ii4
South County Line.
I �he conditions set forth in Article 5, page .4 of the AGREE-
.
MNT.can be complied with, the City shall sell to the County,
� i
at the County's option, all of its water facilities located in
thetCounty except those facilities located in the Beach Area _
South of the North boundary of the Town of Indian River Shores,
andlftrth of the North City Limits of the City of Vero Beach
Ad those facilities within the City of Vero Beach, provided that
thelCounty
has constructed and has in operation sewage service
14
fhose areas.where the County wishes to purchase the City's
w't6r
facilities.
-
TPe
County may provide sewage collection service to the remaining
beach
portion of the County, excluding the Town of Indian River
SFioies.
Sewagv service for the Town of Indian River Shores shall
'
W provided in accordance with the Agreement between the Town and
thetCount-y dated the 25th day of October, 1973.
� k
t
-2-
2-NOV
NOV 1973
Book 1$ PAGE.20.9
I
NOV 71973
N
f 2. AMENDING ARTICLE 7, PAGE 5 OF T11E AGREEhfENTT "PHASING OUT OF
EXISTING PLANTS OWNED OR OPERATED BY OTIRRS"
Delete the second paragraph -of Article 7, page 5.
Add the following:
The City agrees to provide sewerage service now furnished by
the following existing plants:
A -1-A and Seagull Lane (Caprino's Restaurant)
Pelican Lane and Ocean Drive (Benton)
Lot 7, Block 14, -Ocean Corporation (Gisela Rotter)
Lots 4 and 5, Block 14, Ocean Corporation (Fred Eisler)
on or before twenty-four (24) months after its 4.5 MGD sewage
treatment plant is accepted for service.
The County agrees to phase out all sewage treatment plants
located in the Phase I area of Region II as listed in Section 5
of the Master Plan within twenty-four (24) months after County
facilities are available to convey sewage to the City's plant.
3. AMENDING ARTICLE 9 PAGE 6 OF THE AGREEMENT
"RATES AND CHARGES"
Under "A. Bulk Water. Sales on Page 7 after "C". Capital
Invested under the Capital Improvement Program of 1972",
add the following:
A. Any Capital invested by the City to maintain, increase
or improve water supply at the treatment plant or well
fields, during the life of this Contract.
After "C. Advance Payments" on Page 8, add the following:
0
D. CITY ACCOUNT NUMBERS
City account numbers used in this article were taken from
the 1972 audit report. The proper account numbers shall
prevail in order•to reflect full and proper costs in the
event of bookkeeping changes of account numbers. The County
shall be entitled to review the City's accounts used herein
on an annual basis. In the event of disagreement as to
costs the'City shall appoint one arbitrator and the County
one arbitrator and the two arbitrators selected shall appoint
a third arbitrator and the three arbitrators shall determine
-3-
NOT
3-
BOOK �O` Pd6E>�+;L
e
0
N OV .7 1973
the costs and their decision shall be binding on both
parties.
4. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
The City will be ready to serve the County within ninety days
after initial operation and acceptance tests of the respective
water treatment plant and sewage treatment plant. The County
will be kept informed of progress so that their project may be
coordinated with plant progress. -
5. PLANT CAPACITIES RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY
Water Treatment Plant - Capacity allocated to the County shall be:
a. After completion of the plant expansion to 7.2 MGD
capacity, the County shall be allocated up to 864,000 gpd at a maxi
mum flow rate of 600 gpm at 5 psi or more pressure.
b. After completion of the plant capacity to 9.0 MGD
capacity, 1,300,000 gpd at a maximum flow rate of 900 gpm at 5 psi
or more pressure.
Sewage Treatment Plant - Capacity allocated to the County shall
be a monthly daily average of 1.39 million. gallons per day as
estimated by the County's consulting engineers to be the County's
1980 requirement. In no event shall any one day's flow exceed
1.58 MGD nor shall the peak flow exceed 2,500 GPM in any fifteen
minute period. The City reserves the right to order the'County
to correct causes of excessive flows including a moratorium on
o
further connections to its system if the allocated capacity is
equaled or exceeded. To protect the treatment plant, the City
shall have the right to restrict inflow from the County system
into the treatment plant to the above stated flows.
6. STANDARDS OF ACCEPTABILITY
The County recognizes that the treatment plant's effluent quality
must comply with --the rules and regulations of the Florida Depart-
ment of Pollution Control, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies. .The County
-4-
9
e
0
N OV .7 1973
the costs and their decision shall be binding on both
parties.
4. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
The City will be ready to serve the County within ninety days
after initial operation and acceptance tests of the respective
water treatment plant and sewage treatment plant. The County
will be kept informed of progress so that their project may be
coordinated with plant progress. -
5. PLANT CAPACITIES RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY
Water Treatment Plant - Capacity allocated to the County shall be:
a. After completion of the plant expansion to 7.2 MGD
capacity, the County shall be allocated up to 864,000 gpd at a maxi
mum flow rate of 600 gpm at 5 psi or more pressure.
b. After completion of the plant capacity to 9.0 MGD
capacity, 1,300,000 gpd at a maximum flow rate of 900 gpm at 5 psi
or more pressure.
Sewage Treatment Plant - Capacity allocated to the County shall
be a monthly daily average of 1.39 million. gallons per day as
estimated by the County's consulting engineers to be the County's
1980 requirement. In no event shall any one day's flow exceed
1.58 MGD nor shall the peak flow exceed 2,500 GPM in any fifteen
minute period. The City reserves the right to order the'County
to correct causes of excessive flows including a moratorium on
o
further connections to its system if the allocated capacity is
equaled or exceeded. To protect the treatment plant, the City
shall have the right to restrict inflow from the County system
into the treatment plant to the above stated flows.
6. STANDARDS OF ACCEPTABILITY
The County recognizes that the treatment plant's effluent quality
must comply with --the rules and regulations of the Florida Depart-
ment of Pollution Control, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies. .The County
-4-
�09
3
also recognizes that certain substances and/or concentrations
f thereof in the raw sewage can result in a treatment plant effluent
quality not in compliance with the requirements of the regulatory
agencies.
The County therefore agrees to control the quality of the wastes
discharged into their system and agrees that the sewage it delivers
to the treatment plant will comply with the Standards of Accepta-
bility.
*Attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, Annex II
-establishes the Standards of Acceptability of sewage into the
Ci.ty's plant. Modifications of the standards may be made by the
City.from time to time hereafter but such modification shall not
be discriminatory and the County shall'be given due notice before
adopting modifications hereto. Failure to comply with these
STANDARDS OF ACCEPTABILITY shall be a breach of this Agreement
i
and cause.for monetary reimbursement to the City by virtue of
unusual expenses incurred by improper discharges into the City's
t
treatment plant.
7. METERING AND BILLING
The. AGREEMENT provides for Master Meters for water and sewer service
f
to be installed a the County's expense. The meters shall be read
by the City and billing shall comply with the billing practices of
the City. Formulal for water and sewer rates are included in the
AGREEMENT and bill ng shall be in accordance therewith. The County
shall make monthly, -
payments within ten days after date of billing
from -the City. Un a�d bills shall become delinquent fifteen days
-after date of bill ng and 72% interest shall be charged for Jelin-
_ i
quent bills until laid. If any bill, water or sewer, remains unpaid
beyond sixty days, the City may discontinue water service.
- .Periodic meter.che k4.shall be made as set.forth in the AGREEMENT.
Meter accuracy of 51%1+ shall be allowable and no billing adjust-
+ ments will be made f6r inaccuracies within this range. If meter
�error•is greater J.11 5% + billing adjustments shall,not be ~
retroactive for mo a?than ninety days prior to the meter calibration.
y -5-
N 0 V 71973 eoax 18 PA9.212
6
a
8. MUTUAL ASSISTANCE
The City and County agree to supply each other with maps, plans
and specifications and such engineering assistance as may be
mutually agreed upon, it being the intent hereof that while the
City and County shall each have sole jurisdiction over their
respective facilities, the parties shall work in close cooperation
with each other in an attempt to reduce costs and provide the
best possible,service for the entire region without imposing
extra expense on the City or its inhabitants.
9. COUNTY PROHIBITED FROM TAXING CITY RESIDENTS
The County agrees that all funds used by the County for the payment
of its share of the cost of constructing and operating the City
Plant as well as the cost of construction, operation and mainten-
ance of its system, pursuant to this Agreement, shall be derived
from sources other than taxes levied on objects of taxation located
within the City of Vero Beach. This provision, however, shall
not preclude the use of revenues derived from the operation of the
County Water Distribution and Sewage Collection System or other
revenues derived from customers of the County who are physically
located outside the boundaries of the City for such payments.
10. COUNTY'S RIGHTS CONDITIONED ON THEIR PERFORMANCE
The, right of the County to the continued use of the City Plants is
conditioned upon the performance by the County of all its obliga-
tions under the AGREEMENT.
11. FUTURE PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
The parties recognize that additional plant improvements to the
City Plants may be required from time to time, upon a determination
by agencies of the State or Federal Governments having jurisdiction,
that excessive flows or loads are detrimental to efficient and
proper operation of the plant or that improvements are essential to
comply with environmental requirements imposed by said agencies. In
�T -6—
NOVooK ��sE .13
V 7 1973
0
a
.a
1V0V 7.1973
such event, the parties mutually agree to share the cost of such ,
r
improvements based upon Paragraph 8B of Page 5 of the AGREEMENT.
12. SEVERABILITY
It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto
that if any condition or provision contained in the AGREEMENT is
held to be invalid -by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity of any other such condition
or provision herein contained; provided, however, that the invalidity
of any such condition or provision does not materially prejudice
either the City or the County in its respective rights and obli-
gations contained in the remaining valid conditions or provisions
of this AGREEMENT.
13., FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE
No party to this Agreement shall be liable to the other for failure,.
default, or delay in performing any of its obligations hereunder,
other than for the payment of any obligations specified herein, in
case such failure, default or delay is caused by strikes or other
labor problems, by forces of nature, unavoidable accidents, fire,
acts of the public enemy, interference by civil authorities, passage
of laws, or of the Court, adoption of rules, ordinances, acts, failures
to act, decisions or orders or regulations of any governmental or
military body or agency, office or commission, delays in receipt of
materials, or any other cause, whether of similar or dissimilar nature,
a
not within the control of the party affected and which, by the
exercise of due diligence, such party is unable to prevent or over-
come. Should any of the foregoing occur, the parties hereto agree
to proceed with diligence to do what is reasonable and necessary
so that each party may perform its obligations under this Agreement.
IDEMNIFICATION
The parties reciprocally agree to indemnify each other and their
employees and agents from all loss, expenses, damages, costs and
attorney's -fees that either may suffer during the period of the
-7-
TOOK
0
Agreement, incurred due to the malfeasance, misfeasance, non-
feasance or negligence of the other party, its employees or
agents.
14. WAIVER
A failure to initiate action as to any breach shall not be deemed
as a waiver of that right of action and all such uninitiated rights
of action shall be cumulative.
15'. APPROVAL OF STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
The State of Florida Department of Pollution Control and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, by appropriate statutory
power, have jurisdiction over those portions of the AGREEMENT and
this ANNEX of the AGREEMENT, pertaining to service area delineations
for sewage treatment service and phasing out of existing or temporary
sewage treatment plants. If the covenants expressed herein are.
inconsistent with these policies or rulings the parties hereto.agree
to reconcile differences and through additional Annexes, arrive at
mutually agreeable terms which will meet the requirements of said
regulatory agencies.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized officials of the City of Vero
Beach, Florida, and the County of Indian River, have executed this Agreement
this__6L� day of �..�/,��, �, t®_ , 1973.
Attest:
L
UA.e
C9z.e A
City Clerk
Approvedas to form:
ori"
ty Attorney — City
of o Beach
—8—
CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
ayo
N 0 V 1973BOOK : na 215.
' a
. u
M r;
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:
Chairman - County Comudssioners
Clerk
Approved as to form: f
I 2A,,0
r
County Attorney IQIndian River County
-- I
o a rr
o a
-
o
n
a
DDOK 18 iv[217
ANNEX II
STANDARDS OF ACCEPTABILITY
A. Constituent Limitation
The
wastewater delivered to the treatment plant shall have
the
following constituent limitations:
1.
Five Day BOD- shall not exceed 500 mg/1 based
'
on a sixteen hour composite sample and 300 mg/1
based on the average of eight consecutive sixteen
hour composite samples with not more than two
samples taken in any one week.
2.
Suspended Solids - shall not exceed 500 mg/1 based
on a sixteen hour composite sample and 300 mg/1
a•
based on the average of eight consecutive sixteen
hour composite samples with -not more than two
samples taken in any one week.
3.
Temperature - not to exceed 95°F. at any time.
4.
pH - not to be lower than 6.0 or higher than 8.5
at any time.
5.
Radioactive Substances, Gross Beta Activity (in
.;
known absence of strontium --90 and alpha emitters),
nott6 exceed one thousand micromicrocuries at any
time.
:t
6.
i
Cyanide or Cyanates - none detectable.
7.
_ Copper - shall not exceed 0.5 mg/1.
8.
zinc shall not exceed 1.0 mg/1.
r
DDOK 18 iv[217
6
.s
M
r 9• Chromium - shall not exceed 0.50 mg/1 hexavalent
or 1.0 mg/1 total chromium.
10. Phenolic type compounds calculated or reported as
phenol --shall not exceed 0.001 mg/1.
11. Lead - shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1.
12. Iron - shall not exceed 0.30 mg/1.
13. Arsenic = shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1.
14. Chlorides - shall not exceed 600 mg/1.
15• Sand - shall not exceed 0.01 mg/1 at any time.
B. Prohibited Discharges
The following discharges into any collection system
shall be prohibited:
I. Any industrial waster that exceeds the requirements
of -Paragraph A or as defined by the Environmental
Protection Agency, without written approval of the
City's Director of Utilities.
g
2. Storm water, yard drains, roof drains or catch basins.
3. The discharge of coolant water of air conditioning
unit.
i t
4. Machinery and motor vehicle lubricants.
n�
5. Gasoiine, benzene, naptha, mineral spirits or other
flammable or explosive liquid, solid or gas.
1
6. Any, ashes, sand, mud, metal, glass, rags or any solid
or viscous substance capable of causing obstruction
to the flow in sewers or interference with the proper
f
operation.of the treatment plant.
.. k
- -11-
NOV 7197 Box 218
C. Collection System Infiltration
r
Infiltration in the County Collection System shall be
limited to an amount so that the average per capita
discharge into the plant on any one day shall not ex-
ceed 150 gallons. For purposes of obtaining per capita
flow, the five day BOD per capita is defined as 0.17
pounds per day.
t
NOV 71973
City of Vera Beach
1033 - 201h PLACE
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32960
Td*haw 367 5131
"Councilman Gregg moved that the Council approve
execution of the Agreement as presented to the
City Council at its Regular Meeting of November
6, 1973, -providing for a joitt cooperative program
for supplying treatment of sewage and furnishing
of water by the City of Vero Beach to the County 1
of Indian River, and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute the same. Seconded by Councilman
Carlseh, the motion was unanimously approved."
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING
IS A TRUE EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR.
MEETING OF CITY COUNaZL OF NOVEMBER 6, 1973.
City Clerk
November 6 1973
"City of Beautiful Beacha"
. BOOK r`AGEV
J
0
t THE ATTORNEY DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD THE SETTING
UP OF A TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT DUKE
KIMBROUGH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS EXPRESSED A
WILLINGNESS TO MEET TO ADVISE US AND HELP SET GUIDELINES FOR A
TRANSIT AUTHORITY.
'THE BOARD ADVISED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO SET UP THIS
MEETING.
THE REPORTS FROM THE COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND
COUNTY COURT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1973, WERE RECEIVED
AND PLACED ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1973 FROM THE INDIAN RIVER MOSQUITO CONTROL
DISTRICT WAS RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN, THE STATE WITNESS PAYROLL FOR COUNTY
COURT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $180.12 OCTOBER TERM, 1973; COUNTY
COURT OCT01£R TERM 1973, 195.74; COUNTY COURT OCTOBER TERM, 1973,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $181.82; COUNTY COURT, OCTOBER TERM, 1973, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $145.40; COUNTY COURT, OCTOBER TERM, 1973, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $159.72; COUNTY COURT, OCTOBER TERM, 1973, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $190.40; THE STATE WITNESS PAYROLL FOR CIRCUIT COURT
FALL TERM, 1973 IN THE AMOUNT OF $55.00, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION
FOR MYRON J. MADSEN, ,JR. FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A FIREARM.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION
FOR IVAN E. GOODMAN FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A FIREARM.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE
APPLICATION FOR FRANCIS DANCY, FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A FIREARM,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE APPLICATIONS
FOR RUFUS TILLIS, CARL L. GODDARD FOR RENEWAL PERMITS TO CARRY
FIREARMS.
- 44 -
.
"I
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN, SECONDED BY
. 1
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RETRO—ACTIVE
REQUEST FOR OUT—OF-COUNTY TRAVEL BY GLADYS VIGLIANO, DIRECTOR,
COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT TO WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA ON NOVEMBER
7, 1973.
ROY KIRKLAND, COUNTY FINANCE OFFICER REQUESTED THE
BOARD'S APPROVAL TO PUT ALL EMPLOYEES PAID BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON A BI—WEEKLY. PAYROLL. AT THIS TIME
THERE ARE SO EMPLOYEES PAID BI—WEEKLY'; AND 20EMPLOYEES PAID
MONTHLY. THE BOARD HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO PAYING ALL EMPLOYEES
BIWEEKLY, EFFECTIVE .JANUARY 3,'1974.
THE FOLLOWING PROOF OF PUBLICATION REGARDING
REVENUE SHARING FUNDS, IS HEREBY BEING MADE A PART OF THESE
MINUTES.
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undorsigned authority personaify appeared J. 1. Schumann, Jr. who on wth
says that he is Business Manager of tha Yero Beach Praxs-lournai, a weekly n.Z. r published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
the matter of
_...---In the . Court was pub.
fished In said newspaper In the issues of
.._.._.____tom.
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been cenHnuously published In said Indian River County, Flarida, weekly and has been entered
as sacond class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached espy of adver.
tisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation Any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _.. / �_ day,of..l...C�.C'r✓-_. A.D.. !_N_
Managed
(SEAL) (Clerk of the qecuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
i
s
t
1•nwt r:::
.;.vtVVi4i. AVC M1,w
' W45..+AViDA.a�]6136
ruAe `0 uVFAD a. aiv&1W SnAAn3 Aa{prrrq]
wHTai Cr.:34HVi rfA4D
610.]hDA
rn3
-iiaraefk=C " w :w
0 6 J414 .e, 1974
xJAvoa aisruKn,As. _�.jwmaer (
m me wumrow w..+as wsm wawa A]
- tsraum roru or e:b3, 5o3
'y aHgU Olai acntw,e I "eoa— I
V v,ax sy
ACeDWr nl
I •n n.,.+.. s•,..y r„b. ,w .a,a t,» u,;
J.1 on
It&mv/ n'[Vi:R CGtY:iy
_
.aw. aow.
�'•'0ec`er.aor.niuua"a I
rd•:nh ve?;'[.�hTY
yERJ EF+n'tl
J—mw �traar.wuuw
J aAno..rw.rn �wurmnwuvw
F4uF2pli 3�Je'e
:�. awwn iu nD �roommmr»wacrHa
t a! WL DIIYaia
W
— 45 -
rr 00 IS ?AGt?22
%t
%
's a
b'
%
14 NS!
%
.mow .,e o*«.w•»wm. ..e «,..ew .. r .....,x. -.'„�
%
4
_...._....�s_...�-_.
Press :ournal
��7; -_
At Lee Luy, Chai n.�;aan
•9oar41cf
,
County
Cof wy.. Or TR. rRHASJ]r
��•�
Nowa:t11✓!tl'pr
1. 197, _
— 45 -
rr 00 IS ?AGt?22
0
.
THE FOLLOWING "ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
AND REHEARING", RECEIVED FROM ATTORNEY BURCH IS HEREBY BEING
MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN R.L: THE MATTER OF:
VEROMAR DEVELOP'NIENT LTD., a
limited partnership; Application for
Zoning Change Permit
from R1 Single Family District
to R2 Multiple Family District,
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND REHEARING
COMES NOW the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, through its undersigned attorney and answers the Petition of
Veromar Development Ltd. as follows:
1. The Petition for Rehearing is denied.
2. Attached hereto and made a part of this Answer are the
reasons stated by the Board for denying the application as
shown in the official minutes of the Board's meetings.
(2.o-vc�
Paul Burch
Indian River County Attorney
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Answer to Petition for Clarification and Rehearing was furnished to JOSEPH C.
JACOBS, Attorney for Veromar Development Lttd. , Ervin, Varn, Jacobs & Odom,
305 South Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32302, by mail this day of
Wpdy- , 1973. .
Paul D. Burch
Indian River County Attorney
THE FOLLOWING FIFTEEN PAGES ARE 9XCERPTS TAKEN FROM THE COUNTY
COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19TH AND OCTOBER 30TH, 1973.
f
- 46 -
NOV 71973 s
BOARD WITH A DENIAL FROM THE ZONING COMMISSION.
MR, KRAMER STATED THAT THIS PROJECT QUALIFIES
AS A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AS STATED UNDER FLORIDA
STATUTE 380, AND HE QUESTIONED'WHETHER THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS
APPLIED FOR REGIONAL IMPACT -APPROVAL,
.TAMES BEINDORF, ENGINEER, STATED THAT THERE
ARE NEW REQUIREMENTS FROM THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
~ AND VERO MAR SHORES DEVELOPMENT HAS APPLIED FOR REGIONAL IMPACT
APPROVAL AND COMPLIED WITH THE NEW REQUIREMENTS.
MR. KRAMER ASKED THAT THE PETITIONS FILED WITH THE.
ZONING CO.,MMISSI014 REQUESTING THAT THE ZONING OF VERO MAR SHORES
DEVELOPMENT P%ND .BONNIE DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT ,(A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
JUST SOUTH OF VERO MAR SHORES DEVELOPMENT) REMAIN IN SINGLE FAMILY
ZONING BE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THAT THE,
PETITIONS FILED IN THE ZONING DEPARTMENT OFFICE REGARDING THE
(r 41.'Hl STpfOM
e~
EARL PADGETT AND GERMAN SUAREZ, DEVELOPERS OF -
-
,VERO MAR SHORES, APPEARED AND MR. PADGETT MADE THE PRE—
SENTATION OF THIS PROJECT TO THE BOARD.
THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CITY
'
LINE AND NORTH OF THE MOORINGS. IT EXTENDS EAST TO THE OCEAN
AND WEST TO THE RIVER: INVOLVES APPROXIMATELY ISO ACRESP-1800
'.
UNITS; AND WILL HAVE AN OVERALL DENSITY OF MORE THAN D UNITS
PER ACRE, BUT LESS THAN 10 UNITS PER ACRE, -
MR. PADGETT STATED THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
BORDERING ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THIS PROPERTY HAS PRESENTED
AN AFFIDAVIT STATING HE IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THIS
PROPERTY OR THE PROJECT,
MR. PADGETT STATED THAT THERE IS AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY
150 FEET OF OCEANFRONT LAND THAT WILL BE DONATED TO THE COUNTY AS.
A PUBLIC PARK,
MR. PADGETT FURTHER STATED THAT THIS PROJECT WILL BE
IN THE PLANNING STAGE FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO TO THREE YEARS AND
WILL TAKE EIGHT TO TEN TEARS TO COMPLETE.
- THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO SPEAK
AND JEROME KRAMER, 985 REEF ROAD, REPRESENTING THE VERO BEACH
ASSOCIATION APPEARED STATING THAT THIS PROJECT COMES BEFORE THIS
BOARD WITH A DENIAL FROM THE ZONING COMMISSION.
MR, KRAMER STATED THAT THIS PROJECT QUALIFIES
AS A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AS STATED UNDER FLORIDA
STATUTE 380, AND HE QUESTIONED'WHETHER THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS
APPLIED FOR REGIONAL IMPACT -APPROVAL,
.TAMES BEINDORF, ENGINEER, STATED THAT THERE
ARE NEW REQUIREMENTS FROM THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
~ AND VERO MAR SHORES DEVELOPMENT HAS APPLIED FOR REGIONAL IMPACT
APPROVAL AND COMPLIED WITH THE NEW REQUIREMENTS.
MR. KRAMER ASKED THAT THE PETITIONS FILED WITH THE.
ZONING CO.,MMISSI014 REQUESTING THAT THE ZONING OF VERO MAR SHORES
DEVELOPMENT P%ND .BONNIE DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT ,(A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
JUST SOUTH OF VERO MAR SHORES DEVELOPMENT) REMAIN IN SINGLE FAMILY
ZONING BE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THAT THE,
PETITIONS FILED IN THE ZONING DEPARTMENT OFFICE REGARDING THE
(r 41.'Hl STpfOM
- 11 -
NOV 71973
• aeon 48 2 5
MR. KRAMER STATED THAT THE COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS
PRESENT AT THIS MEETING ARE COMMENTS REGARDING THE REZONING
FOR THE VERO MAR SHORES DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO THE BONNIE
DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE NEXT SCHEDULED PUBLIC
HEARING TODAY AND THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF THE
VERO MAR SHORES DEVEL9PMENT.
•
MR. KRAMER FURTHER STATED THAT NO REZONING SHOULD
TAKE PLACE UNTIL THE MASTER PLAN IS ADOPTED.
JACK STURGIS, APPEARED AND INFORMED THE BOARD
THAT HIS FAMILY HAVE OWNED PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS
PROJECT AND APPROVED OF'THIS PLAN AND THE REZONING OF THIS
PROPERTY.
LLOYD BERNEGGER, REPRESENTING THE VERO BEACH
ASSOCIATION APPEARED AND PRESENTED.A SURVEY REGARDING REZONING.
MR. BERNEGGER STATED THAT THE VERO' BEACH ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR
OF GROWTH, BUT IT MUST BE CONTROLLED GROWTH. HE ALSO STATED
THAT THE SERVICE FACILITIES AT THIS TIME CAN NOT HANDLE THE
AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THIS PROJECT WOULD BRING TO THE BEACH AREA,
HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD BE ADOPTED BEFORE
ANY ZONING CHANGES ARE MADE.
i
VALERIE MCINTOSH APPEARED IN SUPPORT OF THE REZONING
- -
OF THIS PROPERTY.
JANE ROBINSON APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING
OF THIS PROPERTY.
ALBERTA BIRCH APPEARED IN SUPPORT OF THIS REZONING
AND THIS PROJECT.
NINA HAYNES APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING
AND QUESTIONED MR. PADGETT REGARDING A MOTEL BEING INCLUDED IN
THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. MR. PADGETT ANSWERED
THAT THERE ARE PLA IUS TO BUILD A CLUB HOUSE ON THIS PROPEP.TY WHICH
WOULD BE THE FOCAL POINT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THIS CLUB HOUSE
WOULD ALSO HAVE ROOMS AS AN ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS AND THEIR
GUESTS.
- 11 -
NOV 71973
• aeon 48 2 5
NOV
71973
y s
' t � .. �'� •rt Sir .. .
BILL ADERSON, AZAELA LANE, APPEARED IN OP-
POSITION TO THE RE ONING.
WALTER NIELSON• REPRESENTING RIVERSIDE GARDENS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INFORMED THE BOARD OF THE TYPE OF
WORK MR. PADGETT HAS DONE AND C:•TEB RIVERSIDE GARDENS AS AN
EXAMPLE. ...... _ .
THOMAS P. VALENZO, REPRESENTING VERO ISLE ASSOCIATION
APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING AND IN FAVOR OF A
MORATORIUM ON SPOT ZONING.
EDWARD W. SCHMORR, INDIAN RIVER DRIVE APPEARED IN
OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SERVICE
FACILITIES, NAMELY THE*BRIDGE. _
BOBBYE KENDRICK, 1936 SURFSIDE TERRACE APPEARED
IN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY,
PAUL REDSTONE APPEARED IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT
AND THE REZONING.
HEPBURN WALKER, ST.'CHRISTOPHER BEACH APPEARED
AND AGAIN QUESTIONED PSR. PADGETT ON THE MEANING OF A CLUB
MOUSE FACILITY.
MR. PADGETT !AGAIN EXPLAINED THAT THE CLUB HOUSE WOULD
BE AN ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS AND THEIR GUESTS,
DON WILCOX, DEVELOPER OF THE JONNIE DAHLSTROM
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING TODAY APPEARED AND
STATED THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO WANT CONDOMINIUM LIVING
AND IT IS VERY POPULAR. SWIMMING POOLS, GOLF COURSE TENNIS
COURTS, SECURITY (PEOPLE CAN MOVE AROUND), ARE LUXURIES OF
CONDOMINIUM LIVING AND MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE IN A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE.
HARRY WALKER, REEF ROAD REQUESTED THE BOARD TO
DENY THIS REQUEST,AND ANY OTHER REQUESTS FOR REZONING IN THE
SOUTH BEACH AREA.
- 12
DR, HERBERT KALE, PRESIDENT OF.THE PELICAN. ISLAND
° AUDUBON SOCIETY APPEARED AND REQUESTED THAT THE STATEMENT FROM
THE PELICAN ISLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY BE MADE A PART OF THESE
MINUTES,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT.'SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED MAKING
THE STATEMENT FROM THE PELICAN ISLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY A
PART OF THESE MINUTES,
PELICAN ISLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY
P. O. Box 1833
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 _
t't W. W. Siebert
Ind3,an River County Cc=-, sioner
STATETC-NT of Pelican Island Audubon Society concerning requests
for rezoning of the south beach area presented at public hearings
before the Indian i3lver County Zoning Commission, September 6, 1973
.. and the Indian River County Commissioners, September 19, 1973.
k The following statement outlines the position'of the Society
a on the proposed rezoning requests on the barrier island south of
Vero Beach, in accordance with policy approved by the Board of
Directors.
We have stated in the past that'we wish to see the present
character of the barrier island in Vero Beach and Indian ;liver
County be maintained--i.e., primarily residential and low density.
Rezoning of the land to a classificiation that will greatly contri—
bute to an actual alteration of this present character is not
consistent with the airs of many organizations and people in this
county --business, governmental, public, private, advisory, and
civic --911 of whom insist that they, too, want to preserve and
protect the present character o -f our area.
Although we agree that the proposed Veromar project may be
well designed and considerate of the surrou-r:ding community, the
fact remains that this project is only the first of many waiting
in the wings for this part of the south beach. Rezoning of this
parcel today will set the pattern for the entire area. And without
drawing any conclusions about whether or not this classification
of .zoning is right or wrong for the future of the south beach
we , must
(frankly, we do not now know the answer to that question),
ask the question "Are we ready for this today?"
Several months ago a member of the zoning commission stated
that he could not voce for the rezoning of the south beach area
until provis:.ons for supportive facilities of water, sewage, and
transportation particularly a second bridge, were available and
in existence. And until that time we can not logically allow the
tremendous growth that will surely follow this rezoning.
The life support systems of the entire south beach area
including construction materials and services, water, food,
police protection, hospital and medical services, garbage and
trash collection, domestic services, and, In the future, sewage
treatment are all based on the mainland. All of these, except
grater, m_jst cross the one and only bridge now in existence.
NOV 71973 eooK 18 {Aai?127
(PIAS Statement on ?ezoning of South Beach) -2-
7
2-
�e•most recent statement from the D.O.T. is that the second
bridge is now scheduled for completion in late 1976 --three years
from now, barring no fu the- delays. We can see no benefits
for the people or the economy of this community from a pell-mell
rush to develop the barrier island south of Vero *Beach before
all the necessary provisions for sustaining the projected
population are provided, or, at the least, are in the process
of being provided. Tris is still true today, as it was several
months ago, and, as a matter of cold reality, as it will be for
the next few years.
We can not help but repeat our question --"Why the big rush?".
If the commission members decide that they can disregard
the lack of a second bridge for the next three years, and the
Inadequacy of other serv_ces and utilities for the projected
p6pulation, and are prepared to materially alter the future
character of the beach area, and, thus, are inclined to grant
this rezoning request, then we respectfully ask you to first
ascertain the major impacts of this particular project, and
related projects currently proposed, or projected in the future
for the south beach area:
For example:. (1)What.are the projected tax revenues to be
received by the county from these projects over the next 5 years?
(2) What are the projected requirements and
costs for the following:
a. Police protection. Will this require hiring of additional
•
sheriff's �'deputies, vehicles, and administrative support?
b. Fire protection. How many additional diremen, vehicles,
etc., will we have to provide?
o. Schools. How many children will live here? How many
additional teachers and classrooms will we need? Buses?
d. Hospitals. How many additional beds will be required?
How many additional ambulance trips engendered? Will this require
enlargement of volunteer ambulance facilities and volunteers?
e. Governmental services. How many additional publicy supported
personnel and services will be required by this population?
f. Transoortation. How many vehicles will be added to the
road system? How many more vehicle:: crossings will be added to the
present traffic on Merrill Barber bridge? When is 4-laning of
A -1-A scheduled in relation to completion of these projects?
g. Service personnel. How many new domestics and other type -
personnel will be required. Where will their families live, and
what will their impact be on city -county services and transporttition
arteries?
h. Environmental imnacts
(1) Sewage treatment-Willfull tertiary treatment be
prouided? If only secondary, can 90-100° treatment be guaranteed?
Where will effluent be dumped? What are present city and county
plans concerning sewage treatment for this area in the future?
(2) Rainfall runoff -Where will runoff from roads, parking
NOV 719 eoolc � t� 42x8
7�
31
•
r is
t
Ue
(PIAS Statement on ?ezoning of South Beach) -2-
7
2-
�e•most recent statement from the D.O.T. is that the second
bridge is now scheduled for completion in late 1976 --three years
from now, barring no fu the- delays. We can see no benefits
for the people or the economy of this community from a pell-mell
rush to develop the barrier island south of Vero *Beach before
all the necessary provisions for sustaining the projected
population are provided, or, at the least, are in the process
of being provided. Tris is still true today, as it was several
months ago, and, as a matter of cold reality, as it will be for
the next few years.
We can not help but repeat our question --"Why the big rush?".
If the commission members decide that they can disregard
the lack of a second bridge for the next three years, and the
Inadequacy of other serv_ces and utilities for the projected
p6pulation, and are prepared to materially alter the future
character of the beach area, and, thus, are inclined to grant
this rezoning request, then we respectfully ask you to first
ascertain the major impacts of this particular project, and
related projects currently proposed, or projected in the future
for the south beach area:
For example:. (1)What.are the projected tax revenues to be
received by the county from these projects over the next 5 years?
(2) What are the projected requirements and
costs for the following:
a. Police protection. Will this require hiring of additional
•
sheriff's �'deputies, vehicles, and administrative support?
b. Fire protection. How many additional diremen, vehicles,
etc., will we have to provide?
o. Schools. How many children will live here? How many
additional teachers and classrooms will we need? Buses?
d. Hospitals. How many additional beds will be required?
How many additional ambulance trips engendered? Will this require
enlargement of volunteer ambulance facilities and volunteers?
e. Governmental services. How many additional publicy supported
personnel and services will be required by this population?
f. Transoortation. How many vehicles will be added to the
road system? How many more vehicle:: crossings will be added to the
present traffic on Merrill Barber bridge? When is 4-laning of
A -1-A scheduled in relation to completion of these projects?
g. Service personnel. How many new domestics and other type -
personnel will be required. Where will their families live, and
what will their impact be on city -county services and transporttition
arteries?
h. Environmental imnacts
(1) Sewage treatment-Willfull tertiary treatment be
prouided? If only secondary, can 90-100° treatment be guaranteed?
Where will effluent be dumped? What are present city and county
plans concerning sewage treatment for this area in the future?
(2) Rainfall runoff -Where will runoff from roads, parking
NOV 719 eoolc � t� 42x8
7�
. a.
-rT
Nt
t
_N
PIAS Statement on Rezoning of
South
Beach Area) -3=
b 11 t d and disposed of? Will
areas, lawns, rooftops, etc., a co ec e
it be treated to remove oil, fertilizers, pesticides, etc., before
boring dumped into the Indian River and the nearby aquatic preserve?
Runnoff from lands housing several thousands of people will be
considerable after each rainfall.
(3) Mangrove and estuary protection, There exists a
well-developed fringe of Red Mangrove along the east bank of the
Indian River. These are extremely valuable trees vital to the
continued well-being of the river and aquatic preserve. What plans
have been made to insure the preservation of these trees and the
nearby shallow water habitat?
We are confident -that the developers and the city -county
planning department with the assistance of various other govern-
mental agencies can arrive at answers to most of these vital
questions. After that we can determine what actions will be
required to insure that we can meet the needs of the area.
The time has come when those in position of responsibility,
and authority --such as zoning commissioners and city or county
commissioners --can no longer determine the future course of a
community by piecemeal, off -the -top -of -the -head zoning and site
plan decisions. We would be foolhardy indeed to make no attempt
to obtain as much information as we need before making these
decision's.
In a rare instance of unanimity the Citizens Advisory Board,
the Chamber of Commerce, the Vero Beach Association, and the Audubon
Society agreed that questions and answers on the impact of projects
and zoning for projects were vital to the planned growth of Indian
River County. We were greatly disappointed to see the capacity
for this type of planning excised out of the requested budget
supplement for the planking department in 1973, but we hope that
the city and county will fund this in 1974. The zoning requests
under consideration certainly point up the dire need for impact
determinations.
We want to make it clear that we are not opaed to develop»ett
of the south beach area. At the moment we really do not know what
would be best for the area. We hear much conflicting opinion
about what multiple family zoning will and will not do. We feel
that the facts and the alternatives of one type of development or
the otter have not been adequately presented to the people of the
area or the county. We feel this can be remedied by thorough
study of the master plan, due.to be presented in a few weeks.
We all need =ore information be, -,Tore we can take the final steps
that are being requested here today --actions that will set in
concrete the direction the south beach area will go in development.
J-
NOV 71973 Book
0
(PIAS Statement on R&zoning of South Boach area) _•-1+
.* F In summary, we make two recommendation for your eonsiderittipw
1. We urge you to consider the desires and feelings of.the
majority of the residents and landowners now residing in Indian
River County. If this means postponement of your rezoning
decision until after the master plan has been discussed and
accepted, then that is the step you sheu ld take.
Z. If you feel you can reasonably disregard these feelings
for what you may justifiably consider a wiser course of action
through immediate rezoning, then we strongly urge you to first a
seek the answers to the questions of economic, environmental,
and social impact of these proposed projects, before we are _
locked into them.
Most of us here today who are participating in these
deliberations have only a brief time left on this earth, yet,
the decisions made today will affect generations yet to come.
We urge restraint. The land will not melt away or blow away
today or tomorrow. Let us obtain all the facts we can, then
set our goals, and then, only lastly, go about the necessary
rezoning to meet these goals, if that is what we decide to
do. ,
Respectfullyiyours4 /
Gregg5W. Smith
Vice -President
1.
VelicanJilbLand Audubon Society
•
NOY 7 197aooK �o.;
Ll
a
ADMIRAL BENJAMIN MOORE, SMUGGLERS COVE, APPEARED
IN OPPOSIITON TO THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY. ADMIRAL MOORE
STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WEST OF AIA IS LOW AND SUSCEPTIBLE
TO FLOODING AND RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE SET ASIDE AS A CONSERVATION
AREA.
BILL ROBINSON, BONITA BEACH, APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO
THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY.
MARY LANE MCMILLAN APPEARED IN OPPOSIITION TO THE
REZONING OF THIS.PROPERTY.
CHAIRMAN LOY READ A TELEGRAM FROM WILLIAM BILL,
603 TULIP LANE, STATING HE WAS AGAINST THE REZONING OF THIS
PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SERVICE FACILITIES.
CHAIRMAN LOY READ A LETTER FROM ALDIS P. BUTLER.
WHICH STATED THAT HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND
SUPPORTED THE ZONING REQUEST,
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE WISHING
TO SPEAK AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING, THERE WERE NONE.
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED VAL BRENNAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FOR HIS RECOMMENDATIONS.
MR. BRENNAN STATED THAT IF THIS AREA WAS DEVELOPED
AS A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THERE WOULD NOT BE AS MUCH OPEN
SPACE AS WITH THIS VERO MAR SHORES DEVELOPMENT. NE STATED
THAT THIS IS A GOOD,TYPE DEVELOPMENT.
MiR. BRENNAN STATED THAT THIS AREA COULD BE REASONABLY
REZONED FOR MULTI—FAMILY DWELLINGS.
MR. PADGET STATED THAT THE REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT—OF—WAY FOR AZA HAS BEEN
AGREED UPON,
,7 _ qq
80011 is
`:ate:, '
~•
.y
-
GRANT WORTMAN. SURFS:LDE ESTATES
APPEARED AND
`
STATED THAT FROM SOUTH OF THE
CITY LIMITS
TO THE COUNTY LINE
SHOULD REMAIN IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.
RICK MOORE APPEARED IN SUPPORT
OF THIS PROJECT AND
THE REZONING.
CLARK DEPUE, SOUTH
AIA, APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO
REZONING.
a
ADMIRAL BENJAMIN MOORE, SMUGGLERS COVE, APPEARED
IN OPPOSIITON TO THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY. ADMIRAL MOORE
STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WEST OF AIA IS LOW AND SUSCEPTIBLE
TO FLOODING AND RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE SET ASIDE AS A CONSERVATION
AREA.
BILL ROBINSON, BONITA BEACH, APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO
THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY.
MARY LANE MCMILLAN APPEARED IN OPPOSIITION TO THE
REZONING OF THIS.PROPERTY.
CHAIRMAN LOY READ A TELEGRAM FROM WILLIAM BILL,
603 TULIP LANE, STATING HE WAS AGAINST THE REZONING OF THIS
PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SERVICE FACILITIES.
CHAIRMAN LOY READ A LETTER FROM ALDIS P. BUTLER.
WHICH STATED THAT HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND
SUPPORTED THE ZONING REQUEST,
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE WISHING
TO SPEAK AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING, THERE WERE NONE.
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED VAL BRENNAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FOR HIS RECOMMENDATIONS.
MR. BRENNAN STATED THAT IF THIS AREA WAS DEVELOPED
AS A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THERE WOULD NOT BE AS MUCH OPEN
SPACE AS WITH THIS VERO MAR SHORES DEVELOPMENT. NE STATED
THAT THIS IS A GOOD,TYPE DEVELOPMENT.
MiR. BRENNAN STATED THAT THIS AREA COULD BE REASONABLY
REZONED FOR MULTI—FAMILY DWELLINGS.
MR. PADGET STATED THAT THE REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT—OF—WAY FOR AZA HAS BEEN
AGREED UPON,
,7 _ qq
80011 is
'4
MR..JENNINGS WAS ASKED TO OUTLINE THE DEPARTMENT.OF
TRANSPORTATION'S PLANS FOR IMPROVING-
MR. JENNINGS
MPROVING-MR..JENNINGS STATED THAT STATE ROAD AIA IS A
PRIMARY ROAD IN THIS COUNTY AND IS ON THE D.O.T. LIST FOR
IMPROVEMENT. THE BOARD IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DEMAND THAT MA
BE IMPROVED: WE CAN ONLY REQUEST THAT IT BE DONE.
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED MR. PADGETT IF HE WOULD CONSIDER
CHANGING THE DENSITY TO S UNITS ON THE WEST AND RIVER SIDE AND
12 UNITS ON THE EAST AND OCEAN SIDE AND AN OVERALL DENSITY OF
$ UNITS PER ACRE.--
MR. PADGETT AGREED TO THIS.
THERE WERE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AND A MOTION WAS MADE BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR REZONING AS ADVERTISED
WITH ONE EXCEPTION: THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THIS PROPERTY FROM
THE OCEAN TO THE RIVER REMAIN IN R-IA, SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. AND
THE OVERALL DENSITY OF THE PROJECT BE SET AT8 UNITS PER ACRE:,
THIS MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
� COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS, THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING AS REQUESTED
BY EARL PADGETT AND GERMAN SUAREZ, BE DENIED.
COMMISSIONER $IEBERT STATED THAT HIS REASONS FOR THE
DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION IS THAT THIS WOULD BE THE INITIAL STEP
FOR MULTI-FAMILY ZONING IN THIS AREA AND HE FEELS THAT THE SOUTH
BEACH AREA SHOULD REMAIN IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONING; SERVICES HAVE
NOT KEPT UP WITH THE GROWTH: AND HE ALSO MENTIONED THE SPIRALING
INFLATION IN LAND VALUES.
COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS STATED THAT HIS REASONS FOR
DENYING THIS REZONING ARE: THE DIRE NEED OF ANOTHER BRIDGE ACROSS
"r THE INDIAN RIVER TO SERVE THIS AREA: THE NEED FOR IMPROVING AD
WITH NO INDICATION WHEN THIS WILL BE COMPLETED: THE IMPACT THAT
THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING ONTO THOSE TWO MEANS OF GETTING TO
! THIS AREA: THE STRONG OPPOSITION BY RESIDENTS LIVING IN THIS
IMMEDIATE VICINITY.
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN S r `
STATED AS HIS REASONS FOR
DENYING THIS REZONING THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THIS DEVELOPMENT
WAS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS PIECE OF LAND: SERVICES
SUCH AS, HOSPITALS AND ROADS AND BRIDGES ARE NOT ADEQUATE AT
THIS TIME, AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THEY WILL BECOME ADEQUATE.
NOV '7193
0
.^Waz , .. ?�„�_..-. � a c,px �,T'YV•p. � .u�pa/�" 5
55
r
THE -CHAIRMAN STATED THAT THERE IS A MOTION AND
A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
- THE MOTION WAS THEN PUT TO A VOTE - COMMISSIONER
MASSEY VOTED IN OPPOSITION] THE BOARD APPROVED THE MOTION -
TO DENY THE REZONING APPLICATION AS REQUESTED BY EARL PADGETT
AND MERMAN SUAREZ.
THE HOUR OF I:30 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE
DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION
ATTACHED, TO WIT:
VERO BEACH PRESS -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, Jr. 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 advertisement, being
In the matter of
in the Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the
issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is•a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, and 'that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
�j'7
Sworn to and subscribed before met is __. A" —)
da A D. 57
F11 - 4 7 'A
(Busine Manager)
(Clerk o0he Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
AU
NOV 71973
- 19 -
14
NOTtcH
NOTtcE Is HEREBY GIVEN that
the Zoning Commission of Indian
River County, Florida, has given
tentative approval to the following
changes and additions to the Zoning
Ordinance of Indian River County,
Florida, which are substantially as
follows:
All of that portion of the North 112
• Government Lots t and 2 In
Section 21; and all that portion
of Government Lot 1, in Section
22, lying East of Government
Lot 1 in Section 21, and North of
a tine where the South line of
.said Lot 1 in Section 21. if
produced Easterly from the SE
eornerofsaid Lot 1 in Section 21.
would intersect the Atlantic
Ocean. all in Township 33 South,
Range 40 East. less and ex-
cepting,however. Mat portion of
said hereinbefore described
? land lying Westerly of State
Road AiA.
be changed from R -IA Single
Family District to R-2 Multiple
Family District.
A Public Hearing in relation
thereto at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an op-
portunity to be heard will be held by
said Zoning Commission in the In-
dian River County Courthouse in
Vero Beach, Florida, on Thursday,
September 6,1971, at 7:30 P.M. and a
Public Hearing in relation thereto
will be held by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River
County. Florida, in the Indian River
County Courthouse. in Vero Beach,
Florida. an Wednesday, September
19. 1973, at 1:30 P.M.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ZONING COMMISSION
By: Ralph Sexton,
Chairman
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By:Alma Lee Loy.
Chairman
August 16. 1971.
881 18 •'i� 4-23
I
I
im
i
v
CHAIRMAN LOY REQUESTED THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
r RELATIVE TO HER REASONS FOR DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING
` OF THE VERO flAR SHORES PROJECT AND THE JONNIE DAHLSTROM ETAL-PROJECT
BE INSERTED AS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 19 AND INSERTED AGAIN
ON PAGE 21 AFTER THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH.
"IN CHECKING THE MINUTES, I REALIZED THAT I APPARENTLY
DID NOT MAKE A STATEMENT RELATIVE TO MY REASONS FOR DENIAL OF THE
PROPOSED REZONING APPLICATIONS THAT WERE BEFORE US ON SEPTEMBER
19, 1973; THE VERO RAR PROJECT AND THE APPLICATION OF JONNIE
DAHLSTROM, ETAL PROJECT.
FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT:
THE PROPOSED CHANGES WERE CONTRARY TO THE ESTABLISHED
LAND USE PATTERN FOR THE AREA AS EVIDENCED BY THE MATERIALS SUB-
MITTED REGARDING THE GRADUAL, ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA
ACCORDING TO EXISTING ZONING REGULATION.
THE PROPOSALS MOULD ALTER THE DENSITY PATTERN WHICH HAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED AND ABIDED BY OVER THE PAST MANY YEARS.
THESE PROPOSALS WOULD CREATE EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
AT A TIME WHEN THIS BOARD IS RECEIVING SYSTEMATIC COMPLAINTS RE-
GARDING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ON A -IP, SOUTH, AND WORKING
DILIGENTLY TO SECURE A MUCH NEEDED SECOND BRIDGE TO SERVE THE.
AREA. THE GENERAL SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS WOULD BEAFFECTED
THESE PROJECTS ARE ACCOMPLISHED,
THE PROPOSALS WOULD BE A STIMULUS TO DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT
PROPERTIES, AT A TIME WHEN UTILITIES AND GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES ARE
NOT AVAILABLE TO HANDLE THE ANTICIPATED I11MEDIATE NEEDS,
THE PROPOSALS WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT PRESENT PROPERTY VALUES
FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNER.
yy THESE ARE MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS BASED ON THE MATERIALS
t. AND INFORMATION AS PRESENTED AND AVAILABLE TO ME."
2 -.
A
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE
,. FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF HIS REASONS FOR DENYING THE VERO MAR SHORES
s PROJECT AND THE JONNIE DAHLSTROM PROJECT BE -INSERTED IN THE MINUTES
ON PAGE 19 AMD PAGE 21:
1. -
SiI�T=.'?+: iT BY W. W. SIr BERT , JR.
REGARDING G DALST3 ,-1.1ILC0X Alm
VERO- :AR REZONING AP?LICATIONS
'It has coxae to my attention that it is necessary
for me to enter in -,o the official records, my reasoning
-for denying; the rezoning applications for the Dalstrom-
Wilcox project and the Vera -Kar project. Arguments in
support and opposition were almost identical in their
presentation; hence, my reasoning for denial was the
same for both projects.
The impact on available and projected governmental
services would have a detrimental effect on the.safety
and welfare of our county.
State Highway A -1-A does not now have capacity to
i handle the additional automobile traffic that
would be generated and improvements to this road
are, at best, uncertain.
We have but one bridge to service the South Beach
and it is inadequate to handle today's traffic.
Although a second bridge is in the planning stages,
the immediate prospect for obtaining this critically
needed facility is only marginal. Threats of legal
action by the City of Vero Beach and private citizens
lead me to believe there could ba a serious delay
in obtaininF,; this facility.
We will soon start construction of a new hospital
but we have been warned there may be a shortage
of beds the day it opens. The addition of another
floor is already under consideration.
Recent legislation has reduced state participation
in the f undin„ of Indian River County schools,
placin, additional responsibility on local effort.
Our school board has already expressed concern
about how overcrowding will affect their goal
of quality education. Double sessions have been
mentioned.
Although the City of Vero Beach has apparently
a.,reen to service the area in question with water,
this aZreement-is subject to reconsideration. A
charZe in attitude by the current City Council
` J �
NOV 71973
NOV' -673
has confused this situation. Areas outside the
city that were previously to be serviced by them
.are now indefinite. A county -wide sewer and water
system has been tabled and there is no binding
agreement with the city to service any of the
unincorporated areas of the county.
We do not presently enjoy a county -wide fire
protection program. There is only one fire station
on the entire island. As it is municipally owned
and administered, their first obligation is to
city residents. Their ability to take on additional
territory is suspect. A county -wide system could
eventually solea this problem but progress toward
this end has been painfully slow due to political
and financial difficulties.
These are only the most serious service problems
and should in no gray infer that they are the only problems
we ean•anticipate.
I shall not attempt to review the hours of testimony
offered by single family property owners except by way
of summation. It is important to understand I considered
it my responsibility to weigh the evidence as presented,
assign it a value and make a judgment decision based on
what I thought was in the best interests of our county.
There is no question in my mind that a vast majority
of the property owners in the South Beach area felt very
strongly that this rezoning would not be the highest and
best use for the land and would have.a detrimental effect
on'their property.
It was stated repeatedly that they had purchased
homes in this area only after careful review of the
i
existing zoning, obtaining assurances from every avail-
able source that single family zoning would be continued,
and an expression of confidence in elected officials
that Choy would protect their interests. As ythi Is a11yM_.._�..,,.. _-- --
-4-
I
4 - 5 -
NOV 7 197318 -�f-237;
11 a,�_
that could be reasonably expected of them, they were
entitled to property protection afforded by the zoning
regulations of our-00untY-
I . f a pattern or trend has been established for
our South Beach, it has been toward single family de-
velo *PMent. The "domino effect" scare is, in my opinion,
a valid concern. -Real estate records of our county will
prove that rezoning dramatically increases property
value of the general and surrounding area. Such a trend
can only bring increased pressure for multi -family and
commercial development. Past experience throughout the
state supports the facto this discourages siDile family
development and reverses the values held in such reverence
by present home oi-iners.
Action of this kind only benefits the speculator
and developer at the expence of the single family home
I
owner and would be irresponsible and arbitrary.
4 - 5 -
NOV 7 197318 -�f-237;
11 a,�_
CHAIRMAN Loy REQUESTED THAT ON PAGE 18, FIFTH PARAGRAPH
BE CHANGED TO READ:
"A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS, THAT THE VERO MAR SHORES PROJECT
APPLICATION FOR REZONING, AS REQUESTED BY EARL PADGETT AND GERMAN
SUAREZ BE DENIED."
THESE CORRECTIONS HAVING BEEN MADE ON MOTION BY
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1973 AS WRITTEN.
ROY KIRKLAND, THE NEW COUNTY FINANCE OFFICER WAS
INTRODUCED'TO THE BOARD.
THE HOUR OF 8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY
CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED,
TO WIT:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida V
0
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath t'
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 advertisement, being
in the matter of
--�- in the _ — Court, was Pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
C en continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
,ur is period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
of- A..�9C
Swom to and subscribed before me this ..--f 2___._. da of D
._. s._.:..s
�. _..
(Business Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAQ
71973
gra
m--a
m m
�o.xc� o3
aovn c
w el
O1?NZ
-{a zrc O'rn
mr'+m'9
m9j
a0,
whf y.^oZ
00 n�_1
�n oho
oAo�
i•�c A�i0Nn
-ra
0 N�OA
onn01•o°N'Da v+
Wn+y
•,zA+h,pfi
N mNoy
°
ui�d �r�a 3'tl
^3
OOr„-3c
iaDp9�^gym
nm
m
as
�mw "c ayo°:p
>Z'n c2<n
o A
°mm� r5c c
62p9Nm+
o
mb Cr+f <
rmZln9Pr�i
y. �.
7=Gw•p3 �n
m7p-ioG
Oonw*F�
CO ��it?
ID
n O
z�o•n�,n'�
m'm
t<
f7
T
n
;n�<9
t
C
�na.c'�» �
>,„u, 3
�'
Z
on^mow. no
F'��3���
A00
�m auN
a G
o
m�mcS:n�
c�
20D 70N 0.1m
g
a
$p
wn—oa
••nnotym°ci+
O ^3w
S
w w
11 o
35
n fl 7 Q y
pM
M
r
fg
3
S.
A
,nn
0
o.oN^'n.mw
0W
ca
5'cA-O'�o3
iP+.
a* CL
900K 18
4
I
COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN REQUESTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
WRITE A LETTER TO RONALD CHARLEY REGARDING HIS COMPLAINT OF
A DRAINAGE MATTER IN DODGERTOWN SUBDIVISION.
THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS AUTHORIZED TO WRITE LETTERS
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS OF LOTS._13 THROUGH 24, UNIT 2, EUCALYPTUS
SUBDIVISION, AND EXPLAIN THAT THE DRAINAGE SWALE IS NOT ON THE
EASEMENT AND IN ORDER TO CORRECT THEIR PROBLEM WE NEED 15 ADDITIONAL
FEET -FOR A DRAINAGE SWALE.
THE SEVERAL BILLS AND ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE COUNTY,
HAVING BEEN AUDITED, WERE EXAMINED AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT WERE
APPROVED AND WARRANTS ISSUED IN SETTLEMENT OF SAME AS FOLLOWS:
GENERAL FUND NOS. 1478 - 1557 INCLUSIVE; ROAD AND BRIDGE
FUND NOS. 0871 - 0920 INCLUSIVE; FINE AND FORFEITURE FUND NOS.
0586 - 0598 INCLUSIVE CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND; No. 144.
SUCH BILLS AND A -COUNTS BEING ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO ISSUED FROM THE RESPECTIVE
FUNDS BEING LISTED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTE BOOK AS PROVIDED BY
THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR REFERENCE TO SUCH RECORD AND
LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION FADE
SECONDED AND CARRIED THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:25 O'CLOCK P.M.
ATTEST:
CLERK
-62-
, e04�
CHAIRMAN
N O V 71973 a 18 239