Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1978THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1978 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1978, AT 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE WILLIAM C. WODTKE, .JR., CHAIRMAN; ALMA LEE Loy, VICE CHAIRMAN; WILLARD W. SIEBERT, .JR.; EDWIN S. SCHMUCKER; AND R. DON DEESON. ALSO PRESENT WERE GEORGE G. COLLINS, .JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND STATED THAT THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS BEING HELD TO DEAL WITH 13 ITEMS OF PROPOSED MASTER PLAN REVISIONS. THE HOUR OF 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: OCT 2 61978 L_ OCT 2 61978 GS � J Proposed Master Plan Revision Areas aro 19ACH PRM)OURNM neaaee+ r iuRM, leJiw Riwrtemtyt. Fill" P I e ' led 4RIhatHr tselarWh alb J. 1. Sd4swel. Jt. win on atlh d the drD Bath Drdst•Aafrrul. • trodliy nawNaper ➢4Wnhad lI{A . CJ4+rtr. Fares: tw nn ateaUad cdar � .dwrtaomm�t. IloalB , 5 MAN R VER.COUNTY. FLORIDA ldleartlwaF dD lei Tim fJy 17&-).2-- 7.-/.2low ` Cm4R ww Pldt' low t 1 t the Z 1 1._• I-_1 1'IyP. 70 - en Rhes CwMr. ani nes Hes esid raw•paoer has 1•natodre ha barn anrared 1 M said Indian RMr County. FaDida, weekh aral at the pat olhcR - Yera Beeth. rn uid Indian Rivar Co4nry. Panda the f,rq p.btitetaln of M+e attached Copy of adyea _� i pay &m ar w trays that he hn erenher paid eror pronticad +mr jA ♦ S mo altetm eommHna- - mtwd Wor Nle purpose of tawririg this adww rWP08W CEAR<irb _ _ \ ♦♦ dl9edd newopapet. :6r UO. 1 _+ ! w felt nr chit o} A.D.J L-79. I. AGRICULTURAL CODUiRCIAL 2. LOW tlfmn7 CDIRIBRCIAL a t5� ]. AOR]CULTURAL IJIBTITUTIl/rAL ;. d (Gent at thr ilrNit Court. IMhn 4. CWIEICW. AND LON DENSrrV KW. DENSMI ♦ s s S. cowumcxhL HOMIUr DESSI2Y i j ♦ j ARD LOM DWSITY .. .. d. AREA C22I OI DEDA8TI11tl .s!._ . ,. ION omen comm LAL AND , ren. IIIDISITY ,d ATTAN77C 1 '. _ ranmo=` i ' - h OPO SPACE LOq¢RCIN., /o. i a� I e LOW DEEUIITIAND P. , tAt DEIPeITt ��• t i DGNSITr . IO, �106Arp, a1W2W1 DErSITt . 11, WI D=SnT MAL F I 1e. AGRINLIURAt. IEDDETRIAL • _ OVIRDMGMTA= AGRICULTURAL ,wIR:TrTE o .13 I o �/ E I .• E MR GANAND ZONING T 'i d 0 PLAWN dMTIR IMM RI CRT RECOttURGATIMS , a O _ CONNISSIOR. THESE HRT RE ROOM. A£JEI:TED OR "IFtED 0Y THE ROM OF �%'� L i • � DO1111, CdSESSI HERS AFTER HLARING AS REQUIRED/s01 / . i; in Oulu= 78-12. •`• �_ •? , - ((��x,,� j acrser _�:. _.ill. . NOTICE -��_�- ' - Nor= isNEARBY Give" Rue the Board dd11 ca-ry Wnmisss.aen of ind,sa River Cde4ry� Pla•Wa, tHR tan a poeat sump oa Oc1eMr ». HT0.--e veno 6exhconl-urury , , " CMM. rIM la-4teaue.Vato Resta, F1OrNa. Raei-lalp at 1:00 o'taKk A.M. ana teatawmp ElraopR to to-pkta4. to catuter to adODHoa All •-nda,nU b IlnNe Rivet tamlry OMidaen nit. Setlroa a nt Ut sad la. •♦ '. SX— RreAeefa1.°a i� u. p4u -°d Co t LaaM Ufa SRelta as a qo." oa Or, x• n-Deeyi•p -aD t Nor. C I . A,.atae um ERIIVVMM b ➢roposrd taan,as m Areat -.,kW MrwrplliL Tee prepmefl taaagn of etvenerea - ', ` • eeedra. 6-4 of c—e. aCCB-,Nerreatled Win • R.C—,,. say ptnml deurmp -c "maw WW..W propo.ro taanpef daftr10e0 M 1 tAraepa it oe IM x<am WeYrM leap, 4uY seta- such unom,ara• nem rae Dt'Darl-enl vamp xmns n " vera �xa, f.—.f.—. o•wuuu RNI Ayenae. Idpl " raafanalue wl.t.. m.,.p •.m.l ra sums ewra. tae aana,s Im lar wr,la m•arap am '. tlu oraerm.arca aulursuWl Or tonWereO aro astoeerf: had AA A.M. Hr.S sear I-S I12 ' P.AL I19P.M. IN-1.2.1,41 1 e, ld, 11 , need l/. .a R➢Nd M towhc mauswrn ' el lRerw 4,vn [amry.. J,.. L . Md1u14 C. NotMe Jr.. RluHman ` 191.f Oil. 1. Islt OCT 2 61978 GS � J a THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT BASICALLY IN MAY OF 1975, THE BOARD AS THEN CONSTITUTED, APPROVED A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, ORDINANCE 76-12, .WHICH APPROVED IN THEORY AND AS A GUIDE OUR PRESENT PLAN. THE ADOPTION 'OF THAT PLAN WAS THE RESULT OF WORK BY ADLEY AND ASSOCIATES, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND MANY OTHERS, AND WE HAVE BEEN USING IT AS A GUIDE THROUGH- OUT THE LAST THREE YEARS. THE CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS NOT A ZONING MAP. WE ARE PRESENTLY OPERATING UNDER A ZONING MAP, BUT THE PLAN WE ARE LOOKING AT TODAY IS A PROJECTION THROUGH THE YEAR 1990. IT DOES NOT MEAN THERE WILL BE A PERMIT ISSUED TOMORROW BASED ON THIS MAP, COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT MR. STAN REDICK, PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR, WHO REPLACED THE LATE VAL BRENNAN, WILL GIVE A PRESENTATION OF EACH ITEM AS IT COMES UP ON THE AGENDA, PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK TOOK THE FLOOR AND REITERATED THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE AS A RESULT OF ANY PLAN CHANGE MADE TODAY. PUBLIC HEARINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE HELD BEFORE REZONING. THE FIRST ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED IS ITEM V. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE NOTICE CONTINUES THROUGHOUT THE HEARING AND FOR ALL THE ITEMS. MR. REDICK HAD THE PROJECTOR DISPLAY A MAP OF THE SOUTH BEACH AREA AND NOTED THAT THE EXISTING PLAN SHOWS LOW DENSITY FOR THE ENTIRE AREA. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR MEDIUM DENSITY AND COMMERCIAL. THE REASON FOR THIS IS TO FORM A TRANSITION FROM THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL IN THE CITY TO THE LOW DENSITY IN THE COUNTY. MR. REDICK NOTED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN PETITIONS WITH APPROXIMATELY 1,255 NAMES PRESENTED IN OPPOSITION. THESE PETITIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. HE CONTINUED EXPLAINING THE OBJECTIONS PRESENTED AND NOTED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ON A THREE TO TWO SPLIT VOTE, RECOMMENDED THAT NO CHANGE BE MADE IN THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO THAT IT WOULD REMAIN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE ENTIRE AREA. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE WISHED TO SPEAK AGAINST THE 6 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE WERE NONE, THE CHAIRMAN ASKED FOR A SHOW OF HANDS AGAINST ANY CHANGE OF THE PROPOSED AREA. EVERYONE PRESENT RAISED THEIR HAND. u k 37 OCT 2 6 1978 E. 6 MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PERTAINING TO ITEM #7 AS ADVERTISED. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER NOTED THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE 4A POPULAR COMMENT, BUT STATED HE BELIEVED THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SEE SOME IMPROVEMENTS AND CHANGES TO THIS COMMUNITY AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTED HERE TODAY. HE FELT THERE IS A NEED FOR THE HIGHER DENSITY FOR THE MULTI -FAMILY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND NOTED THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS NOT THE MOST ECONOMICAL AND FEASIBLE WAY TO GO INTO DEVELOPMENT. IT IS BETTER TO CLUSTER THE HOMES AND HAVE MORE OPEN SPACE. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED THAT NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO HAVE A YARD AROUND HIS HOUSE OR MAINTAIN ONE, AND THIS IS WHY CONDOMINIUMS AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOP- MENTS ARE BECOMING POPULAR. HE FELT SUCH DEVELOPMENT CAN BE DONE IN A GOOD MANNER AND WILL NOT NECESSARILY DESTROY THE COMMUNITY. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THIS PROPERTY WILL EVENTUALLY COST SO MUCH THAT IT WILL BE UNREASONABLE AND UNFEASIBLE NOT TO HAVE SOME MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER POINTED OUT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGES FOR THE FUTURE - NOT TODAY OR TOMORROW, AND WHEN DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS AREN'T PLANNED FOR THE FUTURE, THEN YOU MAKE MILLIONAIRES OUT OFA FEW PEOPLE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT HE AGREED WITH THE -MOTION, AND FELT THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A SPLIT DECISION, REACHED THE RIGHT DECISION. HE DID'STRONGLY FEEL THERE WILL BE A DEFINITE NEED FOR COMMERCIAL AND A BUFFER AREA HERE IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE ARE NOT READY FOR THE CHANGE YET. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. ITEM #9. PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK PRESENTED SLIDES AND NOTED THAT THIS CHANGE WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY EARL PADGETT WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE LATE PLANNING DIRECTOR VAL BRENNAN. THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED CHANGE CALLED FOR A MEDIUM DENSITY AREA TO THE EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY A71 -A WITH A COMMERCIAL AREA WEST OF A -1-A WITH ADDITIONAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO THE NORTH OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA. PETITIONS PRESENTED IN 4 OCT 2 61978 3 120 OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL ARGUED THAT THERE ALREADY IS SUFFICIENT COMMERCIAL AREA FOR THE POPULATION THAT EXISTS AND AN INSUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL POPULATION THAT WOULD RESULT. MR. REDICK STATED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CHANGED THE ,,ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. BY MOVING THE COMMERCIAL AREA SLIGHTLY TO THE NORTH, REDUCING IT SOMEWHAT IN SIZE, AND ADDING A MEDIUM DENSITY SOUTH OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THAT AND THE SINGLE FAMILY. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED ON A 4 TO I VOTE THAT THIS PROPOSAL BE ACCEPTED. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ANNOUNCED THAT EARL PADGETT, WHO INSTITUTED THE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING, WILL MAKE HIS PRESENTATION. EARL PADGETT INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE COUNTY HIRED ADLEY AND ASSOCIATES TO MAKE A COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN FOR THIS COUNTY, AND IT WAS THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS PROPERTY BE MULTIFAMILY. THIS PAST FEBRUARY, THE ZONING BOARD AND PLANNING OFFICE ALSO RECOMMENDED THIS BE MULTI- FAMILY WITH A SMALL COMMERCIAL AREA. MR. PADGETT STATED THE COMMERCIAL AREA WOULD CONSIST OF A FEW BOUTIQUE TYPE SHOPS AND A FEW OFFICES AND WOULD BE AN ASSET TO THE AREA. HE NOTED THAT -THERE ARE MANY RUMORS ABOUT HIS ALREADY HAVING SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH A SUPERMARKET, WHICH IS A WILD RUMOR WITH ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS. MR. PADGETT STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE SEA GROVE BY PUTTING IN ANYTHING OFFENSIVE AND FELT THAT A SUPERMARKET, OR ANYTHING OF THAT TYPE, WOULD BE OFFENSIVE. HE STATED THAT HE IS DETERMINED TO CREATE A FINE DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY AND HE GETS NOTHING BUT OBJECTION AND HARRASSMENT. HE STATED THAT THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE HIS PLAN KNOW NOTHING OF WHAT IS PLANNED, AND THEY DON T WANT TO KNOW; THEY JUST ENJOY THEIR BLIND OPPOSITION. MR. PADGETT THEN QUOTED FROM A LETTER WRITTEN BY R. E. GOODING, A RESIDENT OF THE BILLOWS WHO HAS PURCHASED A LOT IN SEA GROVE, WHICH READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS: "WE WERE MOST CONCERNED WITH YOUR INTENTION TO REZONE PARTS OF SEA GROVE AND BY THE COMMENTS OF PEOPLE IN THE AREA. AFTER MEETING AND DISCUSSING THIS WITH YOU, I AM CONFIDENT YOUR PLANS FOR SEA GROVE WILL ENHANCE NOT ONLY SEA GROVE BUT THE ENTIRE CITY OF VERO BEACH. THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC WILL BEST BE SERVED BY PERMITTING MULTIPLE 5 OCT 2 01978 r x. Ag AS YOU PROPOSE. YOUR SINCERITY AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT YOU PROPOSE IS ENOUGH FOR ME TO ENDORSE YOUR REZONING. CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT STAND STILL AND REMAIN HEALTHY AND PROGRESSIVE." MR. PADGETT THEN QUOTED FROM A FEDERAL STUDY ENTITLED "THE COST OF SPRAWL," WHICH STATES THAT IT IS NOT DESIRABLE ECONOMICALLY 4 OR ENVIRONMENTALLY FOR A COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP MOST OF ITS LAND IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, BECAUSE IT COSTS THE COMMUNITY MORE IN SERVICES. MR, PADGETT POINTED OUT THAT ADLEY AND ASSOCIATES STATED THAT NOWHERE IN THE PLAN HAS THERE BEEN INDICATED WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED HIGH DENSITY. THEY FELT DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO USE PUD AND CLUSTER UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREVER POSSIBLE. MR. PADGETT CONTINUED THAT THE MAJOR ISSUE RAISED BY THE OPPOSITION IS THAT MULTIFAMILY ZONING WOULD DOWNGRADE THE AREA. HE STATED THAT MUCH OF HIS OPPOSITION COMES FROM PEOPLE IN THE MOORINGS AND NOTED THAT THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 100 HOUSES IN THE MOORINGS WHILE THERE ARE 424 MULTIFAMILY UNITS COMPLETED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THERE ALSO IS COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE MOORINGS. SIR. PADGETT FELT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE OPPOSING HIS PLAN LIVE IN MULTI -FAMILY AND ASKED IF IT IS RIGHT FOR THEM TO LIVE IN MULTI -FAMILY BUT PROHIBIT IT FOR OTHERS. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT JOHN'S ISLAND HAS 328 HOUSES AND 423 MULTI -FAMILY UNITS AND DID NOT BELIEVE ANYONE WOULD CONSIDER EITHER JOHN'S .ISLAND OR THE MOORINGS DOWNGRADED AREAS, HE FELT DOWNGRADING IS A FALSE ISSUE. MR. PADGETT THEN NOTED THAT "LET'S NOT MAKE THIS ANOTHER FT. LAUDERDALE" IS A STATEMENT THAT'S HEARD OVER AND OVER, AND HE IS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THAT THOUGHT, BUT INSTEAD OF ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT IT, HE IS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. HE STATED THAT YOU WON'T FIND ANYTHING LIKE SEA GROVE IN FT. LAUDERDALE, AND THERE NEVER WILL BE ANY RESEMBLANCE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE EXTREME ZONING IN THIS COMMUNITY WILL AUTOMATICALLY PRECLUDE ANYTHING LIKE FT. LAUDERDALE AND FELT THIS IS ANOTHER FALSE ISSUE. REGARDING TRAFFIC CONGESTION, MR. PADGETT PRESENTED A CHART SHOWING A PROJECTED DENSITY ON SOUTH BEACH OF A POTENTIAL 2,910 UNITS, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A DENSITY ON THE SOUTH BEACH OF 1.35 UNITS PER ACRE. MR. PADGETT NOTED THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WILL CREATE MORE AUTO'TRAFFIC, CONSUME MORE UTILITIES, AND WILL COST MORE TO MAINTAIN THAN TWO MULTI -FAMILY UNITS. 6 AD, Vu� '2 OCT 2 1970 IN REGARD TO TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, MR. PADGETT FELT THE NEW BRIDGE WILL EASILY HANDLE ANY TRAFFIC THIS AREA WILL GENERATE, AND HE, THEREFORE, FELT THIS ALSO IS ANOTHER FALSE ISSUE. MR. PADGETT STATED THAT THE REAL ISSUE IS SUMMED UP IN THE STATEMENT, "NOW THAT I AM HERE, LET'S CLOSE THE GATE." CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGE PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THERE WERE NONE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE THEN OPENED THE FLOOR TO THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL.. NORMAN L. CRAWFORD OF 13 DOLPHIN DRIVE CAME FORWARD AND STATED THAT HE REPRESENTS THE VERO BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAS A MEMBERSHIP OF ABOUT 1,400, AND SEVERAL OTHER HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE BANDED TOGETHER. HE NOTED AT THE LAST ANNUAL MEETING OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, CHAIRMAN WODTKE ADDRESSED THEIR MEMBERS AND STATED THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION WELCOMES INPUT FROM THE RESIDENTS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THE COMMISSION CAN LEARN THEIR WISHES. MR. CRAWFORD REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD OBSERVE ALL THOSE PRESENT AND NOTE THAT THEY ARE ALL OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN ITEMS #7 AND #9. HE THEN PRESENTED A PETITION IN OPPOSITION CONTAINING 300 SIGNATURES TO BE ADDED TO THE PETITIONS BEARING APPROXIMATELY 1,300 SIGNATURES PRESENTED AT PREVIOUS HEARINGS. ALL THE PETITIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK. 11R. CRAWFORD NOTED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE PLAN BE CHANGED IN AREA 9 AND AN AREA SET ASIDE TO BE ZONED COMMERCIAL IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO ONE SPOKE IN FAVOR OF SUCH A CHANGE EXCEPT THE DEVELOPER. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT AT THE END OF THE HEARING, ONE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEMBERS STATED THAT REGARDLESS OF'WHAT THE PEOPLE FELT ABOUT CHANGING THE PLAN, THIS IS WHAT•THEY GET. CARROLL WALTERS, OF PORPOISE POINT HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 8 NEXT TOOK THE FLOOR AND READ FROM A PREPARED STATEMENT, WHICH STATED THAT 100% OF THEIR ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED TO THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN THE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH WILL AFFECT THEM PERSONALLY. IT NOTED THEY WERE REASSURED BY THE ZONING LAWS AND WANT THESE STANDARDS UPHELD TO • PRESERVE THE NATURAL BEAUTY AND QUIET ATMOSPHERE OF THE AREA AND URGED 7 OCT 2 61978 I f .. THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE TO PROTECT ALL AREAS OF THE COUNTY FROM DOWN— GRADING BY OVERZEALOUS DEVELOPERS, JAMES EDEN,OF 1520 WYNN COVE DRIVE, CAME FORWARD REPRESENTING THE WYNN COVE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN IN AREAS % AND 9. HE STATED THAT THIS IS NOT JUST A SIMPLE CHANGE TO ALLOW A FEW CONDOMINIUMS'AND A SMALL SHOPPING CENTER, BUT ONE WITH FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCES, WHICH WILL AFFECT THE RESIDENTS NOT ONLY FINANCIALLY, BUT IN THE AREAS OF HEALTH AND TRANSPORTATION AS WELL.. HE SPOKE OF DRAINAGE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY HARD SURFACE PARKING LOTS, AND NOTED THAT MULTI—FAMILY WILL ATTRACT FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND INCREASE THE NEEDS FOR SCHOOL SERVICES, POLICE, FIRE, AMBULANCE, ETC. MR. EDEN STATED THESE CHANGES ARE ONLY GOOD FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THOSE WHO WISH TO PROMOTE A "FAST BUCK." CHARLES MCALLISTER, OF 1938 MOORING LINE DRIVE, SPOKE REPRESENTING THE MOORINGS OF VERO BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, COMPRISED OF 225 FAMILY MEMBERS. HE STATED THEY STRONGLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AS IT AFFECTS SOUTH BEACH AND ARE NOT CONVINCED THE PLANNERS PRESENTED ANY COMPELLING FACTS TO SHOW A NEED FOR SUCH A CHANGE. HE NOTED.THERE HAS BEEN NO DEMAND FOR SUCH A CHANGE, AND THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE MOST AFFECTED HAVE, IN FACT, RAISED A LOUD OUTCRY AGAINST IT. HE QUOTED A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WHO STATED: "WE RECEIVE INPUT FROM PEOPLE, EVALUATE AND MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE INPUT." MR. MCALLISTER NOTED THIS SAME MEMBER VOTED FOR THE CHANGE. AND APPARENTLY PAID NO ATTENTION TO THE INPUT FROM THE 1,300 WHO OPPOSED IT. HE FELT THERE HAS BEEN AN ORDERLY INCREASE IN THE GROWTH OF THE SOUTH BEACH AREA; THAT THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR A CHANGE; AND URGED THE BOARD NOT TO MAKE ANY CHANGE. HE NOTED THAT MR. PADGETT SINGLED OUT THE MOORINGS IN HIS PRESENTATION AND AGREED THAT THEY DO HAVE MEDIUM DENSITY IN THE MOORINGS AND THERE ARE COMMERCIAL AREAS, BUT POINTED OUT THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS WHEN a THEY BOUGHT THEIR HOMES. THEY WERE ALSO TOLD THAT THE REST OF THE BEACH WAS PLANNED FOR SINGLE FAMILY, AND ALL THE FACTS PRESENTED BY MR. PADGETT FAIL TO MAKE THEM SEE THE NEED,FOR THE CHANGE OF THE MASTER PLAN. MR. MCALLISTER AGREED THAT -MR. PADGETT IS BUILDING A NICE DEVELOPMENT BUT POINTED OUT IF HE SHOULD DECIDE TO.SELL OR ANYTHING 8 ,my% 3 6 0 SHOULD HAPPEN TO HIM, THERE ARE NO ASSURANCES WHAT WILL HAPPEN. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT MR. PADGETT KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, AND HIS IS NOT A HARDSHIP CASE. MR. MCALLISTER URGED THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER THE VIEWS OF THE MANY CITIZENS WHO HAVE SIGNED THE PETITIONS OPPOSING THE CHANGE. NINA HAYNES, OF SMUGGLERS COVE, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD SPEAKING FOR SMUGGLERS COVE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND STATED THEY ARE ALL OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE. SHE FELT THAT ADLEY AND ASSOCIATES WARNED AGAINST OVER -DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH.BEACH AREA AND NOTED THAT THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO VALID REASONS TO CHANGE THE PLAN BECAUSE SOUTH BEACH HAS BEEN GROWING AND DEVELOPING BEAUTIFULLY. MRS. HAYNES FELT THE LAND USE PLAN IS WORKING VERY WELL AND SHOULD NOT BE THROWN ON THE JUNK PILE JUST FOR ONE DEVELOPER WHO HAS NO MORE RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE, SHE STATED THAT IF HE IS ALLOWED TO DISTURB THE STATUS QUO, DEVELOPERS WILL SPROUT LIKE MUSHROOMS, AND THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTH BEACH SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELY ON THE BOARD'S PROTECTION FROM TRULY COMMERCIAL INTERESTS. TOM WATKINS, OF 1361 WHITE HERON LANE IN THE DUNES, SPOKE ON BEHALF OF 24 HOMEOWNERS AND STATED THEY FULLY SUPPORT ALL OF THE VALID MAJOR POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE OTHER ASSOCIATIONS THIS MORNING. HE NOTED THAT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IS ONE OF THE FEW COUNTIES THAT DOES NOT ALLOW HIGH DENSITY. IT IS UNInUE AND LOW KEY, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS ATTRACTIVE. PEOPLE ARE COMING TO THE COUNTY TO GET AWAY FROM HIGH DENSITY, AND HE URGED THE BOARD TO KEEP IT THAT WAY, BOYNTON FLETCHER, 716 LIVE OAK LANE, FLORALTON BEACH, SPOKE FOR THE FLORALTON BEACH ASSOCIATION, WHICH COMPRISES A GROUP OF ZS HOMEOWNERS ALL STRONGLY OPPOSING ANY CHANGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. HE STATED THAT THE BOARD HAS HEARD MOST OF THE SOUND REASONS PRESENTED FOR RETAINING THE LOW DENSITY, AND SPOKE OF THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN EVACUATING THE BEACH IN CASE OF A HURRICANE. HE POINTED OUT THAT STATE ROAD A -1-A WILL BECOME A DANGEROUS BOTTLENECK IF THE AREA IS OVER -DEVELOPED. MR, CRAWFORD AGAIN TOOK THE FLOOR AND STATED THIS WHOLE PROCEEDING HAS THE FEELING OF A BROKEN RECORD. HE NOTED THAT IN 1973, THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UNDER MR. VAL BRENNAN, AFTER CONSULTING v, I WITH A DEVELOPER, EARL PADGETT, RECOMMENDED THAT AN AREA OF SOUTH BEACH BE DOWNGRADED TO MULTIPLE DWELLINGS. THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND THE VOTE WAS 4 TO 1. MR. CRAWFORD NOTED THAT AT THAT MEETING, MR. SIEBERT STATED THAT IF THE PROJECT WERE APPROVED, SHE WAS AFRAID IT WOULD ALTER THE FACE OF THE WHOLE COUNTY AND SAID, SEE IT AS A STEP FOR MORE CONDOMINIUMS, AND THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WILL FALL BY THE DOMINO THEORY." MR. CRAWFORD STATED THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS NOTHING BUT ILL DISGUISED SPOT ZONING FOR THE PURPOSES OF ONE DEVELOPER, WHO FOR THE SECOND TIME IN FIVE YEARS HAS TRIED TO INVADE THE SOUTH BEACH AREA FOR HIS OWN FINANCIAL GAIN. HE STATED IF THE CHANGE IS APPROVED, THERE WILL BE DEVELOPERS SITTING LIKE VULTURES ON A RIDGE POLE WAITING TO DEVOUR THE DEFENSELESS BODY OF SOUTH BEACH. MR. CRAWFORD NOTED THAT FROM SEBASTIAN BEACH TO THE SOUTH COUNTY LINE IS ABOUT 20 MILES, AND, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SEVERAL SMALL AREAS, IT IS IMULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL. THEY ARE JUST ASKING TO KEEP ONE VERY SMALL AREA AS PRESENTLY DESIGNATED. MR. CRAWFORD STATED THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN THE CONTEMPLATED RAVISHMENT OF THE AREA SO SERIOUSLY THAT THEY BANDED TOGETHER TO FIGHT IT AND WILL CONTINUE TO.FIGHT IT THROUGH THE COURTS IF NECESSARY. HE STATED THEY WOULD NOT ASK THE COMMISSION TO DEFEAT THIS MEASURE UNLESS THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A DETRIMENT TO THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE. MR. CRAWFORD THEN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY HAVE EMPLOYED A PLANNER, THE FIRM OF BARKER, OSHER & ANDERSON, TO MAKE A SURVEY OF THE ENTIRE COUNTY AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. ATTORNEY CLEM CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS. HE INTRODUCED RICHARD ORMAN.OF BARKER, OSHER & ANDERSON, NOTHING THAT HE HAS A PHD IN METROPOLITAN PLANNING AND HAS BEEN A CITY PLANNER. HE STATED THAT DR. ORMAN IS VERY ACTIVE IN THE PLANNING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OF COMMUNITIES UP AND DOWN THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. RICHARD ORMAN OF NORTH PALM BEACH CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND HANDED TO THE CLERK FIVE COPIES OF THEIR WRITTEN REPORT FOR THE RECORD. DR .ORMAN STATED THAT THEY DID SURVEY THE ENTIRE COUNTY ON A NUMBER M1 OF ISSUES, BUT THEIR MAIN FOCUS WAS ON THE BEACH. DR. ORMAN DISPLAYED A GRAPH SHOWING A GENERAL SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS.IN THE SOUTH 10 .� OCT 2 (0 1978 37 0 t BEACH AREA AND STATED THE PURPOSE OF THEIR REPORT IS TO REVIEW THE FACTS TAKEN.INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNER AND ALSO TO PRESENT ACCEPTABLE PLANNING PRACTICES FOR MAKING THESE DETERMINATIONS AND TO ..FULLY JUSTIFY THE FACTS AND PLANNING PROCEDURES. HE STATED THAT THEY ECONCLUDE THAT IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SOUTH BEACH OR THE - COUNTY AS.A WHOLE TO MAKE THE CHANGES PROPOSED. IN REGARD TO THE STUDY CALLED "THE COST OF SPRAWL," HE AGREED YOU CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THE WHOLE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO BE ON A SINGLE FAMILY BASIS, BUT DID NOT FEEL A STUDY THIS EXTENSIVE CAN APPLY TO THE SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD OF SOUTH BEACH. HE NOTED THAT MR. BRENNAN'S REPORT TO THE COMMISSION EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE 17TH STREET BRIDGE IN CREATING ACCESS AND A NEED FOR MORE COMMERCIAL IN THE BEACH AREA. DR. ORMAN POINTED OUT THAT BRIDGES, LIKE ROADS, GO BOTH WAYS AND FELT CERTAIN THERE WILL BE MORE GOING FROM THE ISLAND TO THE MAINLAND TO SHOP THAN THE REVERSE. DR. ORMAN THEN ADDRESSED THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT. HE STATED THIS PLAN IS, IN FACT, LAND USE LAW FOR THE COUNTY AND IF YOU ADOPT IT, YOU CANNOT ADOPT CHANGES THAT VIOLATE IT. THE LAND USE LAW IS THE LAND USE MAP YOU ADOPT. ORMAN CONTINUED THAT HE DOES NOT FEEL ANY DATA HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION WHICH SUBSTANTIATES THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED. HE THEN.DISCUSSED GOOD PLANNING PRACTICES AND FELT THERE WERE QUITE A FEW STEPS OF GOOD PLANNING PRACTICES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, HE STATED IF YOU DETERMINE LAND USE BEFORE YOU DETERMINE THE ENTIRETY, YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOOD STRUCTURE TO WORK ON AND FELT THE CART IS A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE HORSE AS FAR AS PLANNING PROCESSES ARE CONCERNED. DR. ORMAN THEN DISCUSSED EXHIBIT 2, A SITE ANALYSIS OF SEA GROVE, NOTHING THAT THE AREA CLOSE TO THE RIVER HAS MANGROVE AND IS VERY •STRINGENTLY CONTROLLED AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENT GOES. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE S FOOT LINE OF FLOOD HAZARD AREA TAKES IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE AREA WEST OF A -1-A AND A PORTION ON THE EAST. DR. ORMAN STATED THAT IF A DECISION WERE MADE TO ALLOW 8 TO 10 UNITS PER ACRE, THAT CLUSTER WOULD PROBABLY LOOK LIKE 24 TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE, AND IT WOULD END UP LOOKING LIKE FT. LAUDERDALE. HE THEN INTRODUCED CHARLES. PUTNAM, WHO HAS 12 YEARS EXPERIENCE AS A PLANNER AND ECONOMIST, AND WILL GIVE THE BOARD AN IMPACT ANALYSIS. 11 FAu, OCT 2 6 197 J 4 b I MR. PUTNAM INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS RESEARCHED THE COUNTY BUDGET AND TRIED TO ESTIMATE THE EXPANSION OF SERVICES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND ALSO TRIED TO CONVERT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED ON BOTH SIDES INTO SOME SUBSTANTIVE CALCULATIONS, MR. PUTNAM FIRST SPOKE OF THE FISCAL r IMPACT AND INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE USED 420 MULTI—FAMILY-UNITS FOR HIS CALCULATIONS, WHICH IS CLOSE TO WHAT MR. PADGETT IS PROPOSING. HE STATED THAT IN USING ACCEPTED PLANNING STANDARDS, HE DEVELOPED THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND THE UNITS THAT COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WOULD CAUSE THE FOLLOWING IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY: SCHOOLS WOULD NEED TO BE EXPANDED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 250; LOCAL PARKS WOULD NEED TO BE EXPANDED THREE ACRES; COMMUNITY PARKS WOULD NEED TO BE EXPANDED THREE ACRES; ROADS USING COMBINED COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC OF, ROUGHLY, 15,000 VEHICLES A DAY WOULD CAUSE A NEED TO EXPAND A -1—A FROM THE CITY LIMIT DOWN TO AT LEAST SEA GROVE OR THE MOORINGS; SEWER AND WATER WOULD REQUIRE ROUGHLY 150,000 GALLONS PER DAY ADDITIONAL. THERE WOULD BE A NEED TO EXPAND FIRE, POLICE AND MEDICAL SERVICES AND, IN GENERAL, THERE WOULD BE A REQUIRED EXPANSION IN THE BUDGET TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT HE ESTIMATED WOULD BE ANOTHER 1,000 PEOPLE WHO COULD BE ADDED TO THE COMMUNITY. HE NOTED THAT THE ISSUE OF WATER FOR THE SOUTH BEACH STILL REMAINS UP IN THE AIR, AND STATED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS THAT CAN BE PROVIDED AND THAT THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO TAKE CARE OF THE GROWTH THAT IS THERE RIGHT NOW. HE FELT THAT BY MAKING A CHANGE, THE BOARD WOULD BE MAKING A STATEMENT THAT THEY WISHED TO EXPAND*THE FACILITIES FOR WATER TO SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN THE SOUTH BEACH AREA, AND IT APPEARS THERE WOULD BE A MAJOR INVESTMENT REQUIRED IN WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. MR. PUTNAM CONTINUED THAT THE*SECOND ASPECT, AND MOST IMPORTANT ONE, IS NOT SO MUCH IN THE AREA•OF BUDGET AS IT IS THE IMPACT THAT THIS WILL HAVE ON THE TREND OF LAND USE IN THE AREA. HE NOTED THAT THE BOARD HAD HEARD EVERYONE IS COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE AND HE FELT THAT IT IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ISSUE WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY. MR. PUTNAM STATED THAT HE IS FROM FT. LAUDERDALE AND IS A LAND USE AND ZONING CONSULTANT TO PRIVATE DEVELOPERS, HIS JOB IS TO OBTAIN ZONING CHANGES FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPERS IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS TO MR. PADGETT,AND MANY OF THE ARGUMENTS 12 f HE HAS HEARD TODAY WERE VERY FAMILIAR TO HIM. HE CONTINUED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THE BOARD SHOULD REGARD THIS.ISSUE IDLY. HE WAS CONFIDENT THAT IF THIS WERE APPROVED AND MR. PADGETT'S DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTED, THAT WITHIN THE NEXT TWO OR THREE YEARS SOMEONE ELSE WOULD COME BEFORE THE BOARD REQUESTING TO BE ALLOWED TO DO THE SAME THING, AND IT WILL GO ON AND ON. HE STATED IT IS THIS DOMINO EFFECT THAT GRABS HOLD OF A COMMUNITY AND CREATES THE LEGAL•BASIS FOR PEOPLE WITHOUT THE VESTED INTEREST THAT MR. PADGETT HAS TO COME IN AND GO TO COURT. MR. PUTNAM FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AS DISCUSSED AT.THIS MOMENT, AND SPOKE OF INSTANCES THAT HAPPEN WHERE PROPERTY GOES FROM ONE DEVELOPER TO ANOTHER, HE SPOKE OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE MARKET PLACE AND NOTED NOW THERE IS A DEMAND FOR MULTI- FAMILY, BUT IN THE PAST, IT HAS HAPPENED THESE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN ABANDONED AND LEFT TO SIT AS HULKS. MR. PUTNAM'S FINAL POINT WAS THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE AREAS IN THE COMMUNITY ALREADY EARMARKED ON THE MASTER PLAN WHERE MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CAN OCCUR SO THERE IS NO NEED, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GOOD LAND USE PLANNING, TO INCLUDE MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH BEACH AREA. YOU HAVE A BALANCED COMMUNITY AND PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT MULTI -FAMILY USES. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE IN THE SOUTH BEACH AREA. MR. PUTNAM CALCULATED THERE ARE ROUGHLY 400 ACRES IEFT IN SOUTH BEACH THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED FOR MULTI -FAMILY AND, IF THE DOMINO EFFECT TAKES HOLD, CALCULATED YOU COULD HAVE 4,800 UNITS IN THE SOUTH BEACH AREA.. HE STATED HE ATTEMPTED TO DEAL WITH MARKET CONDITIONS IN THE SOUTH BEACH AREA AND RELATE THEM TO ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPING THE SITE IN QUESTION, AND HIS CONCLUSION IS THE SITE CAN BE -DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE RETURN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE SUFFICIENT AND IN LINE WITH THE RETURNS OF OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, MR. PUTNAM STATED THAT IF MR. PADGETT IS ALLOWED TO DEVELOP WITH COMMERCIAL AND MULTI -FAMILY USES, HE FELT MR. PADGETT WOULD HAVE VIRTUALLY A MONOPOLISTIC SITUATION IN THE SOUTH BEACH AREA AND WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE HIS RETURN ON THE PROPERTY. HE REITERATED THAT THE BOARD SHOULD NOT LOOK AT THIS AS A SMALL CHANGE - THE DANGER IS THE PRECEDENT THAT IS 5 BEING SET. 13 DR. ORMAN SPOKE OF BUFFER ZONES AND STATED THAT THIS THEORY IS NOT HELD IN HIGH REGARD ANY MORE BECAUSE TO PUT MORE PEOPLE NEXT TO A COMMERCIAL USE IS REALLY DOING THEM A DISSERVICE. HE STATED THAT STANDARDS OF DESIGN CAN PROVIDE EQUAL QUALITY OF BUFFERING, AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR MULTI -FAMILY AS A BUFFER.BETWEEN LAND USES. HE NOTED THAT THERE ARE 20 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USE PRESENTLY IN THE MOORINGS AND FELT THIS IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR THE AREA. DR. ORMAN STATED THAT SOUTH BEACH IS A NEIGHBORHOOD OF HIGH QUALITY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STYLE HOMES, AND IT WOULD BE THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THAT LIFE- STYLE IF YOU CHANGED THE LAND USE STYLE TO MULTI -FAMILY. ATTORNEY CHESTER CLEM THEN SPOKE, NOTING THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975 REQUIRES ALL COUNTIES TO ADOPT A PLAN BY .JULY OF 1979 AND AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT, WHAT THE BOARD IS DOING TODAY IS A STEP IN THAT DIRECTION BY GETTING PUBLIC INPUT. HE NOTED THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A PLAN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS PRESENT, AND ZONING FOLLOWS THE CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, HE FELT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM A PERSONALITY TYPE THING AND TO PLAN AHEAD. ATTORNEY CLEM CONTENDED THAT THE PRESENT 20 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE AND ADDITIONALLY,'IT IS WITHIN A MILE OF THIS LOCATION. HE ALSO THOUGHT THAT THERE IS ALREADY ADEQUATE MULTI- FAMILY IN THE AREA. HE QUESTIONED THE BASIS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION AND THOUGHT MR. REDICK HAS NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE EFFECT OF ALL THE IMPACTS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED TODAY SIMPLY BECAUSE A DEVELOPER WANTS TO MOVE HIS PROPERTY FASTER. ATTORNEY CLEM CONTINUED THAT IT HAS BEEN HIS EXPERIENCE IN THIS COUNTY THAT AS COMMERCIAL GETS INTO AN AREA, MORE COMES IN AND THE SAME WITH MULTI -FAMILY. HE THEN MENTIONED THE LAW SUIT BY THE EISWELL CORPORATION VERSUS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IN 1974 REGARDING PROPERTY ABUTTING THIS TO THE SOUTH. HE FELT THE DECISION MADE BY THE JUDGE IS VERY INDICATIVE OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THAT AREA. HE STATED THAT THE .JUDGE'S REASONS FOR GOING ALONG WITH THE COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE WERE BASED ON ALL THE FACTS PRESENTED HERE EARLIER TODAY. HE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD THAT THERE'IS NO REASON TO MODIFY THEIR DECISION IN REGARD TO THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ADJACENT, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING TODAY. MR, CLEM FELT THE BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE 14 OCT 2 0197 �'F E T 6 0 m CONTINUED PRESSURE TO CHANGE AS TIME GOES ALONG AND THAT IT IS TOO EARLY TO MAKE A CHANGE AT THIS TIME. ATTORNEY CLEM STATED THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT CHANGE AND WILL BECOME ALMOST ETCHED IN STONE IF IT IS MADE AT THIS TIME BECAUSE IF THE BOARD SHOULD MAKE THE CHANGE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THE REZONING. THE PRESENTATION THEN ENDED AND THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHED TO SPEAK. WILLIAM KOOLAGE, OF 815 26TH AVENUE, FELT BEFORE ANY CHANGE IS MADE IN THE MASTER PLAN FOR INCREASED DENSITY, THE BOARD REALLY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE FUTURE WATER AND SEWER PLANS FOR THE AREA. MR. KOOLAGE STATED THAT HE LIVES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BRIDGE, BUT FELT THE RESIDENTS IN THAT PART OF VERO BEACH ALSO LIKE THE BEACH AREA AS.IT IS AND WOULD URGE THE BOARD TO CONTINUE THE DENSITY THAT IS PRESENTLY IN THE MASTER PLAN. MR. WILLIAM D. ROBINSON SPOKE REPRESENTING THE BONITA BEACH SUBDIVISION, WHICH HAS 21 SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING LOTS. HE STATED THEY ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE ZONING CHANGES AND REQUEST THAT IT BE LEFT AS IT IS. HOWARD MOORE CAME BEFORE THE BOARD SPEAKING AS VICE-PRESIDENT OF PELICAN ISLAND AUDOBON SOCIETY. HE STATED THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PELICAN ISLAND AUDOBON SOCIETY -HAS VOTED TO OPPOSE ANY CHANGE IN DENSITY OF LAND USE IN ITEMS #7 AND #9. THEIR PRIMARY REASON IS BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCATION ON THE BARRIER ISLANDS. HE READ A STATEMENT, WHICH IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES. 15 OCT 2 61979 00 PAS C f t ^. S STATEMENT OF PELICAN ISLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY PRESENTED AT PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED MASTER PLAN REVISION NOS. 7 & 9 �I am Capt. Howard Moore, Vice President, -Pelican Island Audubon Soc.) The Board of Directors -of Pelican Island Audubon Society has voted to oppose any changes in density or land use in Areas 7 afid 9 on the County Master Plan. Our primary reason for opposing these Changes is because of their location on the Barrier Island. If theee areas were located on the mainland in an otherwise comparable situation we would*not abject to a change from loss to medium density, so long as environmental considerations showed no adverse impact. Pats we hold that an increase in density anywhere on the barrier island is not in the best interests of this county. In his 1977 Environmental Message, the President of the United States expressed concern over the rapidly increasing development of the barrier islands alonZ our Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and he. directed the Secretary of the Interior,'in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the Council on Environmental Quality, and 'state and local officials to develop an effective plan for protect $ Ing the islands. The Hcritage Conservation and Recreation Service (formerly the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) was given the lead agency task of drawing up a reports and a draft copy of this report appear- . , ed this past summer. I believe that you are all aware of the -value of the Barrier Island as a physical structure that protects the Indian River and the maialand from the direct onslaught of ocean forces during a OCT 2 61978 - p 1 • hurricane. You are also aware of the logistical problems that will occur in evacuating the barrier island in the face of an approach- , Ing hurricane. You should be aware of the adverse impacts of increas. ed acreage of pavement, rooftops and other structures that will Increase rainfall runoff and reduce recharge into the ground. Fresh pater for lawns is already reaching critical shortages on the barrier Island. It is incumbent upon governments and governmental agencies_at all levels-- federal,state, and local-- to do all that can be done to protect barrier islands, and at the same time, not to take actions that would increase adverse environmental impacts on these islands. The action being considered here today to increase"the number of units and people and paving on the south beach barrier island is not consistent with such a policy. As a result of the President's environmental message and policies, federal actions in the future --whether they be of a permittin3 nature, or matching funds or subsidies, or whatever, will be scrutinized , beforehand to see if they are in effect encouraging development of barrier isl4nds. In those cases where it can be shown the project will encourage increased develoriment, no -federal funds will be forth- coming. This means bridges, sewage treatment plants, water lines, flood insurance, housing subsidies, the the whole gamut of federal programs that formerly encouraged barrier island development. We certainly are going to have increased -rorth and increased Population on the south bench area of the barrier island under the OCT 2 61978 . I r, 4 r present comprehensive plan. Not too many years will pass before every developable piece of property south of Vero Beach will be developed and occupied. Even at present densities, when this occurs, •e will be overloading the barrier island. For example, it won't be long before you will be 4-laning State Road A -1-A, thus doubling the area of blacktop pavement. Following that many of the presently unpaved roads on the beach will be Ifaved. *In fact, most of the new developments already include paved roads, The future problems of sewage transmission and treatment, and provision of fresh water for both human consumption and the wateyin4 of lawns are well known, even if the current capacity of Vero Beach's sewage treatment plant and -water plant appears able to provide these services for the south beach area for the time being. Recent developments in the county'q 201 Study indicate that it As going to be a long time before this county gets a region -wide sewage treatment capability. 1%en we take all of the foregoing comments into consideration one can argue convincingly that to increase densities on the south beach barrier island would now be --just as it was five years ago -- premature. ,'at Its will -go a step farther. and say that even under present densities too much development and adverse environmental Impact are going to occur on the barrier island, and that we x311 never.be able to justify increasing densities or commercial develop - neat there. -Perhaps it is unfortunate that Indian River County has 00 provisions for a well-designed Planned Unit,Development, because OCT 2 6 1978 7 Pu -,- 11' 13144' if G r, 4 r present comprehensive plan. Not too many years will pass before every developable piece of property south of Vero Beach will be developed and occupied. Even at present densities, when this occurs, •e will be overloading the barrier island. For example, it won't be long before you will be 4-laning State Road A -1-A, thus doubling the area of blacktop pavement. Following that many of the presently unpaved roads on the beach will be Ifaved. *In fact, most of the new developments already include paved roads, The future problems of sewage transmission and treatment, and provision of fresh water for both human consumption and the wateyin4 of lawns are well known, even if the current capacity of Vero Beach's sewage treatment plant and -water plant appears able to provide these services for the south beach area for the time being. Recent developments in the county'q 201 Study indicate that it As going to be a long time before this county gets a region -wide sewage treatment capability. 1%en we take all of the foregoing comments into consideration one can argue convincingly that to increase densities on the south beach barrier island would now be --just as it was five years ago -- premature. ,'at Its will -go a step farther. and say that even under present densities too much development and adverse environmental Impact are going to occur on the barrier island, and that we x311 never.be able to justify increasing densities or commercial develop - neat there. -Perhaps it is unfortunate that Indian River County has 00 provisions for a well-designed Planned Unit,Development, because OCT 2 6 1978 7 Pu -,- 11' 13144' if we would not be opposed to such type developments on the barrier Island so long as overall densities remained the same. We utast to make it clear that we are not opposed to growth and development at the proper time and place. There are many areas in this county where this can properly take place. But for all Who can hear us -- whether you be county commissioner, or realtor, or developer, or private citizen -- Pelican Island Audubon will.-- use all the resources it.has at its command to see that not one penny of federal or state or local funds will be used to subsidize the continued development of the barrier island, and we will oppose the issuance0of any federal or state permit that would encourage increased development.of the barrier island along its entire length from Sebastian State Park to Round Island Park.. Finallyg we urge you to keep in mind that if you should ever be charged with "error" in your stewardship of land in this county that,you err in favor of maintaining the integrity of'our barrier Island ecosystem. We urge you not to revise the densities or land use designations for Areas 7 and 9 of the Comprehensive Plan. ' . Respectfully submitted,ct ' Margaret C. Bowman, President Pelican Island Audubon Society r "L� Z61978 CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE BOARD HAS BEEN PRESENTED TODAY WITH A GOOD DEAL OF INFORMATION AND STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY IT. ATTORNEY CLEM FELT THAT EVERYTHING THEY PRESENTED WAS SUMMARIZED. Hp NOTED THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE PRESENT TODAY, AND HE HOPED THEY WOULD NOT ALL HAVE TO COME BACK AT A LATER TIME. CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT IT IS UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION OR JUST ACCEPT THE SUMMARY. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, CHAIRMAN WODTKE ADVISED THOSE WHO HAD APPEARED FOR THE 11:00 O'CLOCK HEARING, THAT DISCUSSION ON ITEM #S WOULD BE HELD OVER UNTIL 1:30, COMMISSIONER LOY STATED THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE WORKED DILIGENTLY AND SHE APPRECIATES IT AND NOW WANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE IN- FORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED. THE BOARD THEN RECESSED FOR A FEW MOMENTS. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THE COMMISSIONERS WISHED TO ASK QUESTIONS OF ANYONE WHO HAS PRESENTED MATERIAL. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT, FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, HE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE ZONING. HE STATED FROM WHAT HE HAS HEARD TODAY, HE WOULD INFER THAT ONCE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS CHANGED, YOU ARE ALMOST LEGALLY BOUND TO GRANT THE REZONING, AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN HIS IMPRESSION. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IF THE PLAN, AS IT IS FINALLY ADOPTED, SHOWS A MULTIPLE USE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME TO THE COMMISSION REQUESTING THE USE, HE FELT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE HARD BOUND NOT TO GRANT IT ONCE THE USE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. WHERE THE PLAN SHOWS ANOTHER TYPE USE, HE FELT THERE WOULD BE LITIGATION TO DECIDE IT. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN IS OFFICIALLY OUR LAND USE PLAN AS SUCH, AND HE STATED THAT IT IS NOT TRUE AS FAR AS HE IS CONCERNED. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY INVOLVING AMENDING ORDINANCE 76-12. THIS IS NOT A 163 PROCEEDING; WE ARE JUST STRICTLY TALKING ABOUT AMENDING AN ORDINANCE WITHIN THE COUNTY. 20 9. i 1 I OCT 2 61978 A COMMISSIONER•SIEBERT STATED THAT HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN LEAD TO BELIEVE, AND A GREAT NUMBER OF PLANNERS HE HAS TALKED TO ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT, AFTER IT IS OFFICIALLY ADOPTED IN 1979, PROHIBITS REZONING IN CONFLICT WITH THE t MASTER PLAN; HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE REZONING ACCORDING TO THE MASTER PLAN. THE PLAN IS MERELY A TOOL SO YOU CAN PLAN YOUR SERVICES TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE IN 1990. DR. ORMAN STATED THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IT IS THE PLAN OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS PROJECTED TO LOOK LIKE, BUT IF YOU DON `T HAVE YOUR ZONING IMPLEMENTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT THE TIME IT IS ADOPTED, IT IS HIS OPINION, AND HE HAS RESEARCHED IT, THAT IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS OF THE ACT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BRING YOUR ZONING INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLAN IN A REASONABLY SHORT TIME AFTER ITS ADOPTION. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE THE DEVELOPER BRINGS IN REQUESTING A CHANGE TO A NEW ZONING CATAGORY IS THAT THE PLAN SUPPORTS IT. HE, THEREFORE, BELIEVED THE IMPACT GOES BOTH WAYS AND FELT THAT THE BOARD SHOULD NOT CHANGE ZONING IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAN AND ALSO THAT THE ZONING SHOULD IMPLEMENT THE PLAN THAT IS ADOPTED. - HE NOTED THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS SAYS IN CONSIDERING CHANGES TO THE PLAN, YOU SHOULD GO THROUGH THE STAGES THAT DEVELOPED THE PLAN IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND HE DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF HE IS AWARE THAT INDIAN RIVER.COUNTY HAS NOT ADOPTED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HE FELT BASICALLY WHAT DR. ORMAN IS SAYING IS THAT IF THE COMMISSIONERS FELT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A NEED FOR SPECIFIC CHANGE IN 1990, THAT IT MUST BE PUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOW. THUS WE MUST THINK TWENTY YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, AND DR. ORMAN IS SAYING THE ZONING MAP MUST REFLECT A CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR TWENTY YEARS AHEAD OF TIMER DR. ORMAN SAID THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT YOU PLAN TWENTY YEARS IN ADVANCE. IT LEAVES IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMUNITY. 6 HE NOTED THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO REVISE THE PLAN ANNUALLY AND MAKE A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION EVERY FIVE YEARS AND RECOMMENDED THE BOARD LOOK I AHEAD TWENTY YEARS FOR THE BROAD SCOPE BUT DEVELOP THE PLAN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. I CHAIRMAN WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT IF IT IS CHANGEABLE EVERY YEAR, IT IS NOT ETCHED IN CONCRETE. 21 1 OCT 2 0.1978 nox 37 pAv I317 COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE IS CONCERNED RIGHT NOW WITH THE ENTIRE STATEMENT. LET US ASSUME, FOR INSTANCE, THAT BY 1990 WE WILL NEED SO MUCH ACREAGE IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL; HOWEVER, IF A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PLANT CAME IN HERE RIGHT NOW, THIS COUNTY IS IN NO WAY ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICES NEEDED FOR THEM. ARE YOU STILL SAYING WE WOULD `HAVE TO ISSUE PERMITS? DR. ORMAN FELT THAT IF THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE ALL THE NECESSARY SERVICES FOR THE INDUSTRY, THEY COULD DENY IT. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT.IT CAME ACROSS TO HIM THAT AUTOMATICALLY SOMEONE IS ENTITLED TO THE ZONING. MR. ORMAN NOTED THAT USUALLY THE ZONING CERTIFICATE INDICATES THE PROPOSED USE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING MAP AND REGULATIONS. HE STATED THAT YOU HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACCORDING TO STATE LAW. IF A PERSON WANTS TO BUILD A PLANT ACCORDING TO YOUR PLAN BUT DOESN'T HAVE THE NECESSARY WATER AND SEWER, ETC., YOU CAN DENY IT, BUT IF HE CAN SUPPLY ALL THIS, THEN YOU ARE BOUND TO GIVE HIM THE PERMIT. COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT MR. PUTNAM MADE A STATEMENT THAT INDICATED IF THE BOARD MADE THIS CHANGE IN THE MASTER PLAN THAT WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE UTILITIES THAT WE DO NOT HAVE AT THIS MOMENT. SHE ASKED MR. PUTNAM IF THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. MR. PUTNAM AGREED THAT IS WHAT HE SAID, BUT IT CAN BE TAKEN TWO WAYS. WHAT HE MEANT IS THAT SINCE THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE IMPACT FEES, ETC., THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE COSTS NECESSITATED BY .THE INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT. HE"NOTED THAT YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THEM AT A DEVELOPER S REQUEST, BUT WHEN THEY ARE PUT IN, THE TAXPAYERS WILL PROBABLY PAY FOR IT AND NOT THE DEVELOPER. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED MRe PUTNAM IF HE WERE AWARE THAT `THE SPECIFIC PARCEL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WOULD REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THAT EVERYTHING HE ADDRESSED IN HIS REPORT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER DRI. MR. PUTNAM AGREED THAT THE LIST OF THINGS THAT GOES INTO A DRI is INCREDIBLE. HE STATED THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IS IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA, AND IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF AGENCIES. IT IS EXPENSIVE AND FRUSTRATING BECAUSE 22 s r 6 THE PEOPLE IN THOSE AGENCIES ARE ANTI -GROWTH. HE CONTINUED THAT HE IS CONFIDENT MR. PADGETT'S INTENTIONS ARE PERFECTLY UPRIGHT, BUT IT IS A LONG WAY DOWN THE ROAD TO GET THE APPROVAL. MANY DEVELOPERS HAVE THROWN UP THEIR HANDS AND DECIDED NOT TO FIGHT THE BATTLE, AND THAT'S WHEN THE VULTURES COME IN AND BUY THE PROPERTY. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT MR. PUTNAM'S IMPACT EVALUATIONS WERE BASED ON 420 UNITS. HE ASKED IF MULTIPLE UNITS CREATE AS MUCH COST IMPACT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. MR. PUTNAM AGREED THAT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE ROADS, MORE UTILITY LINES, ETC. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED HOW MANY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES MR. PUTNAM THOUGHT IT WOULD TAKE TO GENERATE THE SAME IMPACT AS THE 420 MULTIPLE UNITS. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE FIGURES USED FOR PEOPLE PER UNIT, AND MR. PUTNAM USED THE FIGURES OF 2.5 FOR MULTIPLE UNITS AND 3.5 FOR SINGLE FAMILY. THE CHAIRMAN FELT THE 2.5 FOR MULTIPLE WAS RATHER HIGH. MR. PUTNAM NOTED THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PLAN AND ASSUME THE WORST POSSIBLE SITUATION THAT COULD DEVELOP. DR. ORMAN FELT ON THE SOUTH BEACH THE SAME'CHARACTERISTICS WILL PREVAIL IN EITHER MULTI OR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF*HE KNEW OF ANY COUNTY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT HAS A LOWER DENSITY THAN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. DR. ORMAN STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW OF ANY THAT HAS LOWER, BUT FELT PALM BEACH HAS THE SAME. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ANALOGIES MADE TO FT. LAUDERDALE, AND HE DID NOT FEEL IT IS FAIR OR REALISTIC TO COMPARE THE POTENTIAL HERE TO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN FT. LAUDERDALE. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER NOTED THAT DR. ORMAN HAS AGREED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IS A GREAT DEAL MORE EXPENSIVE IN THE WAY OF ROADS AND UTILITIES, ETC. HE ASKED IF THEY WOULD ALSO AGREE THAT MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AFFORDS A LOT MORE FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN SCATTERING YOUR UNITS OR PULLING THEM TOGETHER. HE FELT THE SINGLE FAMILY TYPE RESIDENCES ARE REALLY FROZEN IN BLOCK TYPE SITUATIONS. DR, ORMAN FELT THERE IS MORE FREEDOM OF DESIGN FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT WITH MULTI FAMILY, BUT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING ALLOWS THE INDIVIDUAL TO PLAN THE UNIT TO SUIT HIS OWN NEEDS. 23 7 1 a CHAIRMAN 14ODTKE NOTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN OBJECTION TO HAVING POD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) IN THIS COUNTY, AND ASKED DR. ORMAN'S OPINION ON PUD AND CLUSTERING, WHICH HE FELT ALLOWS AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT. DR. ORMAN AGREED THAT PUD IS A VERY VALID APPROACH AND FELT IT HAS DONE A LOT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT ITS USE SHOULD BE CAREFULLY APPLIED. HE STATED THAT MOST GOVERNMENTS ALLOW SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR PUD AFTER PUBLIC HEARINGS, BUT IN ALMOST EVERY CASE THERE ARE EXCLUSIVE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS THAT DO NOT ALLOW PUD CLUSTERED PROJECTS. HE CONTINUED THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY IS THE DENSITY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,. AND MOST PEOPLE ASSOCIATE SINGLE FAMILY TYPES WITH LOW DENSITY. HE FELT AREAS LIKE THE SOUTH BEACH SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND POINTED OUT THAT THIS COMMUNITY PROVIDES FOR A LOT OF OCEAN FRONTAGE MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, MOSTLY TO THE NORTH, WHICH PROVIDES THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY THE DEVELOPER IS SEEKING. DR. ORMAN VENTURED THE OPINION THAT THE SOUTH BEACH AREA UNDER DISCUSSION IS THE FINEST REMAINING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AREA BETWEEN THE INTER— COASTAL AND THE OCEAN IN SOUTH FLORIDA. HE NOTED THAT THE COUNTY HAS PROTECTED IT FOR FIVE YEARS IN A WAY THAT HE FEELS IS EXEMPLARY, AND FELT IF THEY DO AWAY WITH THIS PROTECTION, THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE LIKE IT IN FLORIDA AND THE BOARD WILL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOING AWAY WITH THE LAST ONE. NORMAN BADENHOP OF 461 SUNSET DRIVE STATED THAT HE FEELS THE "NITTY GRITTY" OF THIS WHOLE SITUATION IS THAT IT SHOULD NOT COME DOWN TO WHAT ONE DEVELOPER WANTS, WHICH IS GOING TO BENEFIT ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL. HE NOTED THAT WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE'S INPUT IS IMPORTANT. MR. BADENHOP POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD HAS HAD OVERWHELMING INPUT TODAY OPPOSING ANY CHANGE. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY ARE NOT LIVING IN A DICTATORSHIP AND WHY IS IT SO UNREASONABLE TO ASK THAT THEY GET A FREE CHOICE IN ONE AREA OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ACCEDING TO THE WISHES OF THE c PEOPLE? HE FELT THAT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE RESPONDED THAT THIS BOARD HAS A TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO REPOND TO EVERYONE, AND THt MAN MAKING THE REQUEST 24 .art J HAS EQUAL RIGHTS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THERE UNDOUBTEDLY ARE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WHO MAY HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PERTAINING TO ITEM #9. COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT SHE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE BOARD BE ALLOWED A CHANCE TO DIGEST THE MATERIAL PRESENTED TODAY. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD.UNANIMOUSLY INSTRUCTED THAT THE FINAL DECISION IN REGARD TO ITEM #9 BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE NOVEMBER IST MEETING AT 3:30 01CLOCK P.M. THE BOARD THEREUPON RECESSED FOR LUNCH AT 12:10 O'CLOCK P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT, THE CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THAT THE BOARD AT THIS TIME WOULD CONSIDER ITEM #5 AS ADVERTISED, WHICH ITEM WAS HELD OVER FROM 11:00 A.M. PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT THIS AREA EXTENDS FROM NORTH OF ROSELAND ROAD ON HIGHWAY I DOWN TO THE CITY LIMITS OF SEBASTIAN AND OVER TO THE WEST. THE.PROPOSALS ARE THAT AT THE NORTH END, THE PUBLIC, SEMI -INSTITUTIONAL AREA BE EXPANDED TO THE WEST AND ACROSS THE ROAD INTO THE LOWER DENSITY AREA. HE FELT IT WAS THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE SOME CLINICS AND QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL•USES IN THAT AREA. SOUTH OF THIS, THERE IS A SMALL COMMERCIAL AREA. MR. REDICK NOTED THAT THE ZONING IN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN ADJACENT TO THIS IS R-2 AT THIS TIME. THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE.FROM MEDIUM DENSITY TO LOW DENSITY SOUTH OF ROSELAND ROAD. THE AREA WEST OF THE RAILROAD AND THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA EAST OF THE EXTENSION OF SEBASTIAN, HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED, BUT THE REMAINDER HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM MEDIUM DENSITY TO AGRICULTURAL. THE SEBASTIAN AREA SOUTH OF THIS IS R-1. REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION WERE THAT THERE WAS EXCESSIVE COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE NORTH OF SEBASTIAN. SECONDLY, THERE WAS A PUBLIC NEED FOR THE EXPANDED QUASI -PUBLIC AREA a EAST OF THE HOSPITAL AND'THE AREA ALONG THE RIVER THERE IS CURRENTLY IN MEDIUM DENSITY. MR. REDICK STATED THAT THE OBJECTIONS TO THIS PROPOSAL ESSENTIALLY WERE THAT THE LAND HAD BEEN PURCHASED AND ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ALONG U.S. I AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO PARTICULAR 4 25 OCT 2 6 1978 37m. i b I I� REASONS SHOWN THAT THIS AREA SHOULD BE REDUCED. THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WAS TO RECOMMEND THIS CHANGE IN THE MASTER PLAN. THERE WAS ANOTHER HEARING HELD SUBSEQUENT TO THIS AT THE REQUEST OF OWNERS OF PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL, REQUESTING THAT THAT AREA REMAIN IN COMMERCIAL LAND USE INSOFAR AS } THE PLAN WAS CONCERNED. THE RESULT WAS THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REAFFIRMED ITS ORIGINAL ACTION, MADE NO ADDITIONAL CHANGE, AND THE RECOMMENDATION TO US TODAY IS AS SHOWN ON THE MAP. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. C. E. YODER OF NORTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, SEBASTIAN, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD. HE ASKED ABOUT THE 38 ACRES TURNED DOWN AT THE LAST HEARING AND ASKED IF IT HAD BEEN CHANGED. MR. REDICK STATED THAT IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD THAT IT BE ZONED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MR. YODER THEN TALKED ABOUT THE DENSITY AROUND ROSELAND IN THE OLD TOWN ITSELF)EXCEPT POSSIBLY THE FIRST ROW OF HOUSES FACING NORTH ON ROSELAND ROAD,AND STATED THAT IT ALWAYS WAS A QUIET RETIRED SECTION AND IT IS BEING KEPT THAT WAY. CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NORTH OF ROSELAND ROAD IS LOW DENSITY EXCEPT THE INTERSECTION. MR. YODER CONTINUED THAT WHEN'HE PUT THE SUBDIVISION BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE RIVER EAST OF IT, ONE ACRE WAS REQUIRED TO BUILD ON, AND THOSE PEOPLE WERE PLEASED WITH THE RESTRICTION, AND IT REMAINS ON -THE RIVERFRONT PROPERTY. MR. YODER CONTINUED THAT HIS EFFORTS HAVE BEEN TO MAINTAIN A LITTLE OF FLORIDA AS NEAR AS IT WAS WHEN HE CAME. BYRON T. COOKSEY CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND SOME FELLOW PROPERTY OWNERS; A GROUP OF PEOPLE INCLUDING HIMSELF, MRS. HANSEN, DR. KELSO, RUTH BLUME, ETC. HE.STATED THEY OWN 30 ACRES OF LAND JUST SOUTH OF ROSELAND WHERE IT MEETS U.S. I GOING TO THE RIVER, ABOUT 1,200 FEET ON THE HIGHWAY. THEY ALSO OWN THE.6 ACRES ADJACENT TO THE MEDICAL CENTER ON THE NORTH. HE NOTED THAT MRS. HANSEN HAS BEEN A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AREA FOR ABOUT SO YEARS AND OWNS 42 LOTS IN THIS AREA AND OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. DR. L. KELSO ALSO OWNS COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE SOUTH OF ROSELAND.ROAD ON U.S. 1. HE STATED W OCT 2 6 1978c37 ixv,142 4 HE IS HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT DESTROYS THE COMMERCIAL CHARACTER OF THAT AREA THAT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SO MANY YEARS. MR. COOKSEY INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HIMSELF OWNS SIX RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN ROSELAND IN WAUREGAN AND HOPES TO LIVE THERE SOME DAY. HE DID NOT FEEL THE COMMERCIAL ON U.S. I WILL HURT THE RESIDENTIAL IN ANY WAY. MR. COOKSEY CONTINUED THAT THERE WAS A LONG COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE ZONING IN THE COMMUNITY WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE ZONING PLANS FOR THE COUNTY AND THE WHOLE AREA,AND IT WAS FELT THIS LAND WAS DESTINED TO BE COMMERCIAL. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT PRECEDING THE ADOPTION OF THE LAND USE PLAN, ADLEY & ASSOCIATES, AS WELL AS STUDY GROUPS, STUDIED THIS AREA AND AGAIN CAME UP WITH A COMMERCIAL RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LAND IN THIS AREA. IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY COMMERCIAL FOR MANY YEARS AND HAS MAINTAINED ITS CHARACTER, AND MANY OF THEM HAVE INVESTED THEIR MONEY IN RELIANCE ON THIS. ATTORNEY COOKSEY POINTED OUT THAT MRS. HANSEN, IN FACT, SOLD PROPERTY WITH THE SPECIFIC AGREEMENT THAT IT WOULD BE USED FOR A SHOPPING CENTER. HE STATED THAT THE COMMERCIAL ZONING HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME, AND TODAY, WITH THE POPULATION GROWING IN THIS AREA AND ABLE TO SUSTAIN COMMERCIAL, YOU HAVE A MASTER PLAN THAT SEEKS TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. MR. COOKSEY CONTINUED TO INFORM THE BOARD OF PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN DRAWN.OVER THE YEARS AT A LOT OF EXPENSE, FOR THE INTENT OF DEVELOPING COMMERCIALLY IN THIS AREA. HE FELT THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD DESTROY THE CONCEPT OF LAND OWNERSHIP FOR FUTURE USE, ED SCHLITT, REALTOR, INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SOME YEARS AGO WINN DIXIE CAME TO HIM AND INDICATED THEY WERE INTERESTED IN PUTTING A SMALL CENTER IN THE AREA OF SEBASTIAN. MR. SCHLITT STATED THAT HE PUT TOGETHER AN INVESTMENT GROUP TO DO JUST THAT. WINN DIXIE INDICATED A PREFERENCE FOR THE CORNER OF ROSELAND ROAD AND U.S. I, BUT HE WENT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHERE IT WOULD BE BEST FOR THE WHOLE AREA. HE STATED THAT IT WAS PLANNER VAL BRENNAN'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE LAND IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN WAS THE BEST SPOT, NOT THE INTERSECTION OF ROSELAND AND U.S. I, WHICH WOULD ENCROACH ON LAND MORE RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER. MR. SCHLITT CONTINUED THAT HIS INVESTMENT GROUP WENT OUT AND BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, BUT THEIR IMMEDIATE PLANS TO BUILD WERE SLOWED DOWN AND STOPPED BY THE RECESSION. IN THE 27 OCT 2 61978 7 fAa- u INTERIM, WINN DIXIE WENT. TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER, REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER, AND IS NOW BUILDING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROSELAND ROAD AND U.S. 1. MR. SCHLITT NOTED THAT HIS GROUP CAN GO AHEAD AND DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY COMMERCIALLY AT.THE PRESENT TIME BECAUSE THE ZONING HAS NOT YET CHANGED, BUT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN THE PROPER 4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH PART OF THE COUNTY, EVEN IF IT.MEANS A FINANCIAL LOSS TO THEM. MR. SCHLITT STATED THEY BELIEVE THAT BETWEEN THE HIGHWAY AND THE RAILROAD, THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE IS UNDOUBTEDLY COMMERCIAL, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT LEFT THIS WAY, BUT IF IT IS THE COUNTY'S FEELINGS THAT THE CHANGE HAS TO BE MADE, THEN THEY WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF WHAT THEY CAN JUSTIFY AS A PROPER WAY TO DEVELOP THIS LAND. HE POINTED OUT THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED SUBJECT TO A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT THAT.A SHOPPING CENTER WOULD BE DEVELOPED ON IT. HE DID NOT FEEL, HOWEVER, IT IS WISE PLANNING TO GO IN AND PUT JUST ANY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT COULD BE USED FAR MORE WISELY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A GROWING COMMUNITY. HE CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE A GROUP TRYING TO DEVELOP IN THE RIGHT WAY GET SHUT OUT BEFORE THEY CAN GET THEIR PLANNING UNDER WAY. ED WARD, PRESIDENT OF THE ROSELAND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, CAME BEFORE THE BOARD. HE REGRETTED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE OUT TODAY AS THEY NORMALLY DO, BUT NOTED MOST OF THEIR MEMBERS ARE WORKING PEOPLE. SOME WERE HERE AT II:00 O'CLOCK AND, UNFORTUNATELY, HAD TO LEAVE WHEN THE DISCUSSION WAS DEFERRED TO A LATER HOUR. HE STATED HE WILL TRY TO EXPLAIN ONCE AGAIN, AND THIS IS THE THIRD TIME, THE ATTITUDE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE ROSELAND, AREA. HE NOTED THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESENT AND NOT WHAT HAS BEEN HISTORICAL. THEY ARE CONCERNED IN THE ROSELAND AREA NOT ABOUT STOPPING THE GROWTH OF THE AREA, BUT CONTROLLING IT. THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL AREA ALONG U.S. I HAS LONG BEEN MUCH TOO GREAT, AND ACCORDING TO FIGURES GIVEN OUT AT ONE OF THE HEARINGS, THERE WAS ENOUGH AREA SET ASIDE AS COMMERCIAL TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE ENTIRE COUNTY TO THE YEAR 2000. MR. WARD STATED IF THE AREA IS ALLOWED TO GROW BEYOND THE CURRENT PLAN, IT WILL OVERTAX ROSE - LAND ROAD, WHICH IS A TWO-LANE FEEDER ROAD, AND IT WILL CHANGE THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE AND CHARACTER OF THE TOWNSITE OF ROSELAND. IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION .OF BUILDING ENTERPRISES AROUND THE HOSPITAL, HE FELT 28 @ f*� 144 261978 J THE INSTITUTIONAL AREA 'THAT IS SPECIFIED WOULD ALLOW MEDICAL BUILDINGS AND HOSPITAL -RELATED ACTIVITIES. MR. WARD FELT THE PLAN THAT WAS DISCUSSED ON A HISTORICAL BASIS WAS A PLAN BASICALLY OF THE INVESTORS IN THAT AREA, MOST OF WHOM ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF THE AREA, AND HE FELT THE RESIDENTS OF THE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS IN THEIR AREA. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ZONING, AS PROPOSED, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED IF PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO TAKE THE TROUBLE TO GO THROUGH THE RED TAPE, AND GET THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA BEHIND THEM AS NEEDS DEVELOP, HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THESE AREAS WERE ZONED COMMERCIAL FOR MANY YEARS, AND THOSE WHO ARE NOW OBJECTING HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING WITH THEM IN ALL THAT TIME. MR. WARD STATED THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THE ROSELAND AREA ARE LOOKING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR DESIRES AND NEEDS, AND TO GUIDE, THROUGH THE ZONING PROGRAM, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA SO IT WILL NOT GET BEYOND THE UTILITIES AND FACILITIES OF THE AREA. MR. WARD. THEN SPOKE OF THE DELAY OF PUTTING IN THE TRAFFIC LIGHT AT ROSELAND ROAD WHICH IS BADLY NEEDED AND NOW IS EVEN MORE URGENTLY NEEDED. HE STATED ANY FURTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA WILL JUST ADD TO THIS PROBLEM. JOHN MOORE INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT HE IS ONE OF THE INVESTORS IN THE PROPERTY BEING DISCUSSED, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF SEBASTIAN, BORDERED BY SHADY REST, A TRAILER PARK, ON THE NORTH; U.S. I ON THE EAST; AND THE RAILROAD ON THE WEST. HE STATED THAT MR. WARD HAS IMPLIED THAT THE INVESTORS WERE THE ONES WHO DEVELOPED THE PLAN, BUT NOTED THAT ON THE CONTRARY, THE INVESTORS WENT TO THE PLANNING OFFICE AND ASKED FOR ADVICE ON THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS. HE STATED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITSELF RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACREAGE BE HELD IN COMMERCIAL, BUT SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS HELD BY ROSELAND CITIZENS REQUESTED FURTHER REDUCTION OF THAT ACREAGE, AND THAT IS WHAT YOU SEE HERE. MR. MOORE NOTED THAT IT IS NOT THEIR DESIRE TO GO INTO THIS AREA AND MUTILATE IT IN ANY FASHION AND FELT IF THEY DEVELOPED THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE SHORT TIME STILL ALLOWED, .IT WOULD BE BADLY DEVELOPED AND THE POOREST USE OF THE PROPERTY. HE CONTINUED THAT THE CONCEPT IS THAT YOU PAY THE PRICE FOR LAND THAT IS COMMERCIALLY ZONED AND LAND BANK IT FOR THE FUTURE. GOOD LONG RANGE PLANNING DICTATES 29 .l� fwwlO OCT 2 � �9�� a J s THAT THERE BE AN AREA THAT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL TO ATTRACT PEOPLE WHO CAN DO IT RIGHT. HE FELT THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION MUST ALSO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A RAILROAD TRACK ON ONE SIDE, A HIGHWAY ON THE OTHER, A CEMETERY ACROSS'THE WAY AND A MOBILE HOME PARK 'ON THE NORTH, IT DOES LIMIT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. MR. MOORE CONCLUDED BY STATING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO COOPERATE BUT WOULD NOT LIKE TO HAVE THIS PROPERTY ARBITRARILY REZONED FROM ITS PRESENT COMMERCIAL STATUS. DEBORAH PALMER, OF ROSELAND ROAD, NEXT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND STATED THAT TO HER KNOWLEDGE THE PROPERTY ON U.S. I NORTH OF SEBASTIAN HAS BEEN IN THE HANDS OF MR. MOORE AND MR. SCHLITT FOR AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS AND HAS HAD A "FOR SALE" SIGN ON IT FOR FIVE OR SIX YEARS. SHE NOTED THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE A SHOPPING CENTER THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT IN THE FIRST PLACE ON ROSELAND ROAD, WHICH HAS.A TRAFFIC LIMIT OF 55 MILES PER HOUR, AND THEY DONT NEED ANY MORE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. MRS. PALMER STATED THAT SHE IS ON THE BOARD OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF ROSELAND, AND THEY WILL GO ALONG WITH THE SHOPPING CENTER GOING UP NOW BUT THEY DON T WANT ANY MORE. SHE FELT IT SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE FROM ROSELAND WHO DECIDE WHAT THEY NEED AND SHOULD HAVE. JERRY RALPH TATRO, OF BREVARD STREET IN ROSELAND, NEXT SPOKE, STATING THAT HIS ONLY INTEREST IS THAT A YOUNG TOWN BE BUILT IN THE RIGHT WAY. HE FELT THE BOARD IS LOOKING AT A PERFECTLY SET YOUNG TOWN RIGHT -NOW THAT HAS A GOOD START, AND IF THERE IS GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL, THAT IS WHERE IT SHOULD BE. BYRON COOKSEY ASKED PERMISSION TO INSERT SOMETHING IN THE RECORD CONCERNING A PRIOR STATEMENT MADE BY MR. WARD ABOUT WHOSE PLAN ALL THIS WAS. HE STATED IF THERE IS ANY THOUGHT THAT THE LAND OWNERS HE IS WITH TRIED TO INFLUENCE ANYONE WITH THIS PLAN, THEY DID NOT AT :ANY TIME. IT WAS ADLEY & ASSOCIATES AND THE PLANNERS, AND AT NO TIME HAS HIS GROUP EVER TRIED TO GET ANY PARTICULAR KIND OF ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY - IT WAS THERE. MR. SNOKE NEXT SPOKE AND STATED THAT HE AT THE PRESENT TIME RESIDES IN MIAMI, BUT INTENDS TO MOVE TO ROSELAND SOON. HE LIKES THE PROPERTY JUST AS IT IS AND WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE IT CHANGED. THE CHAIRMAN THEN ASKED PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK TO SHOW THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS AREA. MR. REDICK NOTED THE OCT 2 61978 30 a L COMMERCIAL AREA WAS LARGER ON THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION AND HE THEN COMPARED THE DIFFERENT PLANS PROPOSED AT VARIOUS TIMES - THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, THE SCHLITT PROPOSAL, AND THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL NOW BEING CONSIDERED, WHICH REDUCED COMMERCIAL AND EXPANDED MEDIUM DENSITY. r COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED HIS PROBLEM WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRYING TO INTERPRET A CIRCLE OR A BLOB ON A MAP, WHICH HE FELT COULD MAKE A MILLIONAIRE OUT OF ONE AND NOTHING OUT OF ANOTHER AND IS UNFAIR TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, MR. WARD NOTED THAT ROSELAND PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL ACREAGE BUT ARE NOT GREATLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOCATION OF IT. ALMA LEE LOY ASKED MR. SCHLITT WHAT HIS PROPERTY IS ZONED AT THIS MOMENT. MR. SCHLITT SAID THAT THEY HAVE COMMERCIAL ZONING FROM THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN TO SHADY REST MOBILE HOME PARK AND GOING BACK TO WAUREGAN. THE MASTER PLAN CALLED FOR ELIMINATION OF PART OF THIS, AND THE MOST RECENT PLAN WOULD CUT THEM OUT ALTOGETHER. HE NOTED THAT THEY HAVE TRIED TO COME UP WITH DIFFERENT USES FOR THIS PROPERTY BUT OTHER THAN THE MOBILE HOME TYPE USE,. HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW IT CAN BE DEVELOPED. HE NOTED THAT THEY BOUGHT IT ON THE BASIS THAT IT WOULD BE DEVELOPED COMMERCIALLY AND ARE REALLY TRYING TO HONOR THEIR POSITION WITH MRS. HANSEN, AND, AT THE SAME TIME, DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN THE WAY THAT WOULD BE BEST FOR THE NORTH PART OF THE COUNTY. MR. YODER AGAIN CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO PROTEST THE CHANGE IN ZONING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING RELATING TO ITEM #S. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT THE PART OF THE ORDINANCE BEING AMENDED IS THE MAP. THE MAP IS. MADE UP QF MORE THAN ONE PART. HE NOTED THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT, AS PLACED IN THE PAPER AND PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC, GIVES THIS BOARD THE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND IN PART OR IN WHOLE, OR TO REJECT IN PART OR SIN WHOLE, AND HE FELT THE BOARD HAS A GREAT DEAL OF DISCRETION IN THIS MATTER. 31 1 OCT 2619cx447 CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD FIRST LIKE TO DISCUSS THE AREA WHICH IS PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL AND STATED THAT HE HAS A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM SEEING THIS EXTENDED EAST OF THE FOUR -LANE HIGHWAY. THE OTHER AREA HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT IS ROSELAND ROAD AND vU.S. 1. HE FELT IF THAT IS GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL, IT SHOULD PRETTY WELL ENCOMPASS THAT AREA, HE STATED THAT HE ALSO HAD A PROBLEM IN THE SOUTHWEST WHERE THERE IS A RAILROAD TRACK ON ONE SIDE, MOBILE HOMES TO THE NORTH, AND A CEMETERY ACROSS U.S. 1 ON THE EAST. THE CHAIRMAN FELT THAT WE CAN GREATLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL AREA THAT WE HAVE UP THERE AS OF 1975 AND, IN FACT, REDUCE IT PRACTICALLY IN HALF AND STILL ACCOMMODATE THE AREA HE JUST DESCRIBED. HE NOTED THAT WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING A BUILDING OR ZONING PERMIT FOR TOMORROW OR THE NEXT DAY, BUT TRYING TO PLAN INTO THE FUTURE AND CONSIDER THE BEST POSSIBLE USE OF THE PLAN. THIS USE CAN CHANGE AND WILL, FROM TIME TO TIME, AND THAT IS WHY THE LAW SAYS WE MUST REVIEW THIS PLAN EVERY YEAR. CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT HE DOES DISAGREE WITH A UNIFORM STRIP OF COMMERCIAL ALL THE WAY ALONG U.S. 1, BUT WITH THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE RAILROAD TRACK, U.S. 1 AND THE CEMETERY, HE WAS IN DOUBT THAT THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND COULD BE USED FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN A COMMERCIAL USE. COMMISSIONER DEESON STATED THAT HE SHARES SOME OF THE SAME FEELINGS BUT FELT IT IS REGRETFUL THAT THE ZONING ALLOWED A SHOPPING CENTER TO GO IN AT U.S. 1 AND ROSELAND ROAD. HE FELT A MORE PROPER PLACE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE AREA CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. HE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THE REDUCTION OF COMMERCIAL ZONING AROUND ROSELAND ROAD' AND U.S. 1. HOWEVER, HE DID FEEL THE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE AREA ORIGINALLY PLANNED AND APPARENTLY RECOMMENDED BY THE ,PLANNING STAFF TO INCLUDE THE PROPERTIES SOUTH OF SHADY REST WOULD BE IN ORDER. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER MENTIONED THAT THE COMMERCIAL AREA TO THE NORTH IS ACTUALLY TOO LARGE BEFORE IT GOES BACK INTO*THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BY ERCILDOUNE HEIGHTS. HE SAID HE WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE AREA AS IT IS IN GENERAL BUT SEPARATING.THE DIFFERENT ZONES A LITTLE BIT. HE FURTHER FELT SINCE THE OWNERS OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 37 m. A CONTIGUOUS TO SEBASTIAN DID BUY THIS YEARS AGO AS COMMERCIAL, THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN AREA LEFT DOWN THERE TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO DEVELOP. CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF SPECULA- TION INVOLVED IN BUYING LAND, AND HE WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE MAKING OR LOSING MONEY BUT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE BEST UTILIZATION OF THE LAND. HE FELT THE BEST USE OF THE LAND IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT REGARDLESS OF WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY AND WHAT IT COST THEM. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ALSO STATED THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION IN HIS MIND THAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL. COMMISSIONER LOY AGREED THAT WHEN THAT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED AS IT IS, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO KEEP IT COMMERCIAL. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT) TO HAVE A SKETCH DRAWN ON THE MAP THAT WOULD TAKE THE HOSPITAL ZONING AND CUT IT OFF TO STAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. 11 WOULD EXTEND THE COMMERCIAL BLOB A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH; AND WOULD PUT A COMMERCIAL BLOB ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. 1 JUST NORTH OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED, FOR THE RECORD, 'IF HE WAS REFERRING TO THE LINES DRAWN ON THE MAP DATED MARCH 16, 1978. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED HE WAS. CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THE AREA REMOVED FROM THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT WILL RETURN TO MEDIUM DENSITY. COMMISSIONER DEESON COMMENTED THAT HE IS ONLY PARTIALLY IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION BECAUSE HE IS NOT IN FAVOR OF EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AT ROSELAND ROAD AND U.S. 1. OTHER THAN THAT, HE STATED THAT HE COULD GO ALONG WITH THE REST. COMMISSIONER LOY FELT.THIS IS A GAME OF COMPROMISE AND SHE BELIEVED WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED A COMPROMISE BY RESPONDING BOTH TO PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE INVOLVED WITH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY_AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN ROSELAND WHO HAVE ASKED US TO CUT DOWN ON COMMERCIAL ZONING. CHAIRMAN WODTKE CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED, WITH COMMISSIONER DEESON VOTINd IN OPPOSITION. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER REFERRED TO THE ITEM JUST VOTED ON AND STATED HE WOULD LIKE AN OPINION FROM THE BOARD AS TO WHETHER THE 33 OCT 2 61978317 . BLOB RUNNING DOWN ALONG -THE HIGHWAY COULD CROSS TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY. ATTORNEY COLLINS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MAP WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED TO DO THAT. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER SAID, IN OTHER WORDS, THE WAY WE HAVE DRAWN IT, IT CANNOT JUMP THE HIGHWAY, AND THE BOARD AGREED THAT IT CANNOT. THE NEXT ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED WAS ITEM #12. PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT THIS IS IN THE LANDFILL SITE. THE EXISTING AREA BEING CONSIDERED IS AGRICULTURAL AND THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS TO INDUSTRIAL. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION INCLUDED BOTH THE LANDFILL AND A POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF THE HERCULES PECTIN PRODUCT AREA. THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FELT THAT THERE WAS NO IMMEDIATE NEED FOR INDUSTRIAL ALONG I-95, AND ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS TO CHANGE JUST THE LANDFILL SITE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO INDUSTRIAL. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO MAKING IT SEMI-PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL. MR. BERG STATED THAT THIS WAS DISCUSSED BUT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WANTED IT INDUSTRIAL. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO SPEAK. ATTORNEY EUGENE O'NEIL APPEARED REPRESENTING L. ALLEN MORRIS, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 1-95 AND EAST OF OSLO ROAD. HE STATED THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE THE LANDFILL AS INDUSTRIAL BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL 'APPLICATION WHICH PROPOSES INDUSTRIAL FOR THE ENTIRE AREA. ATTORNEY O'HEIL SAID AS HE UNDERSTOOD IT, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD DATES BACK TO MARCH OF THIS YEAR. HE NOTED THAT SINCE THAT TIME, THERE WERE SEVERAL HEARINGS, RELATIVELY HEATED ONES, CONCERNING CHANGES OF ZONE ON OSLO ROAD, AND ON OCTOBER 25TH, THE ZONING COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND THAT MILES OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ALONG, OSLO ROAD 6 BE CHANGED TO AGRICULTURAL EXCEPT THE AREA BY I-95 AND OSLO ROAD, WHICH THEY FELT WOULD BEST BE SUITED FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER AT THIS TIME THE ENTIRE AREA BEING INDUSTRIAL, OR AT LEAST COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS THE CURRENT ZONING. HE NOTED THAT HIS CLIENT OWNS THE TRIANGLE ON OSLO ROAD AND 1-95. �iq OCT 2 01978: Ell �I COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF ATTORNEY O'NEIL WAS AWARE OF THE ZONING BOARD'S EFFORT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY. MR. O'NEIL STATED THAT ACTUALLY THEY WOULD SETTLE FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE TO BE CONTINUED OUT THERE. 4 PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SINCE THE HEARING, THERE HAVE BEEN PERMITS ISSUED AND THE HERCULES PECTIN PLANT IS MOVING INTO THAT AREA. HE NOTED THAT FACT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WHEN THEY MADE THEIR DECISION. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING RELATING TO ITEM #12. COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED IN VIEW OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE THERE AND THE ONE THAT IS COMING INTO EXISTENCE, HE REALLY HAS NO OBJECTION AND BELIEVES THE PARCEL ATTORNEY O'NEIL IS REFERRING TO IS ONE OF THE BETTER LOCATED PARCELS IN THE COUNTY FOR AN INDUSTRIAL SITE. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO CHANGING THE LANDFILL SITE TO PUBLIC OR SEMI-PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL. HE NOTED THAT THIS WOULD REDUCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE, AND SECONDLY, HE FELT THE LANDFILL SERVES AS A BUFFER BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND THE AGRICULTURAL SITES AND HE WOULD HATE TO THINK IT IS GOING TO BECOME AN INDUSTRIAL SITE IN THE FUTURE. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER FELT IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO HAVE INDUSTRIAL ZONING TO OPERATE THE LANDFILL. PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT IT IS NOW ZONED AGRI- CULTURAL AND ACTUALLY ANY NECESSARY PUBLIC SERVICE CAN GO INTO ANY DISTRICT. HE DID NOT FEEL THERE WOULD BE ANYTHING WRONG WITH PUBLIC OR SEMI-PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL ZONING. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT THE AREA TO THE NORTH OF THE LANDFILL SITE, WEST OF RANGE LINE ROAD, SOUTH OF OSLO ROAD OUT TO I-95, BE CHANGED TO INDUSTRIAL AND THAT THE COUNTY LANDFILL SITE BE.CHANGED TO PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL. ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARb THAT HE SAW NO REASON WHY THEY COULD NOT CONSIDER ALL THE REMAINING ITEMS ONE AFTER THE 35 OCT 2 01978 18 ,.A r d 0 m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oy STATED THAT IF WE SHOULD INCREASE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE SCHOOL, SHE FELT WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH IT ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE ROAD. 36 OCT 2 01978 MIX 7 mu -.152 PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK AGREED AND EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE SITUATION, BUT NOTED THAT.YOU MUST CONSIDER THE VESTED RIGHTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD. CHAIRMAN WODTKE FELT THAT WITH THE COMMERCIAL AREA OUT AT 4-95, THERE IS NOT A NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 100 ACRES -OF COMMERCIAL. PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT THEY ARE RESTUDYING THE NEEDS AT THE PRESENT TIME. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER AGREED WITH CHAIRMAN WODTKE AND STATED HE DID NOT PARTICULARLY LIKE THE LOCATION OF THE COMMERCIAL ACROSS THE STREET AND DOWN THE SIDE STREET, COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF THE BOARD CAN HOLD THIS ITEM UNTIL THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE ACTUAL REZONING IN THAT AREA ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE BOARD, IF THEY WISHED, COULD REJECT THE RECOMMENDATION, HOLD IT IN ABEYANCE, AND THEN PUBLISH AN ORDINANCE CHANGE.AND DEAL WITH IT AT THAT TIME. COMMISSIONER LOY FELT THAT WAY THE BOARD WOULD BE GETTING THE MASTER PLAN MORE IN COMPLIANCE AND MAKING IT MORE COMPATIBLE. COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER'S MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOY,, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO TAKE NO ACTION ON ITEM #4 AND DELETE IT FROM THE AGENDA. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAD NO COMMENT ON ITEM #6. MR. REDICK STATED THAT ITEM #8 CONCERNS MCKEE .JUNGLE GARDENS AND IS GENERALLY IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE REZONING WE HAVE RECENTLY GONE THROUGH. ITEM #10 CONCERNS THE HIBISCUS AIRPORT AND DIXIE HIGHWAY. COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED ABOUT THE OLD HIBISCUS AIRPORT AREA, NOTING THAT SOME COMMERCIAL IS REDUCED AND SOME IS REMOVED. SHE ASKED IF THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE A LOT OF NONCONFORMITY ALONG DIXIE HIGHWAY. y 6 PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT IT WOULD CAUSE SOME. MOBILE HOMES WOULD BE A NON -CONFORMING USE. ON ITEM #11, PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY HAD A CASE COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WHERE A MOBILE HOME HAD BEEN EXPANDED SOMEWHAT ILLEGALLY, AND IN LOOKING AT THE AREA, THEY DISCOVERED THAT HERE THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CHANGE WAS TO CHANGE 37 1 37 %45 i MEDIUM DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL, WHICH WOULD CREATE APPROXIMATELY TEN NON -CONFORMING USES IN THE AREA. HE CONTINUED THAT NOW THEY ARE PRO- POSING TO CHANGE THE AREA TO THE SOUTH TO R -IRM. THIS ZONING IS A MIXTURE OF MOBILE HOME AND RESIDENTIAL'IN WHICH THE LOTS ARE OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL. HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE COMMERCIAL BE BLOBBED TO THE LARGE AREA AND THE SOUTHERN PORTION BE CHANGED BACK TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WOULD FIT THE EXISTING SITUATION BETTER AND WOULD ALLOW THEM TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING THAT THEY ARE CONSIDERING.FOR THE AREA, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON ITEM #11. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THIS IS A CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED THAT THE RECORD SHOW THAT NO ONE WAS HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM #11. THE PLANNER HAD NO COMMENT ON ITEM #13. CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON ITEMS #1, #2, #3, #6, #8, #IO OR #13. THERE WERE NONE. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ZONING COMMISSION :IN REGARD TO ITEMS #1, #2, #3, #6, #8, #10 AND #13 AND MAKE THE PROPOSED CHANGES ON THE MASTER PLAN, ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 78-38 AMENDING ORDINANCE 76-12, SEC. 4 (3) (A) AND (C) AMENDING AREAS OF THE INCOR- PORATED.COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL LAND USE SKETCH AS DESIGNATED ON THE ACCOMPANYING MAP. OCT 201978 t ' 1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 78-38 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE 76-12, SEC. 4 (3) (a) and (c) AMENDING AREAS OF THE INCORPORATED LAND USE PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL LAND USE SKETCH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1: That the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as adopted by reference in Indian River County Ordinance 76-12 is hereby amended by the attached Conceptual Land Use Sketch, which sketch is incorporated by reference into this Ordianance. Section 2: The changes in the Conceptual Land Use Sketch as attached to this Ordinance shall supersede any conflicts that may appear in Indian River County Ordinance 76-12. This Ordinance shall become effective according to law. This Ordinance shall become effective December 18, 1978. **NOTE: Conceptual Land Use Sketch is on file in the Office of the Clerk. s :.y55 OCT27ft THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE MEETING, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, IT ADJOURNED AT 4:30 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: 1r CLERK CHAIRMAN 40 OCT 2 61979 a