HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/4/19754 1375
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1975
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FLORIDA MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA,
ON WEDNESDAY,. JUNE 4, 1975 AT .8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE
ALMA LEE LOY, CHAIRMAN; WILLARD W. SIEBERT, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; EDWARD
J. MASSEY; WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR.; AND EDWIN S. SCHMUCKER. ALSO PRESENT
WERE PAUL D. BURCH, ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; JACK
G. JENNINGS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; AND ELIZABETH FORLANI, DEPUTY CLERK.
L.S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, COUNTY COORDINATOR WAS ON VACATION AND JACK HOCKMAN,
DEPUTY CLERK WAS ABSENT.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER..
COMMISSIONER MASSEY LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
AND REVEREND JILES B. LUNSFORD FROM THE FOREST PARK BAPTIST CHURCH,
GAVE THE INVOCATION.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT INTRODUCED C. WILLIAM MAURER, EDITOR
OF INDIAN RIVER LIFE INC. AND BARRETT ALLEY, PUBLISHER OF INDIAN RIVER
LIFE, INC.
MR. MAURER STATED THAT THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY NAMED THE
INDIAN RIVER LIFE MAGAZINE AS THE OFFICIAL MAGAZINE FOR THE FIFTIETH
ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND HE PRESENTED AN
ORIGINAL LETTER FROM PRESIDENT GERALD R. FORD COMMEMORATING THIS EVENT.
CHAIRMAN LOY ACCEPTED THE FRAMED LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.
CHAIRMAN LOY THEN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR
CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1975;
THERE WERE NONE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL
MEETING OF MAY 19TH, 1975, AS WRITTEN.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTION
TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 21, 1975.
COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER REQUESTED ON PAGE 16, SECOND
PARAGRAPH, THE WORDS, "IN WABASSO" BE ADDED TO THAT SENTENCE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE REQUESTED ON PAGE 19, FOURTH LINE,
THE WORDS "AMBULANCE SQUAD" BE CHANGED TO READ "SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT".
9no 23 PASE lit
JACK HOCKMAN, FINANCE OFFICER ENTERED THE MEETING AT 8:50
O'CLOCK A.M.
CHAIRMAN LOY REQUESTED ON PAGE 15, FOURTH PARAGRAPH,
FIFTH LINE THE WORDS "AT THE NEXT MEETING" BE CHANGED TO "AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE."
CHAIRMAN LOY REQUESTED ON PAGE 28, THIRD PARAGRAPH,
FIRST LINE READING, "MR. THOMAS STATED THAT.." BE CHANGED TO READ
"MR. THOMAS REPORTED TO THE CHAIRMAN THAT..."
THESE CORRECTIONS HAVING BEEN MADE, A MOTION WAS MADE BY
COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 21,
1975, AS WRITTEN.
THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT NEW GUIDE LINES HAVE BEEN
ADOPTED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA REGARDING PROCEDURES TO APPOINT
AND REAPPOINT THE CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTOR. THESE NEW GUIDELINES WILL
BECOME EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1975. WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO APPROVE THESE
NEW PROCEDURES AND ABIDE BY THEM AND ALSO, TIME IS APPROACHING WHEN
WE WILL HAVE TO SEEK RECONFIRMATION OF OUR CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTOR,
EDWARD JACKSON.
THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT ACCORDING TO THESE GUIDELINES, THERE
ARE TWO BASIC DIFFERENCES IN THE NEWLY ADOPTED PROCEDURES:
1. APPLICATIONS HAVE TO BE SENT TO THE STATE FOR APPROVAL;
2. THE REAPPOINTMENT OF AN EXISTING CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTOR
REMAINS WITH THE BOARD.
THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME QUESTION WITH THE STATE AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT WE HAVE A FULL TIME DIRECTOR OR A PART TIME DIRECTOR. ED JACKSON,
CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTOR WAS ASKED, HOW MUCH TIME DOES HE FEEL IS NECESSARY
,TO CARRY OUT THE PROGRAMS THE BOARD HAS ASKED TO BE CARRIED OUT.
MR. JACKSON STATED THAT BASED ON WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED
IN THE PAST, HE WOULD STATE AN AVERAGE OF THREE HOURS A DAY. HE
CONTINUED THAT TODAY THE EMPHASIS IS ON PREPAREDNESS IN THE EVENT OF A
NATURAL DISASTER, HE HAS TRIED TO UP -DATE THE COUNTY'S PLANS IN CON-
NECTION WITH THE GROWTH IN THE BEACH AREA. THESE PLANS HAVE TO BE AP-
PROVED ON A STATE LEVEL BEFORE THEY COME DOWN TO THIS BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
THE STATE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A FULL TIME DIRECTOR. MR. JACKSON
STATED THAT HE DID NOT APPLY FOR THIS JOB ON A FULL TIME BASIS AND IF
THE BOARD DECIDES TO GO ALONG WITH STATE GUIDE LINES FOR A FULL TIME
DIRECTOR, HE WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED.
2
AM 4 1J75
PAGE t, 2
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF MR. JACKSON FEELS WE NEED
A FULL TIME DIRECTOR.
MR. JACKSON STATED, THAT BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH CO-
OPERATION BETWEEN AGENCIES IN THIS COUNTY, HE DOES NOT FEEL THE COUNTY
NEEDS A FULL TIME DIRECTOR.
COMMISSIONER MASSEY STATED THAT WITH THE 911 EMERGENCY
TELEPHONE NUMBER SYSTEM COMING INTO EXISTANCE, MAYBE THE COUNTY WILL NOT
NEED A CIVIL DEFENSE DIRECTOR.
MR, JACKSON STATED THAT THE CIVIL DEFENSE �JIRECTOR DOES
GIVE THE COUNTY ACCESS TO FEDERAL FUNDS. WE HAVE RECEIVED IN THE PAST
50% FUNDING TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF TWO PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, USED BY
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, CALLED THE "JAWS OF LIFE", AND FOR THAT REASON IT
WOULD BENEFIT THE COUNTY TO KEEP THIS POSITION,
CHAIRMAN LOY SUGGESTED THAT WE STAY WITH OUR PRESENT POLICY
AND CHANGE THE TERMINOLOGY ON THE STATE FORMS :.. INDICATING THE EXACT
AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE JOB WHICH MR. JACKSON HAS INDICATED IS ABOUT 25%.
MR. JACKSON IS FULL TIME TO US AND HE IS ON CALL 24 HOURS A DAY AND DOES
WHAT THE BOARDS ASKS OF HIM.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO ASK THE DIVISION
DIRECTOR OF THE CIVIL DEFENSE OFFICE TO ATTEND OUR NEXT MEETING PERTAIN-
ING TO THIS DISCUSSION.
DANA HOWARD, ENGINEER APPEARED REQUESTING TENTATIVE APPROVAL
OF RIVER TREES SUBDIVISION OWNED BY C. YODER.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT ON MAY 8, 1975
THE SUBDIVISION REVIEW COMMITTEE MET AND SUGGESTED THAT CERTAIN
INFORMATION BE SHOWN ON THE PLAN BEFORE THE PLAN IS SUBMITTED TO THE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. IF THIS WAS DONE THE SUBDIVISON REVIEW COMMITTEE
WOULD RECOMMEND TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF THIS RIVER TREES SUBDIVISION.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED HAS
BEEN DONE AND IT SHOWS ON THE PLAN.
MR. HOWARD STATED THAT UPON INVESTIGATION, MR. YODER
HAS FOUND THAT THE RIVER ROAD (OLD U.S. 1) FROM ROSELAND ROAD TO
BAY STREET HAS ONLY A 30 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH IS NOT COMPATIBLE
TO THE 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE REMAINDER OF THIS RIVER ROAD.
3
.. r
2
/975 900 1( 01 ����
IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH THE PRESENT SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS A 60
FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY IS REQUIRED AND IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. MR. YODER
IS REQUESTING THE BOARD TO MAINTAIN -THE 30 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY BECAUSE
THERE ARE SOME BEAUTIFUL TREES THAT HE IS AFRAID WILL BE DESTROYED.
INR. HOWARD CONTINUED THAT RIVER ROAD IS A COUNTY ROAD.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT THE ROAD IS
SUFFICIENT AT 30 FEET TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, BUT IT CANNOT CONFORM
TO THE SUBDIVISON REGULATIONS.'
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT INFORMED MR. YODER THAT A 60 FOOT
RIGHT-OF-WAY DOES NOT MEAN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TREES. THIS BOARD
OR ANY BOARD WOULD BE HARD -PUT TO DESTROY THOSE TREES WITHOUT GOOD
CAUSE.
DONALD MACDONALD APPEARED AND ENLIGHTENED THE BOARD HOW
THIS RIVER ROAD HAS A 30 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY IN ONE PART AND A 60
FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY IN ANOTHER.
COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED THAT HE FEELS IT WOULD BE
A SEVERE MISTAKE TO CHANGE OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO APPROVE
A 30 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS REQUESTED BY 1IR. YRDER.
COMMISSIONER MASSEY STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS
RIVER ROAD ESTABLISHED AS A LANDMARK AND HAVE IT PRESERVED AS A
HISTORICAL ROAD.
ATTORNEY BURCH STATED THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO ESTABLISH
HISTORICAL HIGHWAYS, BUT HE WOULD HAVE TO INVESTIGATE THIS FURTHER.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONE'
SIEBERT, TO GRANT TENTATIVE APPROVAL TO THE RIVER TREES SUBDIVISION
PLAN, AS SHOWN BY DANA HOWARD AND OWNED BY C. YODER.
AFTER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER WITHDREW HIS
MOTION AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT WITHDREW HIS SECOND.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO TABLE THIS REQUEST FOR
TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF RIVER TREES SUBDIVISION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING
OF JUNE 18, 1975.
4
JUN 4 1975
900k 23
JUN 4 1975
JAMES C. .JENKINS, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY APPEARED TO GIVE THE BOARD A PROGRESS REPORT AND
INTRODUCED THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL:.
CHARLES F. MATHEWS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
IONE HENRY - HEAD START DIRECTOR
ALLEN VAN VESSOR - DIRECTOR OF THE C. E. T. A. PROGRAM
JEAN STRAWTER - REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COU'ICIL
ZONESE REGAL - BOOKKEEPER
BETTY GIPSON - EMERGENCY FOOD DIRECTOR
CARY MCKINNEY - A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
MR, JENKINS STATED THAT HAD BEEN ELECTED PRESIDENT OF
THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL AND HIS GOALS AND PRIORITIES AS
PRESIDENT ARE TO CARRY OUT THE FUNCTION OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
COUNCIL. HE STATED THAT THE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, IN
ATLANTA, THE COMPTROLLER OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR E. O. C., IS NOT SATISFIED
WITH THE PRESENT SET UP OF THE BOARD AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE RECTIFIED.
INTERNAL PROBLEMS WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, THE STATE HAS INFORMED
US THAT THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE BREAKDOWN OF BLACKS AID WHITES
AND WE WILL HAVE TO EMPLOY MORE WHITE PEOPLE IN OUR PROGRAMS. WE WILL
UP -DATE OUR CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS TO CONFORM. !IE CONTINUED THAT AS
PRESIDENT OF THE E.O.C. HE WILL CONTINUE TO STRIVE FOR PROGRAMS TO
HELP BOTH THE AGED AND THE DISADVANTAGED.
MR, MATTHEWS APPEARED TO INFORM THE BOARD OF HIS PROGRAMS ANL
WHERE THE FUNDS FOR THESE PROGRAMS WILL COME FROM:
1. SUMMER FEEDING PROGRAM: THIS PROGRAM WILL EMPLOY 12 FULL TIME.
PEOPLE AND WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 18, 1975, ANY PERIOFI
AGE 7 TO 19 WILL BE FED FREE OF CHARGE. FUNDS FOR THIS PROGRAM WILL
COME FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
2. C.E.T.A. TITLE 1. THIS IS BASICALLY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND
OUT -REACH PROGRAMS. FUNDS FOR THIS PROGRAM WILL COME FROM THE
MANPOWER PROGRAM.
3. COMMUNITY SERVICES - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.
4. SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAM. - THE PRESIDENT VETOED THIS AND MR.
MATTHEWS STATED HE HAS REAPPLIED FOR THESE FUNDS.
5. FOUNDATION GRANTS:
GENERAL MOTORS; FORD,GENERAL ELECTRIC, ETC.
THESE COMPANIES HAVE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED IT AND HE
5
tioak'3. ?AGE 05
HAS APPLIED FOR GRANTS.
HUBERT T. POOLE, DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COUNCIL
ON AGING, INC., APPEARED10 FURTHER DISCUSS THE COUNCILS BUDGET FOR
1974-75. THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING AND MR. POOLE WAS
REQUESTED TO PREPARE A 12 MONTH BUDGET FOR 1975-76 AND ALSO TO
PROVIDE THE PRESENT BUDGET BEING USED.
THE BOARD DISCUSSED THIS BUDGET AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT
ASKED IF MR. POOLE NEEDED A COMMITMENT FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 1975.
MR. POOLE STATED THAT HE DID NOT NEED A COMMITMENT
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1, 1975.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ''IoDTKE, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, TO CONSIDER THE BUDGET FOR THE INDIAN RIVER COUNCIL
ON AGING,ALONG WITH ALL OTHER BUDGET MATERIAL AT REGULAR BUDGET SESSION
TIME.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN SUPPORTING
THIS PROGRAM.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE FEELS THE PROGRAM IS
A NEEDED ONE, BUT UNTIL HE SEES THE WHOLE PICTURE, HE CANNOT TELL IF THE
COUNTY CAN AFFORD IT.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED IT IS NOT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
INVOLVED BUT IT IS TAKING A SOCIAL FUNCTION NOW FUNDED, IN PART,
BY THE STATE WHICH WILL BECOME A COUNTY FUNCTION WHEN THE STATE DOES
NOT FUND IT ANY LONGER. HE ASKED HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PROGRAMS
FOR THE BLACKS, CHILDREN AND THE AGED.
COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS
HANDLED AT BUDGET SESSION TIME. HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AUSTERITY IN
THE BUDGET. ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DOES NOT SUB-
SIDIZE THEIR COUNCIL ON AGING, IT IS DONE BY LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SALARIES NOT INCREASED SO MUCH.
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, STATED THAT WE HELP THE YOUTH AND THE
MISGUIDED, WE SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO HELP THE AGED.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE MOTION. THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED.
6
Jai 4 1975
900 23 FADE 06
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR INFORMED THE BOARD OF A LETTER
RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA POWER,AND LIGHT COMPANY STATING THAT THEY
WANT TO MOVE THEIR TRANSMISSION LINES ON HOBART ROAD. THEY ARE GOING
TO APPROACH THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY IN THIS AREA FOR AN EASEMENT,
THE TRANSMISSION LINES WILL BE OFF COUNTY RIGHT-OF=WAY. THE PROBLEM
IS THEY WANT TO KNOW HOW MUCH RIGHT-OF-WAY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WILL
NEED IN THE FUTURE.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED THAT HOBART ROAD HAS A
30 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. HE SUGGESTED THAT WE OBTAIN AN ADDITIONAL 50
FEET MAKING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY 80 FEET BECAUSE OF THE ACTIVITY AT THE
KIWANIS-HOBART PARK AND THE FUTURE POSSIBILITY OF BICYCLE PATHS BEING
BUILT.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL 50 FOOT EASEMENT,
MAKING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG HOBART ROAD 80 FEET.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCHMUCKER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
FOLLOWING EASEMENTS.
7
` 41975
960 23 FACE 07
PREPARED BY:
R.J. Snyder
Right -of -Way Department
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,
Box 460,
Ft. Pierce, Fla. #33450
• EASEMENT
PARCEL #267
DATE June 4, 1975
SEC 32 TWP 31S RGE 39E
In consideration of the payment to me/us by Florida Power & Light Company of $1.00 and other good and
valuable consideration which I/we have received, 1/we and those holding through me/us, grant and give to Florida
Power & Light Company and its successors and assigns an easement for the construction, operation and main-
tenance of electric utility facilities (including wires, poles, guys, cables, conduits, transformer enclosures and
appurtenant equipment) to be installed from time to time; with the right to reconstruct, improve; add to, change
the size of or remove such facilities or any of them; to permit the attachment of conduits, wires or cables of any
other Company or person; also, to cut, trim and keep clear all trees, brush and undergrowth or other obstructions
that might endanger or interfere with said facilities, on, over, upon, under, and across my/our property described
as follows;
The North 10 feet of the South 60 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
of the SE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 32, Township
31'South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida.
• In the presence of:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(Corporate Seal)
aEsrr,Ent Charman
ATTEST:,/244 /V4 fii leak
STATE OF FLORIDA AND COUNTY OF
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that before me, personally appeared
respectively,
President and Secretary of
a Corporation organized under the Laws of the State of , to me known to be the persons described
in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and severally acknowledged the execution thereof to be their free act and deed as such
officers, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned; and that they affixed thereto the official seal of said corporation and that said -
instrument is the act and deed of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in said County and State this
My Commission expires: 19
RWO/SIO/TWO
4 475
ER 7808 STRUCT. NO
8
day of 19
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE Or FLORIDA Al LARGE
FORM 1732C REV. 7/73
nfiuK 23 -PAGE 08
PREPARED BY:
R.J. Snyder
Right -of -Way Department
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,
Box 460,
Ft. Pierce, Fla. #33450
EASEMENT
PARCEL #265
DATE June 4, 1975
SEC 33 TWP 31S RGE 39E
In consideration of the payment to me/us by Florida Power & Light Company of $1.00 and other good and
valuable consideration which I/we have received, I/we and those holding through me/us, grant and give to Florida
Power & Light Company and its successors and assigns an easement for the construction, operation and main-
tenance of electric utility facilities (including wires, poles, guys, cables, conduits, transformer enclosures and
appurtenant equipment) to be installed from time to time; with the right to reconstruct, improve, add to, change
the size of or remove such facilities or any of them; to permit the attachment of conduits, wires or cables of any
other Company or person; also, to cut, trim and keep clear all trees, brush and undergrowth or other obstructions
that might endanger or interfere with said facilities, on, over, upon, under, and across my/our property described
as follows;
.1
An easement more particularly described as the North 10 feet
of the South 60 feet of the East 50 feet of the West 90 feet
of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 31 South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida.
In the presence of:
4 ll. _/ e- -/ _�/ A tL--SG L
(Corporate Seal)
ATTEST: ��"-� j�f--i:.-- Cie
StuRL l HIie
JUN 41975
STATE OF FLORIDA AND COUNTY OF
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that before me, personally appeared
respectively, President and Secretary of
a Corporation organized under the Laws of the State of
to me known to be the persons described
in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and severally acknowledged the execution thereof to be their free act and deed as such
officers, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned; and that they affixed thereto the official seal of said corporation and that said
instrument is the act and deed of said corporation.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in said County and State this
day of 19
My Commission expires: 19
RWO/SIO/TWO • ER_— 7508 STRUCT. NO.
,40
9
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE
FORM 1732C REV. 7/73
k . 23f 9
hC%K °- -
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR INFORMED THE BOARD OF A LETTER FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING A MAINTENANCE MAP OF A
STATE ROAD - QUAY DOCK ROAD - WIHICH SHOULD BE RECORDED AND PUT ON FILE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN ON
THE MAINTENANCE MAP ON QUAY DOCK ROAD, TO BE RECORDED.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR INFORMED THE BOARD OF A LETTER FROM
WILLIAM H. MCCLURE, SUPERINTENDENT, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
AND ALSO FROM A PRIVATE CITIZEN/REQUESTING APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO IMPROVE THE SURFACE OF BLUE CYPRESS ROAD OFF STATE ROAD
60. THIS ROAD IS THE ROUTE USED BY THE SCHOOL BUS AND THE CONDITION OF
'THE ROAD IS VERY BAD. JOE MIDDLETON, CARETAKER OF BLUE CYPRESS PARK DOES
GRADE THIS ROAD ON A REGULAR BASIS.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT WE HAVE HAD THIS REQUEST
BEFORE AND AT THAT TIME WE STATED THAT WITH THE ECONOMICS INVOLVED,
IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO PAVE THAT ROAD AT THAT TIME.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT $50,000.00 TO CONSTRUCT THIS ROAD WITH A SOIL CEMENT BASE.
COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED THAT THERE ARE MANY ROADS
THAT THE SCHOOL BUSES RUN ON THAT ARE NOT PAVED.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR TO ANSWER THE TWO LETTERS SAYING THAT IT IS A POTENTIAL
PROJECT FOR THE COUNTY, BUT AT THE PRESENT TIME IT IS COST PROHIBITIVE.
WHEN MONEY BECOMES AVAILABLE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED IN OUR LONG RANGE
PLANNING.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT WE HAVE A REQUEST
FROM HARRIS SANITATION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR A FRANCHISE
AND THEY ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
THE APPLICATION IS IN ORDER AND READY FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED ATTORNEY BURCH FOR A REPORT ON THE
STATUS OF ANDY'S SANITATION.
ATTORNEY BURCH STATED THAT AT THE £IAY 21ST, 1975 BOARD
MEETING HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE A "CEASE AND DESIST" ORDER TO
THE MORRILL BROTHERS, WHICH HE HAS DONE. HE ALSO HAS WRITTEN A LETTER TO
THE PRESENT FRANCHISE HOLDER OF ANDY'S SANITATION, CHADWICK AND DORTON
WHO ARE THE LAST APPROVED HOLDERS OF THIS FRANCHISE. SINCE THEY SOLD
10
JUN 4 1375
401-14 23 PAGE 10
x
IT TO THE MORRILL BROTHERS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE BOARD, THEY ARE
IN VIOLATION, AND THEY WILL HAVE A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME TO CORRECT
THIS. THE BOARD,AT THE APRIL 9TH, 1975 MEETING,DENIED THE RECUEST FROM
MORRILL BROTHERS TO HAVE THIS FRANCHISE TRANSFERRED TO THEM. ATTORNEY
BURCH INFORMED CHADWICK AND DORTON THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD TO
CONSIDERED WHETHER OR NOT ANDY'S SANITATION'S FRANCHISE SHOULD BE
TERMINATED.
CHAIRMAN LOY QUESTIONED A PORTION OF THE EXISTING
FRANCHISE THAT LIMITS THE NUMBER OF FRANCHISES AVAILABLE IN THIS
COUNTY.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT PHRASE HAS BEEN
REMOVED FROM THE FRANCHISE. IT IS A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE FOR THE
COUNTY.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WODTKE TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, THE CHAIRMAN
AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO SET A TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR HARRIS
SANITATION REGARDING THEIR APPLICATION FOR A FRANCHISE, SUBJECT TO THE
ATTORNEY CLEARING UP ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EXISTING FRANCHISE.
THE BOARD AGREED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE MOTION IS THAT
IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN THE EXISTING FRANCHISE, IT WILL GIVE THE
ATTORNEY LATITUDE IN DECIDING WHEN TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT
TO TERMINATE ANDY'S SANITATION FRANCHISE. ONCE THE ATTORNEY IS SATISFIED
WITH THE TERMINOLOGY IN THE FRANCHISE ITSELF HE CAN ADVERTISE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A FRANCHISE BY HARRIS SANITATION.
THE MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AND THE
SECONDED WAS WITHDRAWN BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE INFORMED THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OF
INFORMATION HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BEFORE HARRIS SANITATION APPEARS AT
THEIR PUBLIC HEARING FOR A GARBAGE FRANCHISE.
1. FINANCIAL FIGURES FROM THE PARENT COMPANY
2. INFORMATION REGARDING ANY LITIGATION THEY OR THE PARENT COMPANY MAY
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
3. INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE PARENT COMPANY AND THEIR HOLDINGS
4. A LIST OF THEIR AREAS OF OPERATION IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA
5. INFORMATION REGARDING TRANSFER FEES PAID TO THE PARENT COMPANY
COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT THE FOLLOWING BE INCLUDED
11
`ooK 23 PAGE 11
IN THE FRANCHISE:
1. ALL RATE INCREASES HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND
2. LOCATION OF GARBAGE PICK-UP DEFINED.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WILL NOTIFY HARRIS SANITATION
OF THE ITEMS THE BOARD WILL REQUIRE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE PUBLIC
HEARING WILL BE SCHEDULED AFTER THE ATTORNEY HAS INVESTIGATED THE WORDING
OF THE FRANCHISE.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD THE POS-
SIBILITY OF REIMBURSING THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR WORK
IN CONSTRUCTING GARBAGE COLLECTOR STATIONS. THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DE-
PARTMENT HAS EXPENDED A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THEIR BUDGET
TO DO THIS JOB. THE STATE REQUIRED THESE COLLECTOR STATIONS BE BUILT
AND MONEY FROM THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT THAT WAS BUDGETED FOR
RESURFACING OF CERTAIN ROADS THAT ARE DETERIORATING, WAS USED.
CHAIRMAN LOY STATED THAT THIS IS A PERFECT PROJECT FOR
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS. IN THE PAST, WE HAVE USED FEDERAL
REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR CAPITAL EXPEDITURES. BY LAW WE HAD TO PUT
IN THESE COLLECTOR STATIONS AND THIS IS THE COMPLETION OF A FOUR TO FIVE
YEAR PROJECT. WE HAVE TO EXPEND OUR FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS BY
JUNE 30, 1975.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT HE HAS EXPENDED
$63,000.00 FOR MATERIALS. THE COST IS ACTUALLY HIGHER BECAUSE OF
THE ADDITIONAL WORK THAT HAD TO BE DONE SUCH AS ENGINEERING, AND RENTING
OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT. THE ACTUAL COST IS $120,000.000 NOT INCLUDING THE
LABOR.
r
CHAIRMAN LOY STATED THAT IF THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
IS NOT REIMBURSED, THERE CAN BE NO ROAD PAVING DONE DURING THIS BUDGET •
YEAR.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONE'
SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED TRANSFERRING $80,000.00 FROM
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUNDS TO THE ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT FOR
COLLECTOR STATIONS BUILT WITH MONEY FROM THEIR BUDGET. AN ITEMIZED
LIST OF EXPENDITURES TO JUSTIFY THIS AMOUNT WILL BE INCLUDED WITH THE
BUDGET AMENDMENT. WHEN THE LIST OF EXPENDITURES AND THE BUDGET AMENDMENT
ARE COMPLETED THEY WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES.
}
12
JUN 45
`' - PAGE 1
THE BOARD RECESSED AT 12:00 O'CLOCK NOON AND RECONVENED
AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M.
ANN REUTER, LOCAL REAL ESTATE AGENT AND JOE GELLER, REAL
ESTATE AGENT REPRESENTING ARISTAR, THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE OLD GRANT
BUILDING WHICH IS FOR SALE AND WHICH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE
INVESTIGATING WITH THE THOUGHT OF BUYING, WERE PRESENT TO DISCUSS THIS
BUILDING.
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED ;WHAT THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GRANT BUILDING
IS AND SHE WAS INFORMED THE TAXES FOR 1973 WERE $2,781.00.
ATTORNEY BURCH ENTERED THE MEETING AT 1:50 O'CLOCK P.M.
MR. GELLER STATED THAT HIS COMPANY WOULD PREFER THAT THE
COUNTY TENDER AN OFFER ON THE BUILDING AS IS AND WITH THE COUNTY RE-
PAIRING THE BUILDING AS THEY SEE FIT.
MRS. REUTER STATED THAT A PRELIMINARY STUDY COULD BE DONE
AND THE COST COULD BE WRITTEN INTO A PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL WE COULD
SIGN AN AGREEMENT UNTIL AN APPRAISAL AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDY
WAS MADE.
COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY ADMINIS-
TRATOR RETAIN A GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO INSPECT THE BUILDING WITH THE
INTENTION OF HAVING IT CONFORM WITH OUR BUILDING DIRECTOR'S REQUIREMENTS
AND TO PREPARE AN ESTIMATE OF COST. WE WOULD THEN HAVE A ROUGH IDEA OF
WHAT IT WOULD COST TO MAKE THE BUILDING USABLE AND THAT AMOUNT COULD
BE DEDUCTED FROM THE SELLING PRICE OF THE BUILDING.
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING
THIS FURTHER. •
COMMISSIONER MASSEY STATED THAT HE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
PURSUING THIS FURTHER.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE DOES NOT FEEL THIS IS
AN UNREASONABLE OFFER OR ONE THAT COULD NOT BE NEGOTIATED IF THAT IS
TRULY WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO DO. HE FEELS WE ARE POSTPONING THE
INEVITABLE AND IT WILL MAKE THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION OF A COURTHOUSE COMPLEX
THAT MUCH FURTHER AWAY, BUT IF THE REST OF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO DO THI'
HE WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MASSEY, TO CONTACT A LOCAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO SECURE
COST ESTIMATES ON THE OLD GRANT BUILDING IN ORDER TO BRING IT UP TQ
13
JUN 4 i975.
9nr!ls 4,0 WAGE 13
STANDARDS FOR OCCUPANCY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LETTER FROM OUR BUILDING
DIRECTOR, AS STATED IN THE MINUTES OF MAY 21, 1975,
MR, GELLER STATED THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH
THE BUILDING. TO REPAIR THE BUILDING MAY BE SO COSTLY THAT HIS COMPANY
MAY DECIDE IT WOULD BE BETTER TO SELL THE LAND.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT AFTER YOU OBTAIN A COST
ESTIMATE TO BRING THE BUILDING UP TO CODE, AND BEFORE YOU PURCHASE THE
BUILDING, YOU WILL HAVE TO KNOW WHAT RENOVATION COSTS WILL BE AND HE
FEELS OBTAINING RENOVATION COSTO SHOULD BE MADE A PART OF THE MOTION.
THE BOARD DID NOT AGREE.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE MOTION: COMMISSIONER SIEBERT
VOTED IN OPPOSITION, COMMISSIONERS WODTKE, MASSEY, SCHMUCKER AND CHAIRMAN
LOY VOTED IN FAVOR AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED.
COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER ASKED IF A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARISTA,
COULD BE PRESENT WHEN THE CONTRACTOR INSPECTS THE BUILDING AND MR,
GELLER STATED THAT THAT COULD BE ARRANGED.
ON MAY 29, 1975, THE BOARD HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND
ADOPTED THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS
CONTINUED UNTIL TODAY IN ORDER TO CONSIDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING THE PRO-
POSED IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN,
CHAIRMAN LOY STATED THAT AT THE MAY 29, 1975 MEETING,
ATTORNEY KENDALL SHARP APPEARED REPRESENTING FREDERICK NICHOLS WHO
REQUESTED. THAT HIS OCEANFRONT PROPERTY BE DESIGNATED FOR MEDIUM DENSITY.
CHAIRMAN LOY RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING TELEGRAM FROM MR. NICHOL
ON MAY 30, 1975 AND REQUESTED THAT IT BE MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.
P
4 1975.
114
epr�
900K aJ PAGE 14
Min
mGmORLT HSA
1.4261354148 05/28/75
ICS IPmDADA DIN western union
0108o MGM DAYTON OH 200 05•28 0228P EDT
ZIP 32960
ELM
ra
ALMA LEE LOY, CHRM. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY CARE MR JACK JENNINGS INDIAN RIVER COURT HOUSE
VERO BEACH FL 32960
FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE MAY 29 PUBLIC HEARING OF THE
PLANNING BOARD, WE WISH T SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR LAND USE
CONSIDERATION OF OUR OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY LYING IMMEDIATELY
SOUTH OF THE MOOkINGS PROPERTY AND HAVING A COMMON BOUNORY
LINE WITH THAT PROPERTY,
WE REQUEST THIS 605 FEET ON THE OCEAN, BOUNDED ON THE
WEST Pr BE DESIGNATED FOR MEDIUM DENSITY USE ON THE
TEN YFAR PLAN MAF BEING FORMALIZED BY YOUR PLANNING BOARD,
wE MAKE THIS REQUEST SO AS TO HAVE THE SAME MEDIUM DENSITY
DESIGNATION AS THE MOORINGS PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS TO THE NORTH
FOR THEY ARE BOTH OF THE SAME PHYSICAL MAKEUP IN THE SAME
NEIGHBORHOOD.wITH THE BILLOWS AND SABAL REEF NOw UNDER
CONSTRUCTION, IT IS QUITE CLDAk THIS WHOLE AREA IS HEADED
FOR MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY AS INDICATED BY THE MOORINGS
CONDOMINIUMS AND ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
BEING UNABLE TO ATTEND, THIS REQUEST FOR THE SECOND TIME
WILL HE MADE AT THE MAY 29 PUBLIC HEARING BY OUR
REPRESENTATIVE, G, KENDALL SHARP.
wE RESPECTFULLY wISH OUR REQUEST BE PROPERTY CONSIDERED
AND GRANTED. .
FREDERICK W. N/CHOLS AND FAMILY
14125 EST
MGmORLT HSA
"Es POStle® •
z ma=m•
mai=
*******
gook 23 FAGE 15 -
JIM 4T975
.4-
- 1-
1)
1)
1)
0
1)
0
.)
1)
1)
)
VAL BRENNAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR AND RALPH SEXTON, CHAIRMAN
OF THE ZONING COMMISSION. WERE PRESENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
ATTORNEY BURCH STATED THAT THE IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE TO
BE DISCUSSED TODAY IS TO DECIDE IF THE BOARD WANTS THE COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE PLAN TO BE USED AS A GUIDE OR THE CONSTITUTION; WHETHER IT
SHOULD BE A ZONING MAP OR A LAND USE MAP. HE HAD PREPARED THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AND ALSO AN ALTERNATE SECTION WHICH WOULD MAKE THE ORDINANCE A
LITTLE MORE CONCRETE IN CONTROLLING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD.
CHARLES DAVIS, REAL ESTATE AGENT REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF
REALTORS, STATED THAT THEY SUPPORT THE LAND USE PLAN, AND THEY SUPPORT
THE IMPLEMENTATION VIA THE GUIDE LINE ROUTE.
JEROME KRAMER, COUNCIL FOR THE VERO BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION,
PRESENTED THAT GROUP'S ALTERNATE PLAN WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ALL
PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY TO BE REZONED TO CONFORM WITH THE LAND USE MAP.
MR. KRAMER CONTINUED THAT, IN HIS OPINION, THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
PLAN WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE UNLESS PRESENT ZONING WAS CHANGED TO CONFORM
WITH IT. THE COUNTY OFFICIALS WOULD CONTINUE TO BE UNDER PRESSURE FROM
DEVELOPERS TO IGNORE OR ALTER THE PLAN IF IT IS USED ONLY AS A GUIDE.
MR, BRENNAN STATED THAT IT IS HIS AND THE ZONING COMMISSION'
INTENTION TO GIVE PRIORITY TO CERTAIN AREAS THAT WILL NEED TO BE ADJUSTED
TO THE LAND USE PLAN. HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE ORDINANCE
AS IT IS PRESENTED, AND IT IS HIS INTENTION TO GO BACK TO THE ZONING
COMMISSION AND ADDRESS THEMSELVES TO THESE AREAS IN GREATER DEPTH SO
THAT THEY WILL EITHER CONFORM TO THE PLAN OR THE PLAN WILL BE MODIFIED.
MR, KRAMER STATED THAT IF THEY INTEND TO DO THIS, WHY NOT
INCLUDE IT IN THE IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENT. HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT IN
'THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IF THIS IS THEIR INTENTION.
MR. SEXTON STATED THAT THIS LAND USE PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE
A GUIDE. THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WAS VERY CONCERNED WITH MR, KRAMER'S
PROPOSAL; THE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OF REALTOR'S WAS CONCERNED. WHAT
MR. KRAMER WOULD LIKE IS TO MAKE A ZONING MAP OUT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE PLAN. THIS WOULD BE DANGEROUS AND IMPRACTICAL AND HE DOES NOT
FEEL THAT SHOULD BE THE SPIRIT OF THE WHOLE THING. HE URGED THE
BOARD TO ADOPT THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED TODAY.
16
:J 10
PAGE S
PAUL "BUTCH" REDSTONE, PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
APPEARED REPRESENTING THE CHAMBER, HE STATED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH THIS LAND USE PLATY FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS AND THEY
RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE PLANNING BOARD, THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND THE ZONING COMMISSION TO USE THIS LAND USE PLAN
AS A GUIDE AND A GUIDE ONLY,
DON WILCOX APPEARED AND STATED THAT HE APPEARED BEFORE
THE ZONING BOARD AND RECOMMENDED TO THEM THAT THEY ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE PREPARED BY ATTORNEY BURCH AND THERE IS ONE BASIC REASON
MR, ADLEY OF ADLEY AND ASSOCIATES WAS ASKED IF THIS LAND 'ISE PLAN
WOULD BE A ZONING MAP AND HE ANSWERED "NQs" FIE URGED THE BOARD TO
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE APPROVED BY THE ZONING COMMISSION TO BE USED AS
GUIDE AND TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AT THAT SAME TIME FOR THE 70NING COMMISSION
TO GO BACK AND REVIEW THE AREAS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT,
MR, BRENNAN STATED THAT A GREAT DEAL HAS BEEN SAID AND
HE DOESN'T KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN, HE CONTINUED THAT THE DIFFERENCE
IN PHILOSOPHY SURROUNDING THE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE WAS LARGELY
A RESULT OF A DIFFERENCE IN TIMING, HE REMINDED THE COMMISSIONERS
THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS FOR GROWTH IN THE COUNTY FROM 1975
TO 1990, HE SAID IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO REZONE LAND TO ITS FUTURE
DESIGNATED USE,
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AN
OVERALL COUNTY. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN NOT JUST A PARTICULAR AREA
ON THE BEACH, IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE WORK THESE FOUR YEARS HAVE
TAKEN, I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF ASSURANCE THAT THE
PLAN WE HAVE ADOPTED WILL BE UTILIZED AND FOLLOWED ALTHOUGH HE IS
NOT IN FAVOR OF MAKING IT MANDATORY WITHOUT MUCH MORE INPUT BY LAND
OWNERS IN THE COUNTY,HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BOARD ADOPT IT AS
SOMETHING STRONGER THAN A GUIDE LINE, BUT NOT MANDATORY,
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE SEES THREE DEFINITE
PROBLEMS, IT IS THE POSITION OF THE VERO BEACH ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
THAT IF ADOPTED STRICTLY AS A GUIDE THAT THE MASTER PLAN WILL BECOME
WORTHLESS AND THE ZONING WILL DICTATE THE CHANGES IN THE MASTER PLAN,
17
'loop 23 PACE 17
HE CONTINUED THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN, PEOPLE IN
THIS COMMUNITY ARE AFRAID OF A MASSIVE REZONING OF PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY
CAUSING CONSIDERABLE CHAOS, AND THAT FUTURE REZONING IN THE COUNTY WILL
BECOME SO VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE MASTER PLAN WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED
FIRST.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT INFORMED THE BOARD OF A STATEMENT
MADE BY HARRY ADLEY AT THE MAY 29, 1975 PUBLIC HEARING TO THE EFFECT
THAT IN COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE MASTER PLAN STRICTLY AS A GUIDE,,
IT WAS HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT ZONING REQUESTS THAT ARE IN NON-CONFORMANCE'lI
WITH THE MASTER PLAN BE HELD AND CONSIDERED ANNUALLY. MR. ADLEY
CONTINUED THAT IF YOU DO NOT DEDICATE YOURSELF TO THE MASTER PLAN, THEN
THE MASTER PLAN ITSELF WILL BE WORTHLESS.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT CONTINUED THAT CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY
HAVE ASKED THAT THIS PLAN BE ADOPTED AS A GUIDE. HE STATED THAT IN
CONVERSATION WITH FOUR CITIZENS FROM THE COMMUNITY HE ASKED THEM IF
THEY WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH REZONING REQUESTS THAT WOULD DICTATE CHANGE
IN THE MASTER PLAN RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THESE CITIZENS
ALL STATED BASICALLY THE SAME THING. "IT WOULD BE THE CONCERN OF THE
BOARD AND NOT THEIR CONCERN." HE FURTHER ASKED THEM IF THIS ORDINANCE
WAS ADOPTED STRICTLY AS A GUIDE, WOULD IT PRESENT A HARDSHIP IF REZONI"
REQUESTS THAT CONTRADICT THE MASTER PLAN WERE HELD AT ONE TIME. fl A"
ANNUAL BASIS. THEY ANSWERED "IT WOULD BE A PRACTICAL WAY." THEIR CONCERN
WAS TO MAKE IT FLEXIBLE SO THAT CHANGE COULD BE MADE, IF NECESSARY.
MR. BRENNAN STATED THAT REZONING ANNUALLY WOULD BE A
PRACTICAL AND LOGICAL WAY TO HANDLE THIS.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE
ZONING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER REZONING OF PROPERTY THAT CONFLICTS
WITH THE MASTER PLAN, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS ONLY. ALL REZONING REQUESTS
WOULD BE PLACED ON THE MASTER PLAN SO THAT WE CAN SEE HOW IT WILL
EFFECT THE MASTER PLAN. SOME REZONING MIGHT HAVE TO BE REJECTED BE-
CAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE MASTER PLAN OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
CONSIDERED BY ITSELF IT MIGHT NOT EFFECT IT, BUT TOGETHER IT MIGHT
COMPLETELY CHANGE THE CONCEPT OF THE PLAN.
CHAIRMAN LOY ASKED MR. BRENNAN WHICH OF THE REPORTS CONTAIN
THE METHODOLOGY USED FOR DEFINING DENSITIES.
MR. BRENNAN STATED IT IS INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY REPORT
OF THE COM;UEHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN PREPARED IN 1973.
18
JUN 4 WS
900K 23 FACE 18 -
JUN 4 1975
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THE TERM DENSITY, THAT IS REFERRED
TO THROUGHOUT THE PLAN COULD BE DEFINED AS IT IS IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE
AND INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSED IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE. THE SUMMARY REPORT
REFERS TO HIGH DENSITY AS 18 UNITS PER ACRE. HIGH DENSITY IN OUR ZONING
ORDINANCE IS 15 UNITS PER ACRE
CHAIRMAN LOY STATED THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THE GENERAL
PUBLIC HAS ACCEPTED THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION IS BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE
OVERALL PLAN WOULD BE USED AS A GUIDE. SHE WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY TIME
LIMITS UNTIL WE HAVE GIVEN THIS ORDINANCE A CHANCE TO WORK. SHE STATED
THAT IF WE GIVE THE ZONING COMMISSION GOOD DIRECTIONS ON HOW WE WANT ITEMS
HANDLED AND SET UP GUIDE LINES, THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE IN THE SPIRIT OF
WHAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC FEELS THE BOARD WOULD ADOPT.
CHAIRMAN LOY STATED THAT THE ONLY CHANGE SHE WOULD SUGGEST IS
IN THE AREA OF DENSITIES, AS REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE METHODOLOGY SECTION
OF THE SUMMARY PLAN IS NOT WHAT SHE IS LOOKING FOR. SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE
DENSITIES DONE BY DEFINITION, AND WOULD APPROVE THE ORDINANCE.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED THE INDIVIDUALS PRESENT FOR THIS
DISCUSSION WHAT THEIR FEELINGS ARE ON HOLDING REZONING REQUESTS IN AREAS
THAT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN ONLY ONCE A
YEAR.
MR, WILCOX STATED THAT HE FEELS IT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT,
BUT COULD CREATE PROBLEMS. HE SUGGESTED AND RECOMMENDED ADOPTING THE
ORDINANCE AS PREPARED BY ATTORNEY BURCH AND SEE HOW IT WORKS AND
AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THE ORDINANCE IS MODIFIED, HE WOULD LIKE
TO SUGGEST REZONING REQUESTS BE HELD EVERY SIX MONTHS INSTEAD OF
ONE YEAR.
MR, BRENNAN STATED THAT HE WOULD PREFER A PERIOD OF ONE
YEAR FOR REVIEW SINCE HIS DEPARTMENT WILL DO THE WORK. IT DOES
NOT MEAN DEVELOPERS SHOULD WAIT FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN COME IN AT ONE
TIME. WE'HOPE THAT THEY WILL COME IN THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WE WILL
KEEP THE ZONING COMMISSION ABREAST OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND THE
FINAL DECISION WILL BE MADE AT THE ANNUAL REVIEW.
CHARLES DAVIS STATED THAT IN HIS TYPE OF BUSINESS HOLDING
REZONING REQUESTS FOR ONE YEAR WOULD BE A HINDERANCE TO HIS
BUSINESS.
MR, REDSTONE STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THE
REVIEW OF REZONING REQUESTS ANNUALLY OR EVERY SIX MONTHS.
19
900k -23 i
PAGE
MR, KRAMER REQUESTED THAT THE MEMORANDUM FROM THE VERO
BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND EXHIBITS A, B, C AND D BE MADE A PART OF
THESE MINUTES.
THE BOARD AGREED AND THE MATERIALS MR, KRAMER REQUESTED
ARE HEREBY BEING MADE A PART OFTTHESE MINUTES,
• MEMORANDUM
May 20, 1975
To: The Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida
•
Re: Proposed "Master Plan"
INTRODUCTION
As you know, the Vero Beach Civic Association and related
property owner groups and citizens have been vitally interested
in establishing reasonable controls on growth in this County
and, more particularly in promoting adoption of an enforceable
comprehensive plan for controlling future growth. To that end,
we have carefully re-examined the history of such planning ac-
tivity in this community and our position in relation to the
present status of such activities in the County.
As a result, we are concerned that certain aspects of that
history may give rise to various bases for subsequent attack
against any comprehensive plan that may be adopted by the
County and thereby defeat its objectives and our purpose in
promoting such control on growth in the County. Accordingly,
in the broadest sense of civic input and our sincere intent to
assist you in your forthcoming consideration of this matter,
we submit the following summary of our review and analysis of
same.
HISTORY
Indian River County was created in 1925 under Chapter 10148
of the Laws of Florida. In 1941, by special act embodied in
Chapter 31310, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commission-
ers was granted the power to create a Zoning Commission and to
regulate zoning and construction in the County "in accordance
with a comprehensive plan." Pursuant to that authority, various
zoning ordinances and districts have been created within the
County. However, this SpeAal Act did not give Indian River
County the authority to enter into agreements with other govern-
mental agencies relating to the preparation and enforcement of
comprehensive planning.
Subsequently, in 1969, the Legislature enacted Chapt.• 160
relating to "Regional Pla_2Ong Councils" and Chapter 163 rela-y
20
JIJN 4
3''nt 2J
ting to "Intergovernmental Programs." Part I of Chapter 163
was specifically entitled "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act
of 1969" and, in Section 163.02 thereof, provided for the crea-
tion of "Councils of Local Public Officials" for the purposes
set forth therein. Part II of Chapter 163 (copy enclosed as
Exhibit A) related to and was specifically entitled "County and
Municipal Planning for Future Development" and, as we under-
stand it, set forth definite procedures that must be adhered to
in the individual or joint development of a comprehensive
(Master) Plan for future growth unless the city and/or county
had pre-existing authority to engage in such planning. In the
latter case, such city and/or county could continue to operate
under such pre-existing authority until such time as they elec-
ted to operate under Part II of Chapter 163.
Still later, in 1971, the Legislature enacted Chapter 125
which made broad home rule powers available to the counties of
this state under the amended Constitution of 1968, including
the power to prepare and enforce comprehensive plans for county
development and to enter into agreements with other governmen-
tal agencies relating thereto. This chapter neither repealed
nor excepted the earlier Chapters 160 and 163. However, Indian
River County did not elect to take advantage of Chapter 125
until February 7, 1973 when it repealed (on an emergency basis)
its pre-existing authority Chapter 21310.
In the meantime, the records of Indian River County show
that on August 7, 1968, the County Commissioners created a
"Citizens` Planning Authority." The name was changed to "Indian
River Long Range Planning Council" on November 6, 1968, and on
February 6, 1969, that Council recommended hiring a full time
planner. On May 7, 1969, the County Commissioners agreed with
the Vero Beach City Council to employ jointly a planner with
each entity bearing one-half the cost. On June 25, 1969, the
County and City created jointly a "Buffer Commission" consist-
ing of elected and appointed city and county officials. On
recommendation of that Commission, now called the Vero Beach -
Indian River County Planning Commission, the City and County
jointly employed and agreed to split the cost of a full time
planner on December 23, 1969. Earlier in 1971, the joint Plan-
ning Commission was authorized by Resolution to contract with
the state and federal governments for grants under the provi-
sions of Section 701 of the Federal Housing Act of 1954 to
develop a comprehensive plan for the City and County. This Act
is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and, in Florida, with respect to comprehensive
21 -2-
JUN
w
100k• ''AGE ::
Planning activities, through the State's Department of Community
Affairs.
It appears that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
was empowered to process local community applications for 701
funds by Part I of Chapter 163. It is not explicitly clear
whether this power was limited solely to activities authorized
by Chapter 163, but since the power was granted by this Chapter,
and absent other authority or a definitive ruling to the con-
trary, it would seem that the power may be so limited. In other
words, while Chapter 21310 empowered the County to engage in
zoning pursuant to a comprehensive plan, and Chapter 125 later
empowered the County to engage in such planning and toenter
into agreements with other governmental agencies relating there-
to, neither of these chapters specifically empowered the County
to apply for and receive 701 funds for such planning activities.
Under Chapter 163, Part II, Sections 163.175, 163.180,
163.190, 163.195, 163.200 and 163'.205 the City and County would
be empowered to "jointly exercise the powers granted under this
part" as follows:
(1) By formal adoption, following a public hearing,
of a joint agreement to so do.
(2) Following such agreement, they. would be empow-
ered to establish a joint planning commission
pursuant to such an agreement, but elected
officeholders could serve on the commission
only in an ex officio capacity (As we have seen,
a joint planning commission was created, but
its principal members are elected or appointed
officeholders - from the County; Chairman of
Board of County Commissioners, County Adminis-
trator, Chairman of County Zoning Commission -
from the City; the Mayor, the City Manager and
the Chairman of the Parks, Planning and Zoning
Commission). Under this Chapter, the Commission
was to gather information, hold public hearings
and develop a comprehensive plan. (As will be
seen later, our joint planning commission did
not engage in these activities, but delegated
them to the planning department and a planning
consultant.)
The final comprehensive plan, following public
hearing and adoption by the planning commis-
sion was to be certified the commission to
(3)
JUN 4 1975
22-3-
gnat 2a Gs 1. ;�
JUN 4 1975
•
the governing bodies (i.e., the City Council
and the Board of County Commissioners) as the
recommendations of that commission.
(4) Thereafter, the governing bodies would be em-
powered to adopt the comprehensive plan by
majority vote. (This has been done by the City
but not the County.)
Following such adoption of the comprehensive
plan, under this Chapter, nothing could be
"constructed, altered or authorized" which was
not in conformity with the plan unless speci-
fically authorized by the joint planning com-
mission with the concurrence of the governing
bodies (The City's Ordinance accomplishes this
in part [except for "problem areas"). The pro-
posal before the County does not.
(6) The comprehensive plan would be subject to
review and up -dating at least once each year.
(This is embodied in both the City and the
proposed County Ordinances.)
The governing bodies would be empowered to
enact zoning ordinances regulating construction
and land uses in conformity with the comprehen-
sive plan. (The City's Ordinance contemplates
this, but the proposal before the County is
contra.)
(5)
(7)
In this City and County, a joint planning commission was
created between the City and County which consisted primarily
of elected or appointed officeholders. That Commission did
not itself gather information, hold public hearings or devel-
op a comprehensive plan. Instead, beginning in August 1971,
and each year thereafter, the joint planning commission, on
behalf of and with the approval of the City and County gover-
ning bodies, entered into contracts with the Department of
Community Affairs "under Chapter �" for 701 funds to finance
these activities. They also entered into concurrent contracts
with Adley & Associates to engage in these activities in their
behalf with the assistance of the joint City - County planning
department. Thus, the joint planning commission was a conduit
for disbursing contracted 701 funds to Adley & Associates and,
in part, to the joint planning departr nt. Of course, addi-
tional local tax funds were expended on thr-e activities by
the planning department.
-4-
4
1.c:r.
P
JUN 4in
As information was gathered and the plan developed by
Adley and the planning department, it was independently con-
sidered at numerous workshops of City and County zoning com-
missions respectively. While these workshops were open to
the public, they were not usually characterized as public
hearings or meetings. Indeed, at many such workshops, public
input was excluded. The only public meetings that were sched-
uled for and noticed to the general public were on October 3,
1973 (for the unincorporated portion of the County plan), and
on January 31, 1974 (for the City portion of the plan).
The City portion of the plan was finally referred by the
planning department to the City's Parks, Planning and Zoning
Commission who, in turn, recommended it to the City Council
for adoption with an implementing Ordinance No. 1250 which
was passed by the City Council on February 4, 1975. That
Ordinance (copy enclosed as Exhibit B) is generally consist-
ent with the requirements of Chapter 163.
The unincorporated County portion of the plan was simi-
larly referred by the planning department to the County Zoning
Commission who, in turn, have recommended it to the County
Commission with an implementing Ordinance (copy enclosed as
Exhibit C) which does not conform to the requirements of
Chapter 163. This matter is scheduled for public hearing
before the County Commission for May 29, 1975.
The proposed County Ordinance does not conform in that
it does not restrain zoning and land use which is inconsist-
ent with the plan and does not require zoning and land use to
conform to the plan (subject to the safeguards of public
hearings and annual review of the plan). As a consequence,
we had proposed a substitute Ordinance (copy enclosed as
Exhibit D) which was more consistent with the City's Ordi-
nance and with the requirements of Chapter 163. However, the
County Zoning Commission rejected our proposal in favor of
the ordinance they are now recommending to the County Commis-
sion. The difference between the two proposals is the dif-
ference between having a plan which has no controlling force
and effect and one which can control growth in accordance
with the plan. In our view, if you don't have the latter,
the expenditure of time, effort and money in developing the
plan has been for naught.
-5-
3F)Pt.
3
In consideration of the foregoing, it is our view that it
can be seriously contended that the City and County, by approv-
ing the contracts entered into by their joint planning commis-
sion "under Chapter 163," elected to engage in the planning
activities authorized by that Chapter and were, therefore,
obliged to comply with the requirements of that Chapter. In
any case, they were obliged (unless formally released) to com-
ply with the requirements of those contracts.
THE CONTRACTS
Under those contracts, the City and the County obligated
themselves to render certain services relating to the develop-
ment of a comprehensive plan (see Appendix) to the Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) and the Federal Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development (HUD) in return for 701 funds. Those
services are explicitly spelled out in each contract and in-
cluded certain obligations common to all of the contracts.
Thus, in each contract they agreed that:
"Beginning no later than 90 days after the
effective date of this (each) contract, and
at least once every 90 days thereafter un-
til the project is satisfactorily concluded,
the community (joint planning commission)
will arrange to hold public meetings for
the purpose of explaining the progress on
the project and /or public discussion of
study concepts or alternative proposals"
(subject to requirements of notice, etc.).
Cis noted above, there were only two pub-
lic meetings on Oct. 3, 1973 and Jan. 31,
1974 that could be so characterized
Indeed, as early as April 19, 1973, Mr. R. Charles Shephard
of DCA complained to Mr. Brennan by letter that the above -noted
requirement was not being met. As a consequence, later on
December 27, 1973, in a separate contract specifically addressed
to this problem, the City and County agreed to create a citizens
organization for citizens' participation in the planning process
by June 30, 1974. This contract also spelled out the details
of how such an organization was to be created and function "as
a minimal requirement *** applicable to all communities receiv-
ing funding." This minimal requirement was also an obligation
under the most recent and current contract entered into on or
about October 3, 1974 (for a term ending on June 30, 1975).
-6-
JUN 4 1975
95
1
No such program for citizen's participation has ever been creat-
ed in connection with the joint planning program in this City
and County.
While this Association urged the creation of such a program
for citizen's participation early in 1973 consistent with your.
contract obligations under Chapter 163, we wonder what useful
purpose such a program could serve at this late date. On the
other hand, the contractual obligations are clear and, if not
met, can give rise to challenge by property owners, developers
and the like who may be dissatisfied with the land use assigned
to their property under any:plan that may be adopted. Recogni-
tion must also be given to the "termination" clauses in each
contract which empowers the DCA to terminate and recover
damages for breach of the contracts (subject to accountability
for disbursed 701 funds to HUD).
Further, in this connection, one must inquire into the
ultimate objective of each of the contracts in question. Clear-
ly, the objective of Chapter 163 is to attain adoption of a
comprehensive plan that controls land use through the vehicle
of the plan and zoning which is consistent with the plan.(This
does not mean that the zoning map will be identical to the plan;
only that it will be consistent with the plan. In other words
"medium density" on the plan may have three or more zoning cate-
gories.) The objective of the contracts must be the same,
otherwise, the expenditure of 701 and local funds would have
been for naught.
The foregoing is borne out by reference to other obligated
services under certain of the contracts. Thus, in the "second
phase" of this planning program contemplated by the contract
entered into on or about October 3, 1972, the contract requires,
at page 5, par. 6, the following service to be rendered:
"Zoning Review - Basic proposals of valid
zoning regulations are, that they be rea-
sonable, that they be comprehensive and
that they reflect a sound land use pattern
for land development. This will be a re-
view of the two new zoning regulations
recently adopted by the City and the County
(1970 and 1971) to determine what changes
should be made to carry out the land use
patterns and what changes are necessary to
promote implementing (the) objectives a.3
proposals of the Comprehensive Development
-7-
401
3 'VE
JUN 41275
�T q
Plan. Findings will be published as r2 -
posed amendments to the existing Ordinance
and (Zoning) map."
Adley & Associates were apparently paid for such a review
under their companion contract of October 10, 1972, but, as
noted earlier, neither the planning department nor the County
Zoning Commission have been willing to incorporate such changes
in the implementing Ordinance they are recommending to you
(Exhibit C). Our proposed Ordinance, (Exhibit D) on the other
hand, would clearly discharge this obligation. In this connec-
tion, reference should be made to the current contract entered
into on October 3, 1974 relating to "Impact Zoning, Phase II -
Incorporation into Zoning Ordinance" which requires modifica-
tion of present zoning regulations to include impact zoning
procedures.
While there are areas of your planning activity that may
bear closer scrutiny in the discharge of your elected responsi-
bilities to the citizens of this County, we have brought to
your attention those which appear to be most significant and
which are most likely to subject your planning activity to
challenge. They are basically:
(1) A lack of required citizens participation.
(2) A disregard for the enforceability of the
plan; i.e., to use the plan as a mere guide
to future rezoning rather than to conform
zoning and future land use to the plan (sub-
ject of course to due process and annual
review of the plan).
(3) A potential for disregarding implementation
of impact zoning procedures in your zoning
regulations.
CURING THE PROBLEMS
(1) We don't know whether the first problem; namely,lack
of adequate citizen's participation, can be cured at this late
date. Certainly, it cannot be cured without the consent of the
DCA and, even possibly HUD. To say that this Association may
have attended and/or been represented at most workshops and
hearings concerning the plan does not answer for the lack of
notice to and absence of other citizens and interested elements
in the community. However, This Association is not in favor. of
repeating the last four years to insure adequate citizen's par-
-8-
3 27
ticipation. It is our suggestion that some attempt be made to
cure this problem with the DCA; even if it means some adjust-
ment in 701 funding. To attempt, to conceal this possible breach
from the DCA and HUD, as implied by some, would be the height
of folly. This County Commission has an obligation on behalf
of the citizens of this County to obtain assurances from DCA
of substantial compliance or otherwise make such adjustments
as may be -necessary to obtain such assurances. Hopefully, this
will also be sufficient to forestall challenges against either
or both the County and DCA in the future.
(2) Fortunately, the second problem can still be cured
by rejecting the totally inadequate implementing ordinance pro-
posed by your County Zoning Commission and other elements of
the community, and by adopting an ordinance patterned after our
proposal (Exhibit D) following public hearings beginning on
May 29, 1975.
(3) The potential of the third problem can be eliminated
by insuring that impact zoning procedures are included in your
zoning regulations and/or ordinances in compliance with your
obligations under your current contract with DCA.
CONCLUSION
We have tried to avoid unduly amplifying the problem areas
which we perceive in the current state of your planning activi-
ty. However, we would be remiss in our obligations to our mem-
bers and as a civic organization in this community if we did
not bring our concerns to your - the elected officeholders -
attention on the eve of your proposed adoption of a comprehen-
sive land use plan for controlling future growth in the County.
We have tried to bring these questions to your attention in the
past, but unfortunately an apparent lack of information and,
in some cases, possibly misguided information from other ele-
ments in the community fostered by a defensive reaction to our
objectives has led you to overlook these questions to date.
We hope you can allay our concerns with the direction you take
in adopting the proposed plan or even, possibly, with documen-
ted information that we are not now privy to which would mini-
mize or offset these concerns.
In any case, we repeat that our oc'^ctive is to ensure the
establishment of acceptable controls on future growth, prefer-
ably in the form of a -..able and enforceable comprehensive land
use plan, which will not be subject to challenge and continued
—9—
JUN 4 em
610
nnnk r r�
expenditure of public funds for defensive purposes or correc-
tive measures after adoption. It is to that end, and that end
alone, that we have submitted the within Memorandum to you and
ask for your informed consideration and resolution of the pro-
blems perceived herein.
We particularly wish to emphasize that, except for certain
areas which have been under considerable development pressure,
we have not presumed to substitute our lay judgment for that
of the professional planners in the make-up of the proposed
plan. As to the excepted areas, we feel that we were entitled
to submit our views and desires consistent with the obligatory
requirements of HUD, the DCA and Chapter 163 for c: .izen parti-
cipation. As to other areas, remote from most of our members,
we feel it was incumbent on citizens and property owners in
those areas to have followed our example and insisted on their
right to participate in the planner's characterization of land
uses in such areas.
As reflected by our proposed implementing Ordinance (Exhib-
it D), we urge you to adopt the plan as proposed in principle
with an Ordinance patterned after our proposal so that those
areas that may not have received the in depth attention they
deserved can be examined in a prescribed. time frame and the
plan approved or modified as to those areas consistent with
the desires of the affected property owners and the profes-
sional input from our planners.
-Thank you for your interest and your continued cooperation;
and we look forward to participating in your public hearing on
May 29th next.
Respectfully submitted,
The Board of Directors of the
Vero Beach Civic Association
- JUN 4 ws gnr'k
;a.
.,s:�r°�
Date Start
s::
APPENDIX OF CONTRACTS
WITH DCA
Services Date Complete
Vero -IRC Adley
1
8/19/71 9/24/71 Data Research
Amended & G°ollection
10/5/71
II
• 10/3/72 10/10/72 Neighborhood Analysis,
Commercial Area Analysis
Land Use & Transport Plan
Annexation
e Public Improvements
* Zoning Review
III
12/27/73 8/20/73 Evaluate Zoning Procedures
Study on Density Constraints
Housing
Plan for Sebastian & Fellsmere
6/30/72
5/31/73
6/30/74
IV
12/27/73 - Organize Citizens 6/30/74
Participation Program
V
10/3/74 undated Prepare Summary Growth Policy
Impact Zoning - Phase II
Citizen Participation Program
JUN 4 In
6/30/75
• a-
Ale
•
we-
f
Ehl6it A
(.Ra.,1633 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS
163.235 Appeals to board of adjustment from
decision of administrative official.
163240 Stay of work and proceedings on ap-
eal
163245
163250
163.255
163260
163265
163.270
163275
Board � of adjustment; hearing of ap-
peals.
Judicial review of decisions of board
of adjustment.
Enforcement of zoning ordinances.
Regulation of subdivisions; purposes.
Subdivision regulations; approval of
subdivision plans by commission.
Subdivision regulations; adoption and
amendment.
Subdivision regulations; penalties for
transferring lots in unrecorded sub-
division&
163.160 Scope of part II.—
(1) The several counties and incorporated
municipalities of this state may plan for future
development, adopt and amend comprehensive
plans to guide future development, adopt and
enforce zoning regulations, adopt and enforce
subdivision regulations, adopt and enforce
building, plumbing, electrical, gas, fire, safety,
and sanitary codes, and establish and maintain
the boards and commissions herein described
for carrying out the provisions and purposes
of this part. The powers authorized by this
part nay be employed by counties and incor-
porated municipalities individually or jointly
by mutual agreement in accordance with the
provisions of this part in such combinations
as their common interests may dictate.
(2) The provisions of this part shall not
be deemed to repeal or modify any local or
special act relating to zoning, planning, or sub-
division regulations, but the provisions herein
shall be supplemental and in addition to pow-
ers . that =ay be exercised by any governing
body that has a local or special act.
Ch. 163
163.280 Subdivision regulations; reversion of
subdivided land to acreage.
163.285 Subdivision regulations; erection of
buildings adjacent to unapproved
streets.
163.290 Subdivision regulations; delegation of
authority to other governmental agen-
cies.
163.295 Building, plumbing, electrical, gas, fire,
safety, and sanitary codes.
163.300 Fees and charges; employment of per-
sonnel.
163.305 Enforcement of ordinances and regu-
lations. •
163.310 Construction.
163.315 Effect of part II on existing planning --
and plan implementation authoriza-
tion.
tain the stability of residential, agricultural, -
business, and industrial areas and to promote
the orderly development of such areas.
(3) Any governing body of any county or
any incorporated municipality may, but shall
not be required to, exercise any of the powers
set out in this part. Whenever a governing
body shall elect to exercise any of the powers
granted by this part. such powers shalt be ex-
ercised in the manner hereinafter prescribed.
suesti.-p. ca. 69-239.
163.170 Definitions.—As used in this part:
(1) "Area" means the complete area quali-
fying under the provisions of this part, whether
this be all of the lands lying within the limits
of an inccrporated municipality, lands in and
adjacent to incorporated municipalities, alt
unincorporated lands within a. county, or areas
comprising combinations of the lands in in-
corporated municipalities and unincorporated
areas of counties.
(2) "Commission" means the planning com-
mission appointed by the governing body or
bodies adopting the provisions of this part as
provided hereinafter.
(3) "Due public notice," as used in con-
nection with the phrase "public hearing" or
"hearings with due public notice," shall mean
publication of notice of the time. place, end
purpose of such hearing at least twice in a
newspaper of general circulation in the area,
with the first such publication to be at least
fifteen days prior to the date of the hearing
and the second such publication to be at least
five days prior to the hearing. In addition, ex-
cept where the hearing applies to all of the
. lands within the area, similar notices setting
forth the time, place, and purpose of such hear-
ing shall be mailed to the last knu'.vn address
of the owners of the property involved in or
directly affected by the hearing, and such no-
tices shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place or places on or around such lots, parcels,
or tracts of lands as may be involved in or
directly affected by the hearing. Affidavit proof
of the required publication, mailing, and post-
ing of the notice shall be presented at the
- hearing.
9161siws.-1l. c= 69-U9.
163.165 Legislative intent.—
(1) In order to preserve and enhance their
present advantages, overcome their present
handicaps, and prevent or minimize future
problems, it is the intent of this part to enable
the several counties and incorporated munici-
palities to plan for future development and to
prepare, adopt and amend comprehensive plans
to guide future development. To implement the
comprehensive plans, the several counties and
incorporated municipalities may adopt ani en-
force zoning regulations, adopt and enforce
subdivision regulations, and adopt and enforce
building, plumbing, electrical, gas, fire, safety,
and sanitary codes.
(2) The provisions of this part in its in-
terpretation and application are declared to be
the minimum requirements necessary to pro-
mote, protect, and improve the public health,
safety. comfort, good order, appearance, con-
venience. morals, and general welfare; to con-
serve the value of land, buildings, and re
sources; and to protect the character and main
654
�lnnk 23 ,-AC{ 3t
• Vii-iT. ./P.gp-aOj .. •R1i.��4��
•
Ch. l6 3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS Ch. 263 ':
(4) "Governing body" means the board of
county commissioners of a county, the commis•
sion or council of an incorporated municipality
or any other chief governing body of a unit of
local government. however designated, or the
combination of such bodies where joint adop-
tion of the provisions of this part is accom-
plished as herein provided.
(5) 'Ordinance" means an official. legisla-
tive. policy-making action of a governing body.
When used in relation to action ,by a board of
county commissioners, the term means a reso-
lution of the board of county commissioners.
When used in relation to action by other gov-
erning bodies. the term means such appropriate
official, legislative, policy-making action as is
customarily taken by the governing body in-
volved, regardless of the nomenclature given
to such official action.
(6) "Special exception" as used in connec-
tion with the provisions of this part dealing
with zoning, means a use that would not be
appropriate generally or without restriction
throughout the particular zoning district or
classification, but which, if controlled as to
number, area, location, cr relation to the neigh-
borhood, would not adversely affect the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance,
convenience, morals, and the general welfare.
Such uses may be permitted in such zoning
district or classification as special exceptions
only if specific provisions and standards for
such special exceptions are made in the zoning
ordinance.
(7) "Subdivision" means the division of a
parcel of land, whether improved or unim-
proved, into three or more contiguous lots or
parcels of land, designated by reference to the
number or symbol of the lot or parcel con-
tained in the plat of such subdivision, for the
purpose, whether immediate or future, of trans-
fer of ownership or, if the establishment of a
new street is involved. any di%ision of such
parcel. However, the division of land into par-
cels of more than five acres not involving any
change in street lines or public easements of
whatsoever kind is •not to be deemed a subdi-
vision within the meaning of this part. The
term includes a resubdivision and, when appro-
priate to the context, relates to the process of
subdividing or to the land subdivided.
(8) "Variance" as used in connection with
the provisions of this par dealing with zoning,
means a modification of the zoning ordinance
regulations when such variance will not be
contrary to the public interest and when, owing
to conditions peculiar to the property and not
the result of the actions of the applicant, a
literal enforcement of the ordinance would re-
sult in unnecessary and undue hardship. A
variance is authorized only for height, area,
and size of structure or size of yards and
open spaces. Establishment or expansion of a
use otherwise prohibited shall not be allowed
by variance .nor shall a variance be granted
because of the presence of nonconformities in
the zoning district or classification or in ad.
P
joiniin�g zoning districts or classifications.
163.175 Areas and jurisdictions which may
qualify under the provisions of this part.—
(1) MUNICIPALITIES AND ADJACENT
AREAS.—Any incorporated municipality may
exercise any or all of the powers granted
under the provisions of this part in the total
area within its corporate Iimits upon passage
of an appropriate ordinance to that effect by
the governing body. Unincorporated areas ad-
jacent to incorporated municipalities may be
added to and included in the area under muni-
cipal
unicipal jurisdiction for the purposes of this part.
when the governing bodies of the municipality
and the county in which the area is located
shall agree as to the boundaries of such addi-
tional areas, procedures for joint action. pro-
cedures for administration of ordinances and
regulations applying to the area. and the Man-
ner of ',obtaining equitable representation on
the commissions and boards provided for under
this part. Such agreements shall be formally
stated in appropriate official action by the gov-
erning bod:es involved.
(2) COCNT1ES.—Any county may exercise
any of the powers granted under the provisions
of this part in the total unincorporated area
within its boundaries or in such unincorporated
areas as are not included in any joint juris-
diction with municipalities established under
the provisions of subsection (1). In order to
exercise any of the powers granted under the
provisions of this part, the board of county
commissioners of the county shall pass an or-
dinance after due public notice to that effe-ct_ .
(3) COMBINATIONS OF MUNICIPALI-
TIS AND COUNTIES.—Combinations of in-
corporated municipalities, of counties. of an
incorporated municipality or municipalities and
a county or counties, or an incorporated muni-
cipality or municipalities and portions of a
county or counties may jointly exercise the
powers granted under the provisions of this
part upon formal adoption of an official agree-
ment by the governing bodies involved as de-
scribed in subsection (1).
(4) PUBLIC HEARING:—Before any muni-
cipality or county. jointly or individually, may
adopt the provisions of this part, there shall
be at least one public hearing with due public
notice held in the area involved at which time
all affected persons shall be given an oppor-
tunity to appear and be heard.
t{id.r .-44. ch. 69-13f.
163.180 Commissions.—
(1) ESTABLISHMENT AND CO3IPOSI-
TIO\.—The governing bodies of counties and
incorporated municipalities are hereby empow-
ered. individually or in combination as provided
in §163.175, to establish commissions and ap-
point members thereto, the proportionate mem-
bership thereof to be as agreed upon and
appointed by the governmental bodies con-
cerned. Elected officeholders of any of the
jurisdictions involved may serve only in an
655
•
•
JUN
•
v
r,
r utlt ` fa^r .�s-mit
•
• ;
•
frt
..4
JUN 4 en
:4 s.r: .v
V
Ch. 163
• ex officio capacity.
(2) TERMS OF OFFICE; REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE; VACANCIES. -:-Members of
the commission shall be appointed for stag-
gered,terms of such length as may be deter-
mined jointly by the governing bodies involved
and shall serve until their successors are ap-
pointed. Original appointments may be made
for a lesser number of years so that the terms
of the said members shall be staggered. The c
governing body creating the commission is t
authorized to remove any member of the com- •
mission for cause after written notice and pub- s
lie hearing. Any vacancy occurring during the
unexpired term of office of any member shall be a
filled by the governing body concerned for the s
remainder of the term. Such vacancy shall be a
filled within thirty days after the vacancy c
occurs.
(3) OFFICERS. RULES OF PROCEDURE, n
EMPLOYEES AND SALARIES.— s
(a) The commission shall elect a chairman t
and a vice-chairman from among its members. e
The commission shall appoint a secretary who 0
maybe the executive director of the commission b
or an employee of the governing body. do
(b) The commission shall meet at regular in
intervals to be determined by it and at such
other times as the chairman or commission a
may determine. It shall adopt rules for the d
transaction of its business and keep a properly q
indexed record of its resolutions, transactions, n:
findings and determinations. which record shall
be ..a public record. All meetings of the com- g
mission shall be public.
(c) The commission may, subject to the ap- b
proval of the governing body concerned and fo
within the financial limitations set by appro- r
pria._ons made or other funds available, eni- di
ploy such experts, technicians, and staff as th
may be deemed proper and pay their salaries,
contractual charges and fees, and such other sa
expenses as are necessary to conduct the work
of the commission- T
(d) Nothing in this part shall prevent the sti.
governing body of a county or incorporated
t:aunicipality that participates in creating a ut
commission serving two or more jurisdictions ut
from continuing or creating its own commis- fu
sion. It may assign to the commission serving a;
two or more jurisdictions any or ali of the
functions, powers and duties of its own com-
mission, whereupon the functions, powers and
duties so assigned shall no longer be exercised sic
by its own commission but shall thereafter be to
exercised by the commission serving two or pr
snore jurisdictions. de
(4) APPROPRIATIONS, FEES AND OTH- an
ER INCOME.—The governing body for the pro
area under the jurisdiction of the commission the
is hereby authorized and empowered to make vel
appropriations for salaries, fees, and expenses wh
necessary in the conduct of the work of the Th
conurission and also to establish a schedule of pos
fees to be charged by the commission. To ac- net
complish the purposes and activities author- of
ized by this part, the commission, with the isti
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS
Ch. 163
approval of the govern zg body or bodies, has
the authority t_. e_xpe:i all sums so appropri-
ated and other sc-s made available for its use
from fees, gifts, s:::e cr federal grants, state
or federal loa :s, other sc�rces when ac-
ceptance of such :cans is a;prcved by the
governing bodies .::ved.
8[sbr7.—!s. ch. 63-:3i.-
163.135 Functions, powers, and duties of
ommissions.—T=e f_nc:jo s. pcwere. and du-
ies of the Co:.rnmiss-shall be, in ,
;_neral and
in addition to any to :ions, powers and duties
et forth in the b-dy cf this pert, to:
(1) Acquire a=d mai_aia sec?: information
nd materials are necessary to an under_
tending of pas: =_•?s. present conditions,
nd forces at work. oe cause changes in these
onditions. Sucii '_- _nation and material may
include maps an ;hoe graphs of man-made and
atural physical :_-res of the area concerned,
tatistics on ;-se ^:rends and ;resent condi-
ions with res -e:- -to,- population, prcpert
alues, econo^ hese; land
ther inforaeloz es L7e= and such
e important - - important or li:._iy to
kind :e e-_-:-s^g t'.e amc•un;, direc-
n, and kind cf z ;e,olmen: to be expected
the area and _:aes parte.
(2) Prepare. a.__- and f..,=.e to time
mend and re __ and
inated gene: ; - � for _pr.eenee = corseet e-
uirements a_- __ -e z oem
ay be forest-_ - -=ts as
(3) Estab:is e ip:es a -d -
uiding action ._ _ m �r
(4) Conduct _ _ - •e:Opn e:. of [ area.
— p �t:: = as t=3
e required to gamer er ' fo.rmation r.ecessary
r the drafting, __- sh
' �'" � ort and ^-ai:•e-
ance of the cc-r_.:e-sire plan and such ed.
tional public ea-�_; as
are specified ;::der
e provisions of tcs
(5) Make or case :o be made any r.eces-
ry special studies en the Iocation, condition,
d adequacy of stet.::= facilities in the area.
hese may incluse, bat are not limited to,
tidies on housing, commercial and industrial
nditions and facia::es, public and private
ilities, and traffic, t. a .s;. xtation, and parking.
(8) Perform any ether duties which law
-
lly may be assigned to it.
isaor7.�6, eh. 6it-133.
163.190 The comprehensive plan. -
1) COMPREHE_:S=V E PLAN.—When ba.
information for the area has been brought
gether, the comtnisa'e i shall prepare a com-
ehensive and coordinated general plan to the
velopment of the ares, based on eeisting
d anticipated needs, showing existing and
posed improvements in the area rind stating
principles according to. which future de-
opment should proceed and the mar.ner in
ich such developr._ert should be. con:rolled.
e plan shall be to ,le- with the gineral pur-
e of ed, adjuste , ing nd and oniouiirg a d welopm2 at
the area which will. in accordance with ex •
-
ng and future needs, best promote public
656
all 4 Ms
�t;,i�i_T - --,leer'+.'`:, a'. "^.� - n.::s<4 e-• .•
•Nif.sr,Oru.:sr a"3 gvia.iGoolaiY.r
Ch. 163 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS
Ch. 163
health, safety, comfort, order, appearance, con-
venience, morals. and the general welfare and
which will contribute to efficiency and economy
in the process of development. The comprehen-
sive plan shall include plans for land use and
may include plans for transportation, commu-
nity facilities, a long-range financial program
for public improvements, and such other mat-
ters as may be deemed necessary by the com-
mission and the governing body for the purpose
of meeting the objectives of this part.
(2) ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.—
The
O:.IIS ION.—
The comprehensive plan shall be adopted by the
commission either in its entirety or as sub-
stantial portions corresponding generally with
functional or geographic classifications are
completed. Before adoption of the comprehen-
sive plan cr any portion or portions thereof,
a public hearing shall be held with due public
notice by the commission. The adoption of the
comprehensive plan or any portion or portions
thereof. or of any amendment or additions
thereto, shall be by resolution carried by the
affirmative vote of a majority of the total mem-
bership of the co=ission. The resolution shall
refer expressly to the reaps, descriptive ma-
terial and other matters i^.:eaded by the plan.
ning commissioa to form the whole or part of
the comprehensive plan. The action taken shall
be recorded on the adopted plan or parts
thereof by the identifying signatures of the
secretary and the chair.non of the commission.
together with the date of soch action, and a
copy of the comprehensive. plan or parts
:hereof shall be certified to governing body.
The officially adopted copy of :he comprehen-
sive plan or any portion :hereof and any duly
a?opted amendments thereto shall be a part
of the permanent records cf the commission.
(3) ADOPTION O3- r:_P_^-.EHENSIVE
PLAN BY GOVERNING BOZ _ ^R BODIES.—
The governing bode . : — adopt the
mpreheesive plan by a=re- zee official ac-
ti:n either _ . !IS entire*. er substantial
portions cc--_ zoo -ding genere- - with the func-
tional
unc-
:cnal or ge:gezelt class:- =_._s are com-
pleted and seer ed by the ez _:ssion. Any
ccmprehensiwe rear shall ca:_ -e effective
:yon its adoption hy a major--- _:..:e member-
ship of the governing body.
Siston.—i%. ch. 63-:57.
163.195 Legal effect of compre tensive plan.
-Whenever a comprehensive .._n for the area
or a portion, of sech a plan c:.--s_;cnding gen-
erally with a functional claseilzation of the
subject matter or a geograehic ::ossification of
the area has been adopted. -:he_ and thence-
forth no street, park, onher public way,
ground, place, or space, ; :`::c building or
structure not in conform:-- =::a the compre-
hensive plan shall be tees: --red, altered or
authorized in the area un:ess the location and
extent thereof shall have teen submitted to
the commission Thr a rep.- and its statement
of approval or disapproval and the reasons
therefor. Within thin days after the request
for such report has been received by the com-
mission or within such other time limit as may
be agreed upon, the report shall either be
made or failure of the commission to act
shall be deemed approval. The commission's
report may be overruled by a majority vote
of the entire membership of the governing
body. After a comprehensive plan for the area
or a portion- of such plan corresponding gen-
erally with a geographic classification of the
area has been adopted by the governing body,
no zoning ordinance, subdivision regulation. or
code adopted under the authority of this part
shall be amended until such amendment shall
have been referred to the commission for re-
view.
Heston. l5. ch. 80-i1a.
163.200 Review and amendment of compre-
hensive plan.' -'—At least once each year. the com-
prehensive plan or the completed parts thereof
shall be reviewed by the planning commission
to determine whether changes in the amount,
kind or direction of development of the area.
or other reasons make it beneficial to make
additions or amendments to the plan. If the
governing body desires an amendment or ad-
dition to the comprehensive plan, it may, on
its own motion, direct the commission to pre-
pare such amendment; and if such amendment
is in accordance with the purposes of the com-
prehensive plan, the commission shall do so
within a reasonable time as established by the
governing body. The procedure for revising,
adding to or amending the comprehensive pian
shall be the same as the procedure for its ori-
ginal adoption.
Hlssory.—U. ch. 60-t50.
163.205 Zoning; ordinances; contents.—
(1) After a comprehensive plan has been
prepared and adopted as provided for in ,f 3163-
190, 163.195, and 163.200, and for the purpose
of guiding and accomplishing coordinated, ad-
justed, and harmonious development in accord-
ance with existing and future needs and in
order to protect, promote, and iinprove public
health, safety, comfort, order, appearance, con-
venience, morals, and general welfare, the gov-
erning body of an area described under §163.175,
in accordance with the conditions and proce-
dures specified in this part, may enact or
amend and enforce a zoning ordinance after
a public hearing with due public notice. In
such ordinance the governing body shall divide
the entire area into districts of such number,
shape, and size as may be deemed best suited
to carry out the purposes of this part, and
within these districts may regulate, determine,
and establish:
(a) Height, number of stories, size, bulk,
location, erection, construction, repair, recon-
struction, alteration, and use of buildings and
other structures for trade, industry, residence,
and other purposes;
(b) Use of land and water for trade, In-
dustry. profession, residence, and other pur-
poses;
(c) Size of yards, courts, and other open
657
•
4 1975
<a -
• 1.
,•.. ice' _
•a-..�._y3•e+K Nc' •n`4,c-.r.��..�
Ch. 163 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS
spaces;
(d) Percentage of lot that may be occupied;
(e) Density of population;
(f) Conditions under which various classes
of nonconformities may continue, including au-
thority to set fair and reasonable schedules for
the elimination of nonconforming uses;
(g) Use and types and sizes of structures
in those areas subject to seasonal or periodic
flooding, so that danger to Life and property in
such areas will be minimized; and
(h) Performance standards for use of prop-
erty and location of structures thereon.
(2) All such regulations shall be uniform
throughout each district, but the regulations in
,cne district may differ front those in other
districts. For each district designated for the
...cation of trades, callings, industries, commer-
cial enterprises. residences, or buildings de-
signed for specific uses, regulations may specify
these uses that shall be excluded or subjected
e reasonable requirements of a special nature.
ices permitted in one district may be prohibited
ceher districts. to the end that incornpatibil-
'; of uses is minimized or eliminated. P.egu-
ete and district boundaries shall protect,
p: -=::e, and improve public health, safety,
order, appearance, convenience, morals,
&mat general welfare and shall be made with
reezeriabie consideration, among other things,
to :1.-e character of the districts and their spe-
cie: s .i abiii • for particular uses and with a
conserving property values and en-
c= -=g the meat appropriate use of land
"-ierte_.i•-out the area.
mse'?.--azo. e3. 69-133.
16,1210 Zoning; procedure for establishing
de.:.ct boundaries; adoption of regulations.—
aIt TENTATIVE REPORT BY COMMIS-
SION.—Tentative recommendations as to the
"^':.: daries of districts and the regulations to
.e enforced therein may be prepared by the
cc:emssion on its own initiative or at the
request of the governing body. The commis-
s:cn shall hold public preliminary hearings
and conferences at such times and places and
upon such notice as it may determine to be
necessary to inform itself and the public in
the preparation of the tentative report. The
tentative report, which shall include the pro-
posed zoning ordinance with maps and other
explanatory materials, shall be made to the
governing body by the commission.
(2) ACTIOti EY GOVERNING BODY.—
Within thirty days or such reasonable times
as shall be agreed upon, the governing body
or bodies of the area shall consider the tenta-
tive report of the planning commission and
shall return it, with any sug„ estions a- ;
recornme.lations, to the commission so Ce..t
the commission may prepare a final report. No
ordinance under the authority of • this part
shalt be passed until after the final report
of the commission has been received by the
governing body. .
(Z, FINAL REPORT AND ACTION.—The
Ch. 16
commission shall then make a final report t<
the governing body. Such final report shall not
be made by the commission until it has con.
sidered the recommendations and suggestions
of the governing body and until it has held al
least one public hearing, with due public no.
tice. The commission may hold such additional
hearings as it may consider desirable. After
the final report has been submitted by the
commission. the governing body shall afford
all interested persons an opportunity to be
heard with reference to the proposed zoning
ordinance at a public hearing with due public
notice before adopting said ordinance.
8I34.47.—f11, c4 63-13a.
163.215 Zoning; supplementing or amend-
ing the zoning ordinance.—
(1) The governing body may amend or
supplement the regulations and districts fixed
by any zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to
this part after referral .and recommendations
of the commission. Proposed changes may be
suggested by the governing body. m
by the com-
mission, or by petition of the owners of fifty-
one percent or more of the area involved in
the .proposed change. In the latter case, the
petitioners may be required to assume the
cost of public notice and other costs incidental
to the holding of public hearings.
(2) The planning commission, regardless
of the source of the proposed change, shall
hold a public hearing or hearings thereon,
with due public notice, but shall in any case,
if any change is to be considered by the corn -
mission, submit in writing its recommendations
on the proposed change to the governing b•>dy
for official action. The governing body shalt
hold a public hearing thereon, with due public
notice, if any change is to be considered and
shall then act on the proposed change. If the
recommendation of the commission is adverse
to the proposed change, such change shall not
become etiective except by an affirmative vote
of a majority of the entire membership of the
governing body, after due public notice.
eusiese.--ft:, ee. 69-179.
163.220 Board of adjustment; creation and
composition; terms; officers; etc.—
(1) CREATION AND COMPOSITION. --As
part of tha zoning ordinance, the governing
body shall create a board of adjustment. The
board of adjustment shall have not less than
five nor more than ten members. Members of
the board of adjustme.nt shall be appointed
by the governing body. In addition, the gov-
erning body may appoint not more than two
alternate members, designating them as such.
Such alternate members may act in the tem-
porary absence or disability of any regular
member, or may act when a regular member
is otherwise disqualified in a particular cs_e
that may be presented to the board. Ne mem-
ber or alternate member of the board of .ad-
justment shall be a paid or elected otic! al or
employee of '':e governing body invoiv?d.
i 0.F
(2) TER: OFFICE, RF. i0Vf+I, i• ::C•'+.r
658
F
gor;k
4 1975
ORDINANCE NO. 1250
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE VERO BEACH MASTER
LAND USE PLAN AS A GUIDE AND ADVISORY PLANNING
TOOL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING THAT NO
APPLICATION FOR REZONING IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED; IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
TO THE EXTENT OF INITIATING REZONING OF "PROB-
LEM AREAS" AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR SUCH
REZONING; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE AS TO
FORMER ORDINANCES ANDA SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AS
TO INDIVIDUAL PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, it is the belief Of the City Council of the City of Vero
Beach that a comprehensive land use plan and land use policies are desir-
able for the incorporated area of the City of Vero Beach; and
. WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Vero Beach grants said Council
authority to adopt zoning ordinances to establish and implement a compre-
hensive
land use plan; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive land use plan and land use policies have
been submitted to the Parks, Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
of Vero Beach, as a result of which and for a period of approximately two
years, many public discussions and a duly noticed public hearing have been
conducted thereon; and
WHEREAS, the said Commission has submitted the comprehensive land
use plan, land use policies and recommendations to said City Council for
appropriate action;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH HEREBY
ORDAINS:
SECTION I
That for the purpose of this ordinance, the term "Vero Beach Master
. Land Use Plan" shall be deemed to refer to that comprehensive land use plan
and land use policies prepared by the Vero Beach Parks, Planning and Zoning
Commission with the assistance of the Vero Beach - Indian River County
Planning Staff and incorporated into this ordinance by specific reference.
SECTION II
The Vero Beach Master Land Use Plan prepared by the Vero Beach -
Indian River County Planning Staff and the Vero Beach Parks, Planning and
aOGK a 3'PACE 39
Zoning Commission is approved as the official land use -guide and advisory
planning tool for the City of Vero Beach. A copy of said land use plan
is incorporated herein by specific reference. The Vero Beach Master Land
Use Plan consists of the following:
(1) Elements
(2)
(a) Population Projections
' (b) Economy
(c) Existing Land Uses and Thoroughfares
(d) Environmental Considerations
(e) Housing
(f) Future Land Use Patterns and Thoroughfares
(g) Public Facilities
Goals and Objectives
(a) Economic Objectives
(b) Living Objectives
(3) Plan Proposals
(a) Housing
(b) Commercial Areas
(c) Major Thoroughfare System
(d) Land Use Plan
(e) Public Facilities
(f) Plan and Policy Proposals to Meet Local Objectives
The "Elements", "Goals and Objectives" and "Plan Proposals" as above out-
lined and as supplemented by the "Composite Land Use /Transportation Plan -
7O1`Report" of June, 1973, are incorporated herein by specific reference.
SECTION III
That the intent and purpose of the Vero Beach Master Land Use Plan
is to provide an official guide and advisory planning tool for the orderly
future development and use of land within the incorporated area of the City
of Vero Beach, for use by the City Council; Parks, Planning and Zoning Com-
mission; Vero Beach - Indian River County Planning Commission and Planning
Staff and other agencies of local or state government. The Vero Beach Master
Land Use Plan is intended to promote an arrangement to land use, of traffic
circulation, of utilities, of public services and of density limitations
compatible with the available material resources and in conformity with the
economic and physical health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Vero
Beach and Indian River County, based upon a consideration of the following
factors:
(a) The unique geographic, topographic and soil condition of
said Vero Beach area.
-2-
100k
2-
JON 4 1375
100k rl,vF 377
The population projections per said Vero Beach area.
The existing land use classifications within said Vero
Beach area and adjacent municipalities.
Existing traffic flow within said Vero Beach area and
projected methods of increasing capacity of traffic,
both public and private, within said Vero Beach area.
Existing and potential limits of an available water
supply.
Existing sanitary sewerage systems and projected capa-
bility for expansion.
The demand for public services required by the population
projections.
The preservation of natural features as a vital irre-
placeable natural resource.
The preservation and promotion of the economic, social
and physical health, safety and convenience of said Vero
Beach area.
SECTION IV
That the objectives sought by the City Council of the City of Vero
Beach in the approving of said Vero Beach Master Land Use Plan are:
(a) To designate adequate lands at appropriate locations
for various private land uses in the quantities and at
the densities required to accommodate projected popula-
tion.
(b) To encourage the preservation and enhancement of rivers
and waterways of Indian River County as a paramount
natural resource.
(c) To make provision for housing and commercial establish-
ments of such types, sizes and densities as are required
to satisfy the varying needs and desires of a broad
spectrum of economic segments of said Vero Beach area
while optimizing the opportunity for individual choice
+ithin the constraints imposed by land and water avail
ability, land and development cost, transportation needs
and population growth.
-3-
4 als
3-
4197'5 3 ?Ag[
JUN 4 1975
`"f
(d) To allocate and distribute commercial lands for retail,
service, tourism and office facilities in quantities and
patterns based upon planning principles and standards.
(e) To provide a basis and plan for the location and program-
ming of public services and"utilities and to coordinate
the phasing of public facilities with private development.
(f)
To make provision for a traffic circulation system coor-
dinated with land uses and densities, and adequate to
accommodate necessary traffic movement.
SECTION V
That commencing with the effective date of this ordinance, no appli-
cation for rezoning in conflict with the Vero Beach Master Land Use Plan
shall be considered, unless the plan is first amended to reflect the change
in zoning sought.
SECTION VI
That annually the Vero Beach Master Land Use Plan be reviewed by
the Parks, Planning and Zoning Commission to determine if
any area have changed, or, the forces of growth, economic
acter and distribution of population and the technique of
changed to preserve the overall integrity of the plan.
conditions in
conditions, char -
planning have
SECTION VII
That the Parks, Planning and Zoning Commission is hereby directed
to begin an in depth study of the problem areas existing in the incorporated
area of the City to determine if those areas should come into, alignment with
the Vero Beach Master Land Use Plan and when this has been accomplished, the
Commission shall either recommend to or seek the advice of Council as to
future action. In effectuating the study hereinabove described, action taken
shall consist of the following:
(a) An ordinance establishing, defining and implementing the
"Medium Density" zoning district.
(b) A defining of the term "problem area".
(c) When a problem area has been determined, a study shall be
conducted by the Vero Beach - Indian River County Planning
Staff and therefrom a zoning recommendation will be developed
-4-
40nk 623*
Alf
9 E
by the Parks, Planning and Zoning Commission. In this re-
gard, the Commission shall finally determine any zoning
recommendation.
(d) A public hearing on any recommended zoning change, prior
to which the following should occur:
(1) Notice of the hearing mailed by certified mail - return
receipt requested, fifteen days prior to the hearing
to affected property owners, which notice should in-
clude a legal description of the property to be rezoned
with an area map; the existing zoning classification;
the proposed zoning classification and the time and place
of the hearing.
(2) Notice published at least fifteen days in advance of
the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City of Vero Beach.
(e) Following the hearing before the Parks, Planning and Zoning
Commission, a recommendation to the City Council advising of
the rezoning determined appropriate.
After receipt of the recommendation, a public hearing before
the Council, notice of which should be published as above
indicated.
(f)
SECTION VIII
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and
the same are expressly repealed.
SECTION IX
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence or phrase of this ordi-
nance and its incorporated matters is for any reason held unconstitutional
or invalid, this shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any
of the remaining portions of 'this ordinance.
by law.
all 4 1975
SECTION X
This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and as provided
-5-
Pririli 4", PAU 41
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was finally passed
by the City Council on the I:// day of
1975.
Attest:
BEACH, FLORIDA
Daeid-Gregg, Jr., Mayor
Robert B. Weathers, City:Clerk
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I posted a true copy of the above and fore-
going ordinance on the bulletin board in the City Hall of the City of
Vero Beach, Florida, after passage of said ordinance on first reading
and at -least five days before the passage of the said ordinance on second
reading, and I posted a true copy of said ordinance on the bulletin board
in the City Hall and Indian River County Courthouse after fina passag
•
-6-
,UN: 4 1975
City 1-rk
9nn 23 PAA 41
xtil b i -r e
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE
No. 74
BE IT ENACTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Short Title : This Act shall be known and may be
cited as the"Indian River County Comprehensive Planning Act of 1974".
Section 2. Intent and Purpose:
(1) To improve the physical environment of the community
c
as a setting for human activities - to make it more functional, beautiful,
decent, healthful, interesting, and efficient.
(2) To promote the public interest, while maintaining if
possible a balance between the interest of the community at large, and the
interests of individuals or special groups within the community.
(3) To facilitate the democratic determination and imple-
mentation of community policies on physical development. . .
(4) To effect political and technical coordination in com-
munity development. . .
(5) To inject long-range considerations ihto the determina-
tion of short-range actions. . . .
•
(6) To bring professional and technical knowledge to bear
on the making of politica: decisions concerning the physical development of
the community.
d
(7) To preserve and enhance the county's present advantages;
encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources consistent
f with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; preserve, promote
protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appear-
ance, convenience, law enforcement, fire prevention and general welfare;.
prevent the overcrowdin:l of land and avoid undue concentration of population;
facilitate the adequate a ..i efficient provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, par; -s, recreational facilities, housing and other require-
ments and services; and •onserve, develop; utilize and protect natural
resources within the co' ?y
(3) 105 not the intent of the Land Use Plan hereinafter
a Jp;ed to>establis'.1 gocktiines, limitations or reLruiations f•_:: the rezoni17'4
C«
` 42WA� l ., y
of small and specific parcels of land, since this is a function of the Zoning
Ordinance. The Land Use Plan is not a constitution but a guide only to
the most compatible, least disruptive, uses of land on a broad, general
area basis without in some cases considering the present use of lands
included therein. A broad brush approach was used with the intent that
boundary line's not be interpreted as being permanently' fixed or located.
The Plan is not ultimately definitive. It is simply a gauge for determining
the optimum desirable development under presently known resources.
(9) It is further the intent of this act to encourage co-
operation and coordination on planning and zoning between municipalities
and county government.
Section 3. Adoption: The Comprehensive Plan for Indian River
County, Florida as originally prepared by Adley Associates, Inc. and there-
after amended is hereby adopted as the Comprehensive Plan for Indian River
County, Florida.
Section 4. Contents: The Comprehensive Plan consists of the
Following:
(1) Elements
(a) Population Projections
(b) Economy
(c) Existing Land Uses and Thoroughfares
(d) Environmental Considerations
(e) Housing
(f) Future Land Use Patterns and Thoroughfares
(g) Public facilities
(2) Goals and Objectives
(a) Economic Objectives
(b) Living Objectives
(3) Plan Proposals
(a) Housing
(b) Commercial Areas
(c) Major thoroughfare system
(d) Land Use Plan
(e) Public facilities
(f) Plan and Policy Proposals to meet local Objectives
Official copies of which have been fil :a. with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Indian River County, Florida. a! in ?he records of this Board.
advisory only and in and of itsel:
a CI)Trr::,.r-.-her..,-;1,.-,:s Plan
not be construed to regulate or control
tiii• ;:iE of p: _: .tf• pro:-)ertj it 1 except as to s:Scn part thereof
3 'AGE 43
4
4 X15
has been duly enacted by a zoning, plat or other specific ordinance.
Section 6. Revision and Amendment:
(1) At least once each year. the Land Use Plan element
of the Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed by the Indian River County
Zoning Commission to determine whether changes in the amount, kind or
direction of development in the county, or other factors make it beneficial
to make additions or amendments to the Plan.
.(2) In making additions or amendments, the Zoning
Commission shall seek an equitable fusion of economics, political consider-
ations and preservation of essential natural qualities recognizing that
growth in itself is neither destructive nor undesirable; however its
desirability is to be measured by its quality, its cost - both direct and
indirect - to the public, and its impact on the environment. The Commis-
sion shall seek a balance between public concern and private interests and
harmony between man and nature. Other elements may be reviewed as
needed but not less than once every five years.
(3) Any person may submit a petition to the Indian River
Zoning Commission at any time to amend the Comprehensive Plan. All
such petitions shall be reviewed and considered by the Zoning Commission
at its annual review of the Comprehensive Plan.
(4) Should the Zoning Commission det ermine that re-
visions or amendments are needed, a public hearing. duly noticed by
publication once in a newspaper of county -wide circulation at least ten
- days prior to the hearing, shall be held prior to approval by the Zoning
Commission.
(5) Should the Zoning Commission approve revisions or
amendments, the Commission shall forward the same to the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County which Board shall hold a
public hearing prior to taking any action thereon. Notice of the hearing
shall he published.once in a newspaper of county -wide circulation at least
ten day prior to the hearing.
7 T'. rnrrcn ni C'17n"': :iri. •: , 1r
of the po:: ,-rs cover—: by this ordinance, planning and zoning commissions"
01
rAGE 44
governmental or administrative bodies of this county and cities within
the county, may cooperate, coordinate or integrate any activity, for the
purpose of coordinating and integrating the planning and zoning of the
county and cities.
Section 8. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall become
effective on the day of 1974.
rAGE
9004 23 45
4 1975
1 have prepared alternative paragraphs on Legal Effects in
the event a majority feel that the plan should be something more than a
guide.
Section 5. Legal Effect on Present and Future Development:
(1) Present Development
The Comprehensive Plan as adopted herein shall
have no effect currently on present development. Real property owners
Shall have five years from the date of adoption of this ordinance in which
to begin development under present zoning. Thereafter all development
shall be in compliance with the following paragraph.
(2) Future Development
No public or private development shall be permitted
except in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, elements or portions
thereof herein adopted except under the following circumstances:
(a) The public body before whom an application for
development, not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, must find
that the area to be developed is ripe for development to the use being pro-
posed, and
(b) There is a need for the change. and
(c) the proposed development is not against the
public interest, and
(d) the body finds and recommends that the cir-
cumstances demonstrate a need for revision to the Comprehensive Plan
to reflect the requested development.
gm 23 F'AGE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE
No. 74
,F-xh;,6;1" C o.�y
1.-v ,v2, 7 zrfr)
d,v
BE IT ENACTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Short Title: This Act shall be known and may be cited
as the "Indian River County Comprehensive Planning Act of 1974".
Section 2. Intent and Purpose:
(1) To improve the physical environment of the community as
a setting for human activities - to make it more functional, beautiful, decent,
healthful, interesting, and efficient.
(2) To promote the public interest, while maintaining if pos-
sible a balance between the interest of the community at large, and the interests
of individuals or special groups within the community.
(3) To facilitate the democratic determination and implementa-
tion of community policies on physical development.
(4) To effect political and technical coordination in community
development.
(5) To inject long-range considerations into the determination
of short-range actions.
(6) To bring professional and technical knowledge to bear on
the making of political decisions concerning the physical development of the
community.
(7) To preserve and enhance the county's present advantages;
encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources consistent
with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; preserve, promote,
protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appear-
ance, convenience, law enforcement, fire prevention and general welfare;
prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration of population;
facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage,
schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing and other requirements and
•
services; and conserve, develop, utilize and protect natural resources within
the county.
V(8) While the Comprehensive Plan herein adopted is intended to
control existing and projected future development of Indian River County, it is
not intended to be inflexible. As future social and economic conditions change,
it is intended that the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended so as to reflect future
planning for those changes.
(9) It is further the intent of this act to encourage cooperation
and coordination on planning and zoning between municipalities and county govern -
meat.
Section 3. Adoption: The Comprehensive Plan for Indian River
County, Florida, as originally prepared by Adley Associates, Inc. and there-
after amended and attached hereto is hereby adopted as the Comprehensive Plan
for Indian River County, Florida.
Section 4. Contents: The Comprehensive Plan is further supple-
mented by the following:
(1) Elements
(a) Population Projections
(b) Economy
(c) Existing Land Uses and Thoroughfares
(d) Environmental Considerations
(e) Housing
(f) Future Land Use Patterns and Thoroughfares
(g) Public Facilities
(2) Goals and Objectives
(a) Economic Objectives
(b) Living Objectives
(3) Plan Proposals
(a) Housing
(b) Commercial Areas
(c) Major thoroughfare system
(d) Land Use Plan •
(e) Public facilities
(f) Plan and Policy Proposals to meet local objectives
Official copies of which have been filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Indian River County, Florida, and in the records of this Board.
2
JUN
qprl
:h•
,/Section S. Effect en Present and Future Development:
7(1) Revision ofexisting zoning ordinances: Within six (6) months
from the effective date of this ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners shall
undertake to repeal or amend existing zoning ordinances and/or adopt new zoning
ordinances where necessary to bring said ordinances into conformity with the Com-
prehensive Plan and supplemental elements. Procedure for said repeal or adoption
shall be in accordance with the provision of Indian River County Ordinance No. 71-3
and Amendments thereto.
`/(2) Conforming Existing Zoning Districts: Promptly, after revision
of existing ordinances referred to in the next preceding subsection (1), the Board of
County Commissioners shall cause a study to be made, Section by Section, of all
property whose present zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
revised zoning ordinances and, after a public hearing as to each such Section, shall,
where practicable, either rezone such inconsistently zoned property or modify the
Comprehensive Plan, as the case may be, to substantially conform the inconsistent
zoning with the Plan in each such Section; except that, for good cause shown, the
Board may retain existing zoning on specific property for a limited period of time
as may be "set by the Board, subject to such specific property being developed in
accordance with the existing zoned land use within such limited period of time or
otherwise being rezoned to conform to the Plan following expiration of the period.
Such Section by Section analysis and conformation shall proceed diligently toward
completion within eighteen (18) months following revision of existing ordinances
unless for good cause the Board finds it necessary to extend the date of comple-
tion for another six (6) months.
1/(3) Interim Rezoning - Use Exception: Commencing with the effect-
ive date of this ordinance, no application for rezoning to a district in conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan shall be considered unless the Comprehensive Plan is first
amended in accordance with Sec. 6 of this ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
existing buildings or structures or any building or structure, construction of which
is commenced prior to conformation as provided in the next preceding subsection (2),
shall be permitted to continue to exist and not be deemed a non -conforming use pur-
suant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 71-3 and Amendments thereto, until
3
49
to
said structure is demolished, destroyed or removed.
1,(4) Future Uses: After Subsections (1) and (2) of this Section 5
have been complied with, no street, park, other public or private way, ground,
space, or place, public or private building or structure not in conformity with
the Comprehensive Plan shall be constructed, altered or authorized unless the
Comprehensive Plan is first amended in accordance with Sec. 6 of this ordinance.
V (5) Conflict with Other Land Use and Land Development Rules,
• Regulations and Ordinances: In the event of conflict between the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan and supplemental elements and the provisions of any other
land use or land development rules, regulations or ordinance previously adopted,
the provisions of such Comprehensive Plan and supplemental elements shall be
controlling over such other provisions. Land useand land develo pment rules,
regulations or ordinances shall include but shall not be limited to those in the fol-
lowing areas:
(a) Building and construction including codes and permits;
(b) Drainage and irrigation;
(c) Electrical codes and permits;
(d) Land filling and/or land excavation;
(e) Landscape ordinance;
(f) Subdivision and plats;
(g) Planned unit development;
(h) Plumbing codes and perrnits;,
(i) Street and road construction, location and opening;
(j) Capital improvements program; and
(k) Water and sewer provisions.
In the event of conflict between provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and supplemental
elements and provisions of any other land use or land development ordinance adopted
hereafter, provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and supplemental elements shall be
controlling over such other provisions unless the Comprehensive Plan is amended so
as to eliminate the conflict in accordance with Sec. 6 of this ordinance.
Section 6. Revision and Amendment:
(1) At least once each year prior to the first day of March, the Land
Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed by the Indian River
County Zoning Commission to determine whether changes in the amount, kind or
direction of development in the county, or other factors make it beneficial to make
additions or amendments to the Plan; and such changes, additions or amendments
shall, if approved by the Board of County Commissioners, become a part hereof.
4
•
E
(2) In making additions or amendments, the Zoning Commission
and Board of County Commissioners shall seek an equitable fusion of economics,
political considerations and preservation of essential natural qualities recognizing
that growth in itself is neither destructive nor undesirable; however, its desirability
is to be measured by its quality, its cost - both direct and indirect - to the public,
and its impact on the environment. The Commission shall seek a balance between
public concern and private interests and harmony between man and nature. Other
elements may be reviewed as needed bit not less than once every five years.
(3) Any person may submit a petition to the Indian River County
Zoning Commission at any time to amend the Comprehensive Plan. All such peti-
tions shall be reviewed and considered by the Zoning Commission, after a report
from the Planning Office, at its annual review of the Comprehensive Plan.
(4) Should the Zoning Commission determine that revisions or
amendments are needed, a public hearing, duly noticed by publication once in a
newsra-er of county -wide circulation at least ten days prior to the hearing, shall
be prior to approval by the Zoning Commission.
(5) Should the Zoning Commission approve revisions or amend-
mems, the Commission shall forward the same to the Board of County Commission-
ers of Indian River County which Board shall hold a public hearing prior to taking
any action thereon. Notice of the hearing shall be published once in a newspaper
of county -wide circulation at least ten days prior to the hearing.
Section 7. Intergovernmental Cooperation: In the exercise of the
powers covered by -this ordinance, planning and zoning commissions, governmental
or administrative bodies of this county and cities within the county, may cooperate,
coordinate or integrate any activity, for the purpose of coordinating and integrating
the planning and zoning of the county and cities.
Section S. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall become effective
on the day of , 19
5
900K 23 eAct 1
•
av 4 197s
COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED HE DOES HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF
RESPECT FOR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THE CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS, PROPERTY
OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS, BUT IN THE OVERALL DECISION THAT HE HAS BEEN ABLE
TO ARRIVE AT, HE FEELS IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTY IF
THE BOARD ADOPTS WHAT THEY FEEL IS THE BEST COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
PLAN AND USE IT AS A GUIDE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE;CONTINUED THAT DENSITIES SHOULD BE
CLARIFIED AND THEN INCORPORATED IN THE ORDINANCE. HE FURTHER STATED
HE WOULD APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PREPARED BY
ATTORNEY BURCH.
CHAIRMAN LOY SUGGESTED THAT WE GET SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCE
RELATIVE TO THE DEFINITION OF THE DENSITIES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED.
• COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FEELS THE DEFINITION
OF DENISITIES SHOULD CORRESPOND WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
CHAIRMAN LOY STATED THAT THE DENSITIES THAT THE ZONING COM-
MISSION IS USING AT THE PRESENT TIME APPEARS TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE
COMMUNITY AND SHE WOULD LIKE THAT DEFINITION USED IN THIS PROPOSED
ORDINANCE.
MR, BRENNAN STATED WITH REGARD TO DENSITIES - LOW DENSITY
IS 0-4,MEDIUM DENSITY IS 5-10 AND HIGH DENSITY IF 11-15 UNITS PER ACRE,
THESE FIGURES ARE USED AS A GUIDE, BUT THEY ARE NOT WRITTEN DOWN,
IT IS SPELLED OUT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT NOT IN THE C.L.U. ?LAN.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A DEFINITION
SECTION THAT WOULD SPELL OUT DENSITIES FOR LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH,
IF THEY ARE IN CONFLICT BY TITLE THEN THE DEFINITION SECTION SHALL
APPLY,
COMMISSIONER MASSEY STATED THAT THE ZONING COMMISSION HAS
SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND IN HIS OPINION THEY HAVE COME UP WITH
A GOOD STANDARD ORDINANCE,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MASSEY, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED
THE ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AS A GUIDE, THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED ON JULY 17, 1975, AT 3:00 O'CLOCK P. M.
51
4aoK�. 3AG[ 52
A MOTION WAS MADE ICY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT TO INCLUDE A
SECTION IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT REZONING MATTERS THAT ARE IN
CONFLICT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN ;NEED BE CONSIDERED NO MORE OFTEN
THAN ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS,
THIS MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE TO INSTRUCT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE AND BRING THE
DENSITY FIGURES AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE EXISTING ZONING DENSITY
RESTRICTIONS,
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING DENSITIES AS OUTLINED IN THE
ZONING ORDINANCE,
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE MOTION, COMMISSIONER SIEBERT
VOTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BOARD VOTED IN FAVOR AND THE 1OTION WAS PASSED,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ACCEPT A LETTER FROM CARL
ARCHER AND MAKE IT PART OF THESE MINUTES.
52
`1004
PAf
JON 4 En
ih-
rk,
P. 0. Box 3401, Beach Station
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960,
June 3, 1975
Mr. Ralph Sexton, Chairman
Indian River Zoning Commission
P. 0. Box 2187
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Re: East 10 acres of West 20 acres
Tract 9, Sec. 28-32-39
Dear Mr. Sexton:
You will recall that at the May 29th Public Hearing relative
to the County Wide Land Use Plan, I voiced objections to the
above mentioned property, presently zoned Industrial, being
designated R 1 (locating map attached). Because this property
adjoins County property, which remains unchanged in the in-
dustrial category, and for further reasons which were voiced
by me at the Hearing, I feel it only fair that my property
recej.ve preatment equal to the County property.
While I t+as impressed by the fact that several parties in
authority indicated that the Land Use Plan is intended to be
"not ultimately definitive" I was also impressed by the fact
that both the 'tHobart" and"Marshall Barnes" interests were
apparently concerned enough about industrialtracts in which
they -were involved that amendments to the plan were proposed,
prior to'action thereon by the County Commissioners, which
amendments were accepted and approved at the formal plan
approval by the County Commissioners. Again I would like to
say I feel it only fair that my property receive equal treat-
ment.
CSA/da
00: Alma Lee Loy
Val. Brennan
Enclosure
Sincerely Yours,
Com. s�
Carl S. Archer
52A
grOK PkE
45th ST
NORTH
GIFFOR
MAL ji
II 45th
1y Os�H00
s<
II II 45th ST IL____ IL
(44th PL I
44th 1
45,d o�
O
Gifford
41st •
LIgnci
PJ
4Ist ST
41st ST
CANAL
~ 41 I
CITY L1MlTj
Q. i0 dC(eg'S Of W. Zo bCRIES L
Timer 5fc. Z?• -3s-31
BARBER
38Ih PL 1
1 38th ST
Vero Beach
Municipal Airport
+ •a
THE FOLLOWING QUITCLAIM DEED AND SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
REGARDING THE LOTS IN PELICAN COVE SUBDIVISION WHICH THE COUNTY
AND THE CITY HAVE PURCHASED, ARE HEREBY BEING MADE A PART OF THESE
MINUTES AND THE FINAL PAYMENT OF $150,000.00 TO THE CITY OF VERO
BEACH IS TO BE MADE.
53
900k 2,:j'PA-CE 711
-AN 4 Ws
.h -
P
152676
QUITCLAIM DEED
THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, made this 1.75LIday of
A.D. 1975, by the CITY OF VERO BEACH, a municipal corporation
41i:.Le Ye:7 e.d dA .F.
BOOX 491 illE 828
existing
under the laws of the State of Florida, with its permanent post office
address at 1053 - 20th Place, Vero Beach, Florida, by and through its
undersigned Mayor, GRANTOR, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political sub-
division of the State of Florida, GRANTEE, (which term "GRANTOR" and
"GRANTEE" shall include singular or plural, the successors and assigns
of the same).
WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the
sum of $10.00 in hand paid by the said Grantee, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto
the said Grantee a two fifths (2/5) undivided interest in and to the
following described piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being
in the County of Indian River, State of Florida, to -wit:
All property immediately East of the East lot lines of
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, PELICAN COVE II, according
to the plat of said subdivision filed in the office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County,
Florida, and recorded therein in Plat Book 3, Page 79;
said land lying and being in the City of Vero Beach,
Florida.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the interest quitclaimed together with all
and singular proportionate appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any-
wise appertaining, and proportionate estate, right, title, interest,
lien, equity and claim whatsoever with said Grantor, either in law or
equity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed these
presents the day and year first above written.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered
in the Prence..of: '-
Robert B.. Weathers, City Clerk David Gregg, Jr., Mayor'
Caro J. Peter , leputy City Clerk
514
JULY 4 197s
•�
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments,
personally appeared DAVID GREGG, JR., to me known to be the person
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknow-
ledged before me that he executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last
aforesaid this a23 day of
This tY`arumen P
enberger
y Attorney
ost Office Box 1389
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
ared By:
/17,9,/
Notary Public
My Commissi
55
1975.
tate ofrida at Large
Expires:
•
___.. =._r 7-:3
r7
= r
7.� m
-wi
BOOK 491 PAGE 829
SPECIAL WRRANTYIDEED
kiacmay
BOOK 491 PAGE 826
THIS WARRANTY DEED, made the
A.D. 1975, by the CITY OF VERO BEACH, a municipal corporation existing
under the laws of the State of Florida, with its permanent post office
address at 1053 - 20th Place, Vero Beach, Florida, by and through its
undersigned Mayor, GRANTOR, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political sub-
division of the State of Florida, GRANTEE, (which term "GRANTOR" and
"GRANTEE" shall include singular or plural, the successors and assigns
of the same).
WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the
sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells,aliens, remises,
releases, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee a two fifths (2/5) un-
divided interest in that certain land situate in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, PELICAN COVE II, according
to the plat of said subdivision, filed in the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River
County, Florida, and recorded therein in Plat Book 3,
page 79; said land lying and being in the City of Vero
Beach, Florida.
Subject to easements, restrictions, reservations and
rights of way of record.
TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances
thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining.
TO -HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever.
AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor
is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has good
right and lawful authority to convey the interest hereinabove described;
, that the Grantor hereby fully warrants that from the time the real prop-
erty was conveyed to the Grantor, said land is free of all encumbrances,
except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 1973.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto set their hands
and seals the day and year first above written.
Signed, Se.1ed_aid. Del1.vered
in the Pr f nce ofr'
Robert
Carol J./Pete ,'n, Deputy City Clerk
)
AV 4 rin
56
David Gregg, Jr., Mayor
4s,
Yt.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take :.acknowledgments,
personally appeared DAVID GREGG, JR., to me known to be the person
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknow-
ledged before me that he executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last
aforesaid this 43 day of 4M y/ , 1975.
Notary Publiar, State yfl Florida At Large
My Commissflon Expires:
trume Pr=pared By:
erger
Ci , Attorney
Lq t Office Box 1389
_hero Beach, Florida 32960
A 4 1875
57
W
.BOOK 491 PAGE 82'7
400k 23 PACE CO
CA
aiN 41975
ATTORNEY BURCH STATED THAT SOMETIME AGO THE COUNTY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT GAVE CONSIDERABLE ASSISTANCE TO MATTIE INGRAM
AND A LIEN WAS FILED AGAINST HER HOME AND HEIRS, WITH THE BOARD'S
APPROVAL, THE HEIRS QUIT -CLAIMED THE -PROPERTY TO THE COUNTY ON
OCTOBER 23, 1974. THEY HAD NOT -PAID THE TAXES IN 1973 AND IN ORDER
FOR THE COUNTY TO SELL THIS PROPERTY, THIS TAX LIEN WILL HAVE TO BE
CLEARED. THE AMOUNT OF BACK TAXES IS $700.37, PLUS INTEREST.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD'UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED PAYMENT OF BACK
TAXES FOR 1973, IN THE AMOUNT OF $700.37, PLUS INTEREST ON THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE BY ATTORNEY BURCH.
ATTORNEY BURCH INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAD RECEIVED
A LETTER FROM JOSEPH LANDERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WHICH STATED THAT IF THE BOARD
WANTS TO GO FURTHER IN SECURING SPOIL ISLANDS, -THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE
TO SCHEDULE AN INTERAGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING WITH T?IE INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENT BOARD.
THE BOARD SUGGESTED THAT ATTORNEY BURCH REQUEST ALTERNATE
DATES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS MEETING AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL
PISTOL PERMITS FOR ROBERT L. LUCKENBAUGH AND WILLIAM E. BARTSCH.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE APPLICATIONS FOR PISTOL
PERMITS FOR ALTHEA M. MCCOLLUM AND M.N. RALEY.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED DEPUTY SHERIFF BONDS FOR
JESSIE SELPH, RONNIE L. DICKERSON, JOHN MCCANTS AND LEE W. SETZER.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED WITH SHERIFF JOYCE'S RECOMMENDATION
TO REVOKE RICHARD ALAN LINDEN'S PISTOL PERMIT.
58
q0.13K 23
P. O. BOX 608
PHONE 362-7911
SAM T. JOYCE . INDIAN RIVER COt NTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO BEACII. FLORIDA 32fXSO
June 11, 1975
d
Miss Alma Lee Loy, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Richard Alan Linden
Dear Miss Loy:
I request that the pistol permit issued to
the above named Richard Alan Linden, be revoked.
This subject was charged with a series of
felonies in Indian River County and several
other counties. Therefore I have requested that
Richard Alan Linden's pistol permit be revoked
immediately.
STJ/bjr
JUN 4 1975
Very truly yours,
SAM T. JOYCE, SHER FF
Indian River County
•
P
THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK:
REPORT OF CITATIONS FOR MONTH OF MAY, 1975
REPORT OF RADIO OPERATOR EXPENSE FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 1975
REPORT OF EXPENSE FOR FEEDING THE PRISONERS.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE RESIGNATION OF FORREST N.
MCCULLARS, COUNTY EXTENSION DIRgCTOR, SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION OF THE
EFFECTIVE DATE BY THE STATE.
THE BOARD REQUESTED THAT MR. MCCULLARS' LETTER OF RESIG-
NATION BE MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES.
RAS
4 1975
FLORIDA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT UTATION•i
SCHOOL OP FOREST RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
REPLY ToSuite G, Ag Center
7150 20th Street
Vero Beach, Fl 32960
May 21, 1975
Miss Alma Lee Loy, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Dear Alma Lee
I would like to advise the Board of
County Commissioners that I have
requested disability retirement through
the State effective June 30, 1975.
This has been necessary following my
third major back surgery.
If the State has not already contacted
you, I am sure they will in a few days
to recommend a replacement for me.
I would like to thank the Board for
their cooperation and kindness that they
have shown me over the last 21 years.
Sincerely
Forrest N. McCullars
County Extension Director
FNMcC/amh
61
9004
CHAIRMAN LOY STATED THAT AS A RESULT OF THE BOARD
MEETING WITH FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES,
INC „ ON MAY 21, 1975, IT WAS THE DECISION OF THE BOARD TO EXERCISE
THEIR OPTION IN THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT WITH THECITY OF VERO BEACH,
TO PURCHASE BULK WATER, FOR RESALE TO U,D,U „ SUBJECT TO AND CONDITIONED
UPON AN ACCEPTABLE DETAILED CONTRACT APPROVED BY THE BOARD, F,N,A, AND
U,D,U,
IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHAIRMAN THAT THE BOARD
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO PREPARE THE PRELIMINARY
AGREEMENT, AS THEY ARE AWARE OF THE ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE IN THIS
AGREEMENT,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCHMUCKER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CHAIRMAN THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, THE COUNTY CONSULTING ENGINEERS,
AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
UTILITIES, INC,, AND FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A PRE-
LIMINARY AGREEMENT AND TO REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE,
1
61
THE BOARD REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING LETTER RECEIVED FROM
GLADYS VIGLIANO, DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WELFARE DEPARMENT
BE MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JUN 4 7)
T� T y T 7 L� (�.
a \TiJ 1:�,`T RrvE, V � l. NT
.��s
VERO BEACH FLORIDA
2535 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
June 3, 1975
Board of County Commissioners
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Members of the Board:
Due to the unforseen circumstances we have depleted our Indigent Hospital
Funds and am now requesting and additional $20,000.00. At the present
time we have (3) patients at Shands Teaching Hospital, (2) patients at
Jackson Memorial and (1) patient at Sebastian River Medical Center. The
Indian River Memorial Hospital has our out standing bill of $1,300.00.
Shands Teaching Hospital
Patients: Rate per diem is $168.08
Maria Stevenson approximately $4,662.60
Lacy Griggs
Frank Wagner
Sebastian River Medical Center
Patient:
Jesse Srni th
7,500.00
1,397.85
Rate per diem $92.44
approximately 647.08
Jackson Memorial Hospital
Patients: Rate per diem $135.88
Cathy Woody and Newborn approximately $2,500.00
The out standing bills at Shands Teaching Hospital, Sebastian River
Medical Center and Jackson Memorial are approximately $16,707.53.
GV/jl
Sincerely yours,
'
n
Mrs. Gladys Vigliano,'Director
62
'4004
flF
4 it75
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MASSEY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, TO DIRECT THE COUNTY FINANCE OFFICER TO TRANSFER $20,000.00
FROM CONTINGENCY TO THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT INDIGENT HOSPITAL ACCOUNT,
AS REQUESTED BY GLADYS VIGLIANO,
DDISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE MOTION.
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE
TWO PIECES OF EQUIPMENT USED FOR CHECKING SCHOOL CHILDREN'S HEARING
AND VISION THAT ARE NOT INSURED'. THIS EQUIPMENT COULD BE INSURED WITH
ARDEN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR $6.00 PER YEAR.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONEF
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THE
TWO PIECES OF EQUIPMENT DISCUSSED ABOVE WITH THE ARDEN INSURANCE COMPANY
AT A COST OF $6.00 PER YEAR.
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED TWO
PROPOSALS FOR REPAIRING THE ROOF OF THE ROCKRIDGE COMMUNITY BUILDING.
BOWEN ROOFING COMPANY
Russ's ROOFING AND REPAIRS
$1,064.00
821.00
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCHMUCKER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL FROM Russ's
ROOFING AND REPAIRS, AS BEING THE LOWEST AND BEST PROPOSAL MEETING
SPECIFICATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $821.00,
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT HE RECEIVED TWO
PROPOSALS FOR REPAIRING THE ROOF OF THE COUNTY WELFARE BUILDING,
BOWEN ROOFING COMPANY
Russ's ROOFING AND REPAIRS
2, 760.00
2, 560.00
THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STATED THAT HE RECOMMENDS THE
PROPOSAL FROM BOWEN ROOFING COMPANY BECAUSE IT MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MASSEY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL FROM BOWEN ROOFING
COMPANY, AS BEING THE BEST PROPOSAL MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,760.00 .
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.
4353 - 4495 INCLUSIVE; ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND 2296 - 2333 INCLUSIVE;
FINE AND FORFEITURE FUND Nos. 901 - 906 INCLUSIVE; CAPITAL OUTLAY
63
9004
rQ E 6 3
4 1975
�k-
}
FUND Nos. 178 AND 179. SUCH BILLS AND ACCOUNTS 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 MADE, SECONDED
AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 6:40 O'CLOCK P.M.
ATTEST:
/47:4/440%
CLERK
64
(!:;,/,/g/
CHAIRMAN
ori23:,