HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1978I
"-j
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1978
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA,
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1978, AT 9;00 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE
WILLIAM C. WODTKE, .JR., CHAIRMAN; ALMA LEE Loy, VICE CHAIRMAN; WILLARD W.
.SIEBERT, JR.; AND R. DON DEESON. ALSO PRESENT WERE .JACK G. .JENNINGS,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; STAN REDICK, PLANNING DIRECTOR; AND VIRGINIA
HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK.
BONDS WERE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR WILLIAM C. WODTKE, .JR.,
AND PATRICK B. LYONS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THEY COMPLY WITH
THE STATUTE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT,
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE BONDS OF !'WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JRIJ AND
PATRICK B. LYONS, WHICH ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES.
NOV 211978
M+�
I
ITIS IMPORTANT THAT THIS [OND St EXECUTED AND QUALIFICATION PAPERS COMPLJMM WITHIN SIXTY DAIS AFTER ELECTION
Bond
STATE OF FLORIDA
County of ian River -- •
William C. Wodtke, Jr_µ_____
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That We, _.
aa prine1W. and
U.S. Fidelity &_Guaranty_CojERgp 8a1timpr .�.MarY a d......-
as sureties
we held and firmly bound unto the Covernor of the State of Florida, and his successors in office,
Two Thousand 2000.00 dollars ~---�
hr the sum of..._ - __ ._._......
lawful money, for the payment whereof, well and truly to be made, we do bind ourselves, our and each of
our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals, and dated this .._...13-t Clay of
The condition of the above obligation is such, That whereas, the above bounden __•_
William g.2_ Wodtke.s,•„Jr s,„ _ _. _.. _ _.
. _ „„ was, on the 7th. day of November, .
78 --S9unty�ommiseionert �?ndian River CountY.e,�..Florida__~_.Y
A. D. 18._ ---, cicctccl
the term of tour years beginning on the Tuesday two weeks following the day of the general election of
ha hold a office for according to the Constitution and taws
� 7 9.».%�....., and until his successor is qualified g
held November ........�A.l).,1
State.
William C Wodtke Jr „... ..... shall faithfully
Now, therefore, if the said .. -•�-'- ' �” "a""""� "
perform the duties of his said office, as provided. by law, then this obligation to be void, else to be and remain
in full force and virtue.
Sigrletl, sealed and delivered in pd resence of us:
. '
PH ncilult
..
. .............
..................
�.� ...............
_... Wi..iliam....C.. _.Wodtke., ....r............_....... __ ....._
_...._�...5 ...._Fidelity...._.... qua;e�,ty_...Uo .........
s Surety
Buck ._y am er ?4eAcy.r_.,..Inc : _.....
......T ....... .r.... -Attorney -gin -fact
r
The above bond is approved this day of . /_�-� �'n'-V
_... _.__............
/!t' ..1�._ ....... _ ._ ......................I.............
Chaimwn i
the loa I ounty Commissinnen.
.�,�/fit,• �„ G2 ~.........»
The above bond is approved this _ _.._.. -�-- day
of
n
dft-21A
1426.72
NOY 211978
County Commissioners.
_---- Comptroller.
?V44':'.' 6 %{�5�.!-327
0
f
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS ®OND OE EXECUTED AND QUALIFICATION PAPER! CONPL rMU WITHIN SIXTY DAYS A}TER ELECTION
Bond
STATE OF FLORIDA
County of Sndioa 2cve�
KNOW ALL INIEN BY TIiESE PRESENTS, That Ne,' Pte'.. B.
as principal, and._..
AU.& O&nena Sna, n. as sureties
are held and firmly bound unto the/Governor of the State of Florida, and his successors in office.
in the sum of —:�W??!!!-2a—�D
lawful money. for the payment whereof, well and truly to be made, we do bind ourselves, our and each of
our heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. r
Sealed with our seals, and dated this 9&— -._ day of
The condition of the above obligation is such, That whereas, the above bounden
was, on the ..ZtA day of November,
A. D. 19Z, elected
to hold his office for the term of four years beginning on the Tuesday two weeks following the day of the general election
held November ....7ti. A.D., 19..,78....... and until his successor is qualified according to the Constitution and laws of this
State.
Now, therefore, if the said PatAic B �S ? shall faithfully
Iucrform the duties of his said office, as provided by law, then this obligation to be void, else to be and remain
in full force and virtue.
sip scaled and delivered in presence of us:
...._......... _. )
z�-�
Prinripn
........... ...__.........._ Patrick B. Lyon
_........GI./�uu,•Ka�Q/�,D�N'.G!'�'�'�sc_..................._... �u�t>�G.vu�rtd...S+.sa.._ .v.._B�-i�ze..�ig,encr�
. .. ... ».. ...........
......
_.
Surety
The alxlve bond is approved this ..13th _ day of
November
q00U�u..,QU,4W4......I............ :............._.
.,,,_,
rk.io ,J drtlll,irrd ilf(141'114V Clunmieskmen.
�• �l r'M� ��County (;OAUt11S51011erf.
The above bolid is approved this day of 19—'—
elcr-21 A
1425.72
NOV 211979
...._......................__.. Comptroller. '
a
nab 37
C
.3
y
CIRCUIT COURT .JUDGE CHARLES E. SMITH APPEARED, SPOKE BRIEFLY
OUTLINING THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND ADMINIS-
TERED THE OATH OF OFFICE TO WILLIAM C. WODTKE, .JR., AND PATRICK B.
LYONS, WHICH OATHS OF OFFICE ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES.
i
t
4
NOV 2x.1978 37 w-,
U
OATS OF OFFICE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF
110 SOLFAINLY MEW that 1 will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government
of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Consti-
tution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of
on .which I am now about to enter, so help me God.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
1-3 day of
Sign as you desire commission ' sued)
"'� ' -. 19 7 � Lvilll�P+H C W cdfit'C dR
��
Notary Alic or other individual
authorized to administer oaths
y� ,�-+ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE �FS�LO JUVA AT .;L.
�/ COtmtiSSion eJf�ireS MY co1.14A5SION
SECRETARY OF STATE
IM CAPITOL. TALLAHASSEE, FIARIM 32304
I accept t e office of ��' of the
County of • The above is the oath of office taken by me.
in addition to the above office 1 also hold the office of P6 tie
(Named office or Nona)
My postoffice•address is
A) 13ox A/4e, 8r,tc
FLOWA
. i
10-4-78 (Sign as you desire camtissi issued)
np 17 bt/J 1/1"�tM C tv ocb-'k 'Ta
NOV 211978 rPkr
aa11A
J
OATH OF OFFICE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Indian River
COUN" OF
I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR- that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government
of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Consti.
tution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of
County Commissioner of Indian River County, Florida - District 2
on which I am now about to enter. so help me God.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
day of
Sign
desire COT
as s ion issued)
you
y
19� Patrick
B. Lyons
0
Notary public; er individual
authorized to administer oathS(
Hot" POWK..)tatx3 OI FiOrllt� t td:Q!
My CaU„4sieo Expires Autch 28.1981
My Comaission expires .`... ,. ,.. ►.. g �....n. �«►
SECRETARY OF STATE
Tim CAPITOL, TALLWMEE, FIDRIDA 32304
I accept the office of County Commissioner
- District 2 of the '
County of Indian River
, The above is the oath of office taken by me.
In addition to the above office I also hold the office of
None
(Nxsalsd office a Nave)
My postoifice address is
RrgaillIgh. ftggida 32960
FLORIDA
10-4-78
np 17
(Sign as you desire c 'ssion issued)
Patrick B. Lyons
NOV 197 AWK 7 N.a
•
!m
COMMISSIONER Loy WELCOMED NEW MEMBER,PATRICK B. LYONS, TO
THE COUNTY COMMISSION.
ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT TO KEEP THINGS VERY LEGAL, IT s
,t
WOULD BE IN ORDER TO RE-ELECT COMMISSIONER WODTKE-TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
f
SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR., CHAIRMAN,
TO CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL THE REGULAR REORGANIZATIONAL MEETING IN 4
JANUARY OF 1979.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.
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:
Al
i?
NOV 2 11978
a
7
sma 37 c,h
1
1
1
t�+6pwlur�aMsfro:ray+!wn��l�'tt�r.�•R�.fxt�•!ay�ru�a�.ae��l� _ .._.
.. r•�A•.»6.+..kr.w.e �.:. aa.eaAarleirwu6:.I .'. !777,-..TIMM-1711,i111, 1saiso•a hie a aRradxla.t. a.d►Arsss tgaas aa.ta 'raid w.�.
PROPOSED ZONING LEGEND
"Of wCN 9fq$-MVINAL N _ 111:: IIL:dNMO AIIfA :_
A AGRICULTURE •R -IE COUNTRY ESTATES
lk3Rdr/ WeeUy
rw.web$.1a.11mCedy,IfnNa
uli•"�'
' eet✓an 1 er,w+unr wetaaelf�e
f»•1.V- aa. `b. ria °,Ii.I.kkil"r'tro
••sat ta•try, d4: Ov ulufed lisp tl M4.Mr^Ral, MW
t-wp.nra
t, Leff
" de Cp^ wo .m
I.wrrr lr leper ���_ 10,09119'o P' -
r e Rat /� w4 Vero buk F.ea• .,�6
s lath Ceiwlr, sn1 IM MAN w+n�eln" hnAio q
A K+aW w tMn ager Caw.q, tb.Nl. oesftr Pd 0.m
h.r
IW Nikir,ht Pate en r.avera &xh,MrW 1nd.n Ri.rr Cary t
tiePar •tx rnrem,r n e n,n wa1.e - al IN anrad soPr e1 .d+lr.
r• ytv, pars 1.1 Ie Art m Ili. ord lar chin Pad =1.0, �a w
fTM.N, 1.e+4 s.•wymn w nnM Ia t1e ginger d es dd,w•
.,,,.,e.,.o,a„
<;
a SIN d the
District. C. The NW It of tne SN '., and the 1
A
..»...
3:°•\a,
S
_
1
7 7r7
;,:;:;:
Rangell E:
A
a_
I
; J.
,,,r
3r
i�•'.
7'
:A
u J
'
efn of ueAfT1AN
-�-- ----
_
A -R3-,
2;1E; R1
A 1-
(NESS
S -I PLANNED BUS R-2 MULTIPLE FAMILY
C-1 COMMERCIAL R -b MULTIPLE DWELLING
R -I SINGLE FAMILY R -RM TRANSIENT MOBILE
R -RA SINGLE FAMILY NOME DISTRICT
---CITY LIMITS
PREPARED SYI
INDIAN RIVE R COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
!
p07ue like withinTrecf{ Iso throw 1154 M aaidi
NOTICE If NEREBT GIVEN that Me In. Thal part of Trcolf 1644, 1643 and 16% m
lion River County Board of County Com. pensmare Farmy Subdivision in Trp. Ill..
flissionnf will bold a Public Nearing en Range37E lymgrith.^ SAO- South of me center,
rulfday, November 11. If?$. al 1:07 o'clock line of S.R. 513: ,
Commission ROOM I t re ned from C•6 Commercial N A.
N.M.I.m. to !rte C y Co s o o rte Bd w
radion River County Courthouse, Vero Beach. Agrrcunural.
ptori0a for Proposed comnq Changes on IM R. The East 6/C oftM NE'a of the BE la. and {
bNowiny described properties, at whish time the S8 14 of Me NE is of Seaton 17, Twp. IIS. }.
sarlitf in interest and Citizens shad nave ed Range JlE:
7pportunily lobe heard a7 follows.• Bt rezoned from R•1 Single Family District 1
efnrvie Cl"
rnterm
4��NNp�
:`°`:
•.•2217::
1
•777e:'
air
e1 rezoned from C•1. Commercial and A f
'21the NE tat
"
, ,
S.
A
e, The Ne 1. at int NE •. of Section 27, Twp t
■ 1
::Y
J
T;,Well 440. Of the SW Ia Of ibf See it Of
Be resulted from C.I. Commercial 0"0 R•1
R1
S,ngle Family Onlr,ee N 11•1. ►lanae,
.Hfi
- - -
The North $601 of the Ent e4/' of Section 34
pinq South of the center tine of $.R. 111 less reel
T.P. Its. Range 3eE1
East 17:0' thereof:1. f
The East 460' of the SE If of int SE v, of
The East oto• of the Norm "Or I"If feu" kit
t $Action 31, Twp, 31S.Range 319:the
center line of 5.R. Sit of Sect'" 301 Trp.
Rt
-County
1
_ _
_
Tile property which hesw,ihu,"a. South and
11S, Range 1l E:
East el lhR Cenitr tine di f. R, Ii7, lets the West
.-
afiwr err Iai6 iw.ipapr,.
Owtlrlltba a7 a44�.944 ria • n J-2
_ ' eranMM
• SiRtlarOrtf iWr Ca.trAlAllpl
�.
t 1
to 0 -I'll -if
and C.T. Commercial to R•11 •
A. The fovfb 160' of Section 10, TwR• flf,
a SIN d the
District. C. The NW It of tne SN '., and the 1
Ran9eJfE, less The East 1720.1
SW 'll -of the NW to of Section 16. Trp, 315.
The Norlb$60' of Section so, Twp. 3IS,Ranel
Rangell E:
$lei -
Ba retorted from C.I. Commercial and A.
The South Bell of Section ll, Twp. 313, 811191
Agricutlurel to R•3. Mun,ple Dwelling District I
$let
D. The N N I. Of the NW 1. Of Section Be. Twp I
The North BO' of Section 36, two. 21%, Renye
7tS, RangN4E: I
3lE, les/ the Norlb 610' of lht W 4c of the NE 4•
e1 rezoned from C•1. Commercial and A f
'21the NE tat
. G ZONING
The South 660' of Section 34, Twp. 311. Range
e, The Ne 1. at int NE •. of Section 27, Twp t
SIE. less the West 460:
IIS, Range 73E:
T;,Well 440. Of the SW Ia Of ibf See it Of
Be resulted from C.I. Commercial 0"0 R•1
1
S,ngle Family Onlr,ee N 11•1. ►lanae,
The North 160' of Seclion lb Two. IIS. Range
309;
business District.
F. The 643• of Sepff." 21.7.0.31L Range 31EI
The North $601 of the Ent e4/' of Section 34
pinq South of the center tine of $.R. 111 less reel
T.P. Its. Range 3eE1
East 17:0' thereof:1. f
The East 460' of the SE If of int SE v, of
The East oto• of the Norm "Or I"If feu" kit
t $Action 31, Twp, 31S.Range 319:the
center line of 5.R. Sit of Sect'" 301 Trp.
Tile property which hesw,ihu,"a. South and
11S, Range 1l E:
East el lhR Cenitr tine di f. R, Ii7, lets the West
Be retan40 from C.I. Commfrcaal N R•t,
1770' and less 1"e fW 1e of the NE I.. And the
Pwhich 1,01 w,ehm 41J' NOVA West
s!
and
g11he center line of S.R. $12 All fame fn Section
O. The W is Of the SN of Section n, T.
3If, Range 71E IvmO South and East M me
��
tM1eI lmeOI S. R. 117:
An Ilial Darr ul one BE 1. el the fE 1. ai
I4. Twp 711. Ranee 71E. lying South and Eaft
SeChon 12, Two. IIS. Range 31 F: 11mg South
And wdMn NO'of int center tine of S. R. Stl:
elthekenter tine of f.R•f17: 3
AB roar part el Section 3t. TMP• JIS. Range
96 retuned from C•I. Commercial and A.I
Itfi ly„iq w^hi" 160' et the ee"', tine of S.R.
1111H1 ink kaf11710' ping fou" of the center
Agncatlural 11 B 1, ptanred Bos,ress istrict,
1 fine of seal 1.R. {/2:
N. Morning S•de Para SYbdms.an as retarded
M Put Book 1. pave 91: and T"O,ca, V",., -
---MK '1
EfUtef Suthd.ennln as recorded In Put Baak 4,.
1r."q NOrrh Of the center line of I.R. Sit it
�B� �tpR
Ink Noris tee• 07 Ili• Eafl 1170• M $11Th 11,
erg. IIS. Range 11E 1 .n South of she center
the Center tine OI S.R. 113. a•d lege Idly e. 11111.
r- 1 13
u
loll
$�
^Rr
MEN■
0
L�Lfl
�.
t 1
to 0 -I'll -if
and C.T. Commercial to R•11 •
A. The fovfb 160' of Section 10, TwR• flf,
a SIN d the
District. C. The NW It of tne SN '., and the 1
Ran9eJfE, less The East 1720.1
SW 'll -of the NW to of Section 16. Trp, 315.
The Norlb$60' of Section so, Twp. 3IS,Ranel
Rangell E:
$lei -
Ba retorted from C.I. Commercial and A.
The South Bell of Section ll, Twp. 313, 811191
Agricutlurel to R•3. Mun,ple Dwelling District I
$let
D. The N N I. Of the NW 1. Of Section Be. Twp I
The North BO' of Section 36, two. 21%, Renye
7tS, RangN4E: I
3lE, les/ the Norlb 610' of lht W 4c of the NE 4•
e1 rezoned from C•1. Commercial and A f
'21the NE tat
Agricultural to 9.1, Planned B ulm"ll 0"Irid.
The South 660' of Section 34, Twp. 311. Range
e, The Ne 1. at int NE •. of Section 27, Twp t
SIE. less the West 460:
IIS, Range 73E:
T;,Well 440. Of the SW Ia Of ibf See it Of
Be resulted from C.I. Commercial 0"0 R•1
Section a, Twp. I]$. Range 27E:
S,ngle Family Onlr,ee N 11•1. ►lanae,
The North 160' of Seclion lb Two. IIS. Range
309;
business District.
F. The 643• of Sepff." 21.7.0.31L Range 31EI
The North $601 of the Ent e4/' of Section 34
pinq South of the center tine of $.R. 111 less reel
T.P. Its. Range 3eE1
East 17:0' thereof:1. f
The East 460' of the SE If of int SE v, of
The East oto• of the Norm "Or I"If feu" kit
t $Action 31, Twp, 31S.Range 319:the
center line of 5.R. Sit of Sect'" 301 Trp.
Tile property which hesw,ihu,"a. South and
11S, Range 1l E:
East el lhR Cenitr tine di f. R, Ii7, lets the West
Be retan40 from C.I. Commfrcaal N R•t,
1770' and less 1"e fW 1e of the NE I.. And the
Pwhich 1,01 w,ehm 41J' NOVA West
Single Family District.
1e
and
g11he center line of S.R. $12 All fame fn Section
O. The W is Of the SN of Section n, T.
3If, Range 71E IvmO South and East M me
71. Twp Its. Rang•3s9:
The' Part Of the SE I. Of the SE I. of Stelion
tM1eI lmeOI S. R. 117:
An Ilial Darr ul one BE 1. el the fE 1. ai
I4. Twp 711. Ranee 71E. lying South and Eaft
SeChon 12, Two. IIS. Range 31 F: 11mg South
And wdMn NO'of int center tine of S. R. Stl:
elthekenter tine of f.R•f17: 3
AB roar part el Section 3t. TMP• JIS. Range
96 retuned from C•I. Commercial and A.I
Itfi ly„iq w^hi" 160' et the ee"', tine of S.R.
1111H1 ink kaf11710' ping fou" of the center
Agncatlural 11 B 1, ptanred Bos,ress istrict,
1 fine of seal 1.R. {/2:
N. Morning S•de Para SYbdms.an as retarded
M Put Book 1. pave 91: and T"O,ca, V",., -
the 64T at Srchon 11. Two. 115. Range ME
EfUtef Suthd.ennln as recorded In Put Baak 4,.
1r."q NOrrh Of the center line of I.R. Sit it
pais! 0a Tess alit are) Ill." w11n-n 770• Sou," of
Ink Noris tee• 07 Ili• Eafl 1170• M $11Th 11,
erg. IIS. Range 11E 1 .n South of she center
the Center tine OI S.R. 113. a•d lege Idly e. 11111.
r- 1 13
w •re►• tine el S R. 517: ? g IS and 17 Bleck I, aha rte , . 7. 11. 4. 15. l6
A it•• ' ates Suit.
The We11171s'of feclfon 20. ?.,a. VS. Range dt «ken Urt11 asrecordedin Pyl Beoe b04
I1E wn.tA
IT
w.lhi^ 6#0'#f
the t.r.l•r IInQ OI of 1@Sf the arta Iyiwg w.\n.n 717' SOY'" 01 mf
' R S R. {t1: Ina the East QO' of fiction •t0. Two• center fine of S.R, SII. Ott PAIS referred to
115, Range IIE which hes with,$ the area NO' plats recorded ,n the public records of Indian
•• Norris el the Coater fine of S.R. fit: River Courl% Florida: Be reached tram C.S.
All that Dart et SKfio$ It, fr 911, pea
tying wthtn dap• al n 4xmo Imo N err Commercial dna A•A9rlwltwal N p.l, fagN
• Rua..,
Family Diffract.
Mr.-IFarah BR►=NCllmtyCemm6s/Mnenn. 9L Ra$gB 928, ry1�mgg witRla Sys wlnum4waane 3r-CAarRta.41 Aha cow 1aM M LR, f1L "No OA. lt,f7. /12L
,p•
-19
. u
i t •
' Jow .4
ww gala
PROPOSED ZONING
REZONNG AREA i
jt,_,,,,,,
i C1 ::.:::;:;.il sa s�z + A
CITY OF ► f »••.. "'i"if CITY Of SEBASTIAN
4 t
t..
,,r ., .. 9... • '� t
. A° 7-1 r---- "'— R 3
I
Rel I
R2
,, A 38 4
MAP SHOWIKG�'r�151oA�
AhGA kgm-oek2 -
o �
t\2
a• ,r
m
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE COUNTY HAS
TAKEN GREAT PAINS
TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AS TO THE PROCEDURE TODAY AND HAS
ADVERTISED WITH
A MAP SHOWING THE AREA INVOLVED AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
OF THE AREAS
SUBJECT TO REZONING. THE ATTORNEY NOTED THAT WE WILL
BE DEALING WITH A
LARGE CORRIDOR OF PROPERTY, AND IN THAT CORRIDOR ARE
ABOUT 300 INDIVIDUAL
!e
PROPERTY OWNERS, EACH OF WHOM HAVE RECEIVED A DIRECT
MAILING NOTICE FROM
THE CLERK AS REQUIRED BY LAW. HE STATED THAT HE HAS
REVIEWED THE NOTICES
AND FOUND THEM SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE. FOLLOWING IS
THE SWORN STATEMENT
,s
OF THE CLERK AS TO THE MAILING OF THE PROPER NOTICES,
COPIES OF WHICH
t
NOTICES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK.
y,
�I
0
I
�I
Ia
.1
n
t.,
�3
•
1
q
5
10
2 197
NOVob
; � Tm
a
•
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
1, Freda Wright, Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Indian River County, Florida, did on October 18, 1978,
pursuant to direction of the Board of County .Commissioners
of Indian River County, mail the attached notice, Exhibit A,
to the persons listed at the address indicated reflecting
proposed re -zoning of their property as set forth incomposite
Exhibit B. Also enclosed with the notice the maps of the
existing and proposed re -zoning of SR 512 and SR 510 and
Oslo Road and 43rd Avenue, Exhibit C.
In '.witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand
and seal this lq-* day of October, 1978.
FREDA 14RIGHT, CLER CIRCUIT COURT
Sworn to and subscribed before -me
this /,774ay of October, 1978
,,
ZA
Nt ry Pub c
My Commission expires:
NNAW KKIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE'
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1982
K*= THRU G&MILI,L INS. UNDERWRITERS
oba 37 PAx,
9
Wiath N. SIL,,LH'r JR;
toww S. SCNMUCKEh
R. DON DEESON
JA1,K G JENNINGS. Administrator 2145 14th Avenue Vero Bench, Florida �32!++
October 1.3, 1978
„--Gilbert E. & flary E. Smith
Rte. 1 BOX,102B
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
RE: Proposed rezoning of property on each side of State
Road 510 and 512, Indian River County, Florida
Dear Property Owner:
In compliance with Florida Statute 125.66, the following
is a Notice of Public Hearing for rezoning, as iditiated by
the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission, so
that the zoning will be more in keeping with the existing
use and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The legal description
of your property, which is under consideration, and maps of the
existing zoning and rezoning, are attached for your information.
A Public Heating in relation thereto will be held by the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
in the County Com;a,ission Room, in the'Indian River County Court-
house, Vero Beach, Florida on November 21,. 1978 at 9:00 o'clock
A.M.
Sincerely,
Freda Wright
Clerk
FW: of !..
Enclosures
.'3
NOV 2 11978 j _4Y
r 1 FEQ
F. ami :ii0/11 S.:►; •• .. . �`
R. DON UL'
1; JENNINGS. Administrator ".45 14th Avenue Vero fleado. • , '
o
0
s
PROPERTY OWNER: Smith, Gilbert E. and Mary E.
Route 1 Box 102 B
. Eellsmere
Fla. 32948
I
LE 'DESCRI_PTION OF PROPERTY: SECTION 00, TWP. 31S, RANGE 37E 4`
0001-1639-001.0
River Count Fla. i
All lying in Indian Y,
Y 9
E
FellsmereYFarms Co. Sub. Tracts 1639, 1640, 1641, 1642, 1643 lying North i
of road be rezoned from C-1, Commercial to A-Agricultural.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: SECTION 00, TWP. 31S, RANGE 37E
0001-1544-0001.0
All lying in Indian River County, Fla.
Y 9 r .
1554,
Fellsmere Farms Co. Sub. The South 400' of Tracts 1551, 1552, 1553,
and all of Tracts 1547, 1548, 1549, and 1550, less 100 ft. strip of land i
P off E. side of said Tracts, the W. line of the strip being parallel to and
600
ft. from
W. line of said Trs
. and Trs. 1548 to 1554 inc. be'rezoned _
- tial to A-A .,
from C 1 Commercial ricultural. 9
NOV 211978
PROPERTY OWNERS - NOTIFIED ZONING CHANGE ON S.R. 510 and S.R. 512
Ro-Ed Corp �'"k `
-eKieffer, Emma Irene
Box 727
Rt. 4 Box 534
.0 o
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Vero Beach Farms, Inc.
f' Welch, Teresa E.
✓ P. 0. Box 727
PROPERTY OWNERS - NOTIFIED ZONING CHANGE ON S.R. 510 and S.R. 512
Ro-Ed Corp �'"k `
-eKieffer, Emma Irene
Box 727
Rt. 4 Box 534
N. Miami, Fla. 33160
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Vero Beach Farms, Inc.
f' Welch, Teresa E.
✓ P. 0. Box 727
Box 25
N. Miami, Fla. 33161
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
Coraci, Anthony A.
Diamond D. Farms, Inc.
70 Blanchard Street
Davis
c/ o Jack L Oa
Newark, N. J. 07105
-*O'Rt. 4 Box 515
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
✓ Gulf & Western Industries, Inc.
Ridge e Road
111 High.,�
Lynn Burrell P & Eudell
,
Stamford, Ct. 06905 - =Cf f.
`Rt. 2 Box 445
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Indian River School Board
P. 0. Box 2648
Ezell, Douglas Maurice & Sybil C.
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 829
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
smere Cemetery
FC14 i
Miami Gardens, Inc. e.
Fellsmere, Fla: 32948
/P. 0. Box 610727,:.• Z
L. Miami, Fla. 33161
Land Corp. of•Fla. '
c/o Anwelt Corp.
,Bacon, Earl W.
One Oak Hill Road
✓ Box 536 Rt. 4
Fitchburg, Ma. 01420
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
L. A. Davis Farms, Inc.
Genza, Helen V.
Rt. 2 Box 447
/Irene C. McKain
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
337 Greenbriar Drive
Lake Park, Fla. 33403
Davis, Barbara Susan
d Rt. 4 Box 532
d McKain, Floyd J., Jr. and Irene C. McKain
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
337 Greenbriar Dr.
' Lake Park, Fla. 33403
aalme, Edward B. and Marvel M.
' 1475 N.E. Fifth Avenue
-Durham, Sr., -George A. & Helen.M.
Boca Raton, Fla. 33432
246 18th Avenue
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
• Smith, Hugh L. and Anita M.
/Rt. 1 Box 438
,,.- Karns, Clarence H. & Wendeline M.
' Sebastian, Fla. 32958
305 Oak Grove St.
Oil City, Pa. 16301
Ficsher, Henry Anthony
0. Box 68
Castine, Raymond J. &.Janet E.
fe'P. y
Sebastian, Fla. 32958
y/149 Brooks Rd.
Athol, Ma. 01331
MacaspV Corp.
Drawer 181alt
Drawer 1819
Rubino, Bernard & Helen
Winter Haven, Fla. 33880
d 149 Brooks Rd.
Athol, Ma. 01331
/' Dorsett, Robert L. & Phyllis. L.
Rt. 2 Box 439
Cullop, Thomas E: & Irene
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
c/o Herschel R Hazel A. Screws
P. 0. Box 653
waha«�, Fia imn
®V 2 11978 78
A
A
AFI
e
CONTINUED: Pae 2 - PROPERTY OWNERS - ZONING CHANGE S.R. 510 and S.R. 512
Abrahamson, Dale G. & Joe Ann
Kostant, Martin J.
P. 0. Box 642
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
2438 23rd St.
Santa Monica, Ca. 90405
Castine, Raymond J. & Janet C.
Martel, James L. & Cheryl L.
Rubino, Bernard & Helene H.
/ Rt.4Vero BeBox 615 32960
149 Brooks Rd.
Athol, Ma. 01331
Skillman, Roger M.
Sprenger, Leonard M.
/Box 2287
Delary Beach, Fla. 33444
P. 0. Box 726
Hollywood, Fla. 33020
rocko, Paul W. & Mi1dred
Castine, Frank L. and Hazel C.
A18
ttle Fle Court J. 07424
./ 330 N. Orange Rd.
Athol, Ma. 01331
tein, Etta
Castine, Raymond J. (et al)
330 N. Orange Rd.
102 Tasman
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649
Athol, Ma. 01331
Hamrick, Fred 0. & Virginia
McDonald, Robert & Eva L.
/ 7005S.e.Pi16th Fia.
Chase Rd.
33023
J Athol, Ma. 01331
Angelo, Nicholas & John Don
Wright, Richard
1814 Haring St.
608 Merton St.
Brooklyn, Ni Y. 11229
J Toronto, Ont., Canada M4S1B3
Graves Brothers Co.
Muldoon, Anna Marie
/P 0. Box 277 L
J400 Vale Avenue
Wabasso, Flay. 32970
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15239
•
Harms, Mrs. J. A.
Cronin, James A. and
ISusan Donahue Gibbons
Box 343.
• Wabasso, Fla. 32970
5 Sunset Dr.
Smithfield, R. I. 02917Dancy,
Frances L. & Clara V.
r 312 N. 22nd Street
James F. & Cecelia E.
Ft. Pierce, Fla. 33450
JLibretto,
1311 Turner Ave.
Wanamassa, N. J.
Ryall, Margaret A.
J( Route 1 Box 422A
Hines, William Eugene
Sebastian, Fla. • 32958.
294 N.E. 45th Court
Pompano Beach, Fla. 33060
Beaty, Donald S. and Jean'Ann-
J� Route 3 Box 2740
Craig, Elizabeth & Ludie Forsyth
Okeechobee, Fla. 33472
'
P. 0. Box 4694
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla..' 33304
Jones, Harry and Pauline
J P. 0. Box 483
/ Franko, Michael *& Mary
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
J 108 Barnsdale Rd.Blanche
Clifton, N. J. 01011.*
j Wilcox, W.
P. 0. Box 712
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
NOV 211978
a rg-;E
MMI
•
t
fi
•
.r
• -
a
CONTINUED• Page 3 - PROPERTY OWNERS - ZONING CHANGE S.R.
510 and S.R. 512_
--
s
Cummings, H. B.• and Esther P.
.
935 E. Causeway
ri
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
is
.a
f�
Stough, Roy F. (Dec._
f c/o Nellie Stough
Box 88
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
Stough, James R: II
Box 507
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
Miller Ruth S.
{
Box 434
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
Ryall Groves, Inc.
P. 0. Box 95•
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
Ryall, Helen
a,
Box 87
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
Schlitt, Mary L. (et al)
j Route 3 Box 362
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Baron, Howard
x
2303 Bendelow Tr.
r
Tampa, Fla. 33609
Criss, Nathaniel G. and Rosalie K.
Route 4 Box 669
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Diamond D. Farms, Inc.
c/o Jack L. Davis
Route 4 Box 515
Vero Beach, -Fla. 32960
Jones, Marvin E. and Minnie B.
Box 254
Wabasso, Fla. 32970
NOV 2 11978.
0
0
PROPERTY OWNERS - NOTIF_IED ZONING CHANGE ON S.R. 510 AND S.R. 512
Smith,•Gilbert E. and Mary E.
Accrino, Joseph
Route 1 Box 102 B
5061 Oakland Park Blvd.
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Apt. F-114
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 33313
Tropical Village Estates, Inc.
P. 0. Box 446
Arnold, Avis Herndon
Ft. Madison, IA 52627
P. 0. Box 5
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Herndon, Elven and Elsie
Route 3
Chicoine, George and Jeanne
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
444 S.W. 2nd Court
Pompano Beach, Fla. 33060
Weaver, Charlotte
Route 1, Box 114
Lewis, Ray W.
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
P. 0. Box 2222
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Gore, James C. and Florence B.
Route 1 Box 113
Gaddis, Allen R. and Lillian F.
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Route 1 Box 14A
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Gore, Lonnie J. and Marlene
Route 1 Box 112C
Fabrizio, Domenick and Teresa
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
42 Joan Abe.
Centereach, N. Y. 11720
Riccobond, John and Muriel
Route 2 Ora Nettle Island
Yates, Ernest J. and Lorene A.
Jensen Beach, Fla. 33457
Box 162
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Funderburk, Lela
oute 9 Box 642
Grafke, Leonard W.
Monroe, N. C. 28110
5745 Kroncke Drive
Madison, WI 53711
Tropical Village Estates, Inc.
P. 0. Box 446
Porter, C. J. and Helen
Ft. Madison, IA 52627
P. 0. Box 1955
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Boucher, Louis and Mary
123 Jackson Ave.
Svendsen, Ernest B.
Winchester, Va. 22601
27 Lucy St.
Woodbridge, Ct.
Boucher, John Joseph
P. 0. Box 6073
Larocque, Emilien and Esabelle
Tamuning, Guam 96911
14th Avenue Lac Lapierre
St. Lin L. Assomption
Boucher, Louis and Mary
Montreal, Canada. Jorico
123 Jackson Avenue
Winchester, Va. 22601
Perreault, Dennis and Michelle
7861 Rue Principale
Bomhard, Jr., Arthur and Marjorie G.
St. Theodou DeChertsey
North Road-
Cte. Montcalm Quebec, Canada
Woodbury, CT 06798
Connell, Margaret
Dagaetano, John
Box 285
8 Charles Court
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Lake Ronkonkoma, N. Y. 11779
NOV 211978
CONTINUED: Page. -2- PROPERTY OWNERS - NOTIFIED ZONING CHANGE ON S.R. 510 AND S.R.512
Dahlmeyer, Fred D. and Marjorie A.
Pominville, Georges
1 Frisco Dr.
P. 0. Box 394
E. Haven, Ct. 06512
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Feltz, Warren and Eleanor
McManus, Frank G. and Evelyn P.
Box 233
15 Smiths Lane
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Commack, N. Y.
Morales, Jose D. and Josephine R.
Thomson, Jessye T. Mitchell
Rt. I Box 58
22928 Alexandrine
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Dearborn, MI 48124
Burton, Robbie L.
Riggs, Howard and Edna
1326 N. Krome Avenue
Rt. 1 Box 110C
Homestead, Fla. 33030
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Chandler, Augusta G.
Austine, William L. and Anna T.
6430 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd. N.E.
605 S.W. 8th Avenue
Atlanta, Ga. 30.328
Hallandale, Fla. 33009
Bomhard, Arthur M., Sr., & Erika
First Citrus Bank of I.R.C..(Tr.)
Route *1 Box 111
P. 0. Box 1269
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Newman, Philip and Sadie
Nutt, Gordon S. (Tr.)
42 Joan Avenue
P. 0. Box 1105
Centereach LI, N. Y. 11720
Altamonte Springs, Fla. 32701.
Newman, Sadie and Elliott
Roe -ed Corporation
42 Joan Ave.
P. 0. Box 610727
Centereach LI, N.Y. 11720
N. Miami, Fla. 33161
Weaver, Warren H. and Dorothy
Platt, Carson & Willie Mae
1 Marriner Avenue
Route 1 Box 42
Albany, N. Y. 12205
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
Schuler, Laura Jean
Gulf & Western Industries
1441 S.W. 38th Avenue
111 High Ridge Road
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 33312
Stamford, Ct.. 06905
Bissonnette, Hector
Platt. Carson and Willie Mae
4640 Bellechasse
Route 1 Box 42
Montreal, Quebec Canada
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
MAlsbury, Albert & Mary Lou H.
275 Classon Ave. Realty Corp. and
2991 S.W. 21st Court
D.S.C. of Newark, Inc.
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 33312
70 Blanchard Street
Newark, N. J. 07105
Manning, Donald L. and Cortney
4002 Normanwood Drive
Weissman, Bertha
Orchard Lake, MI 48033
401 Ocean Drive Apt. 408.
Miami Beach, Fla. 33139
Fontana Joseph and Ann
947 E. 94th Street
Brooklyn, N. Y. 11236
NOV 211978
T
I
CONTINUED: Page -3 PROPERTY OWNERS* - NOTIFIED ZONING CHANGE S.R.510 and S.R.512
Shapiro, William and Ethel
651 Vanderbilt St. Apt. 4-P
Brooklyn, N. Y. 11218
Broner, Rhonda
570 N.W. 190th Street
Miami, Fla. 33169
NOV 211978
' L 7
A OIJ K
PROPERTY OWNERS - 43rd AVE. REZONING STUDY OSLO ROAD TO SOUTH COUNTY LINE
Durrett, Forrest M. CW
606 5th Avenue W.
Springfield, TN 37172
Graves, Jr., W. C. & Audrey
Box 517
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Shulock, Michael F. & Ellen F.
2966 59th Avenue
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Tripson, John R. & Charles R. Sexton
P. 0. Drawer 1208
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Bishop, Robert C.
4701 N. Federal Hwy.
Suite C-10
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Graves, Jr., W. C. & Audrey
P. 0. Box 517
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Graves, Jr. , W. C. & Audrey
P. 0. Box 517
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Sexton, Charles R.
P. 0. Drawer 1208
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Troiano, Michael & Mary Ann
5801 S. W. 44th Terrace
Miami, Florida 33155,
Graves, Jr., W. C. & Audrey
Box 517
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Moody, Troy & Margaret
Box H
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Schawelson, Robert & Sandra I./Ulrkl-
2 Horse Hill Road
Brookville
Glen Head, N. Y. 11545
Jo Bar Farms, Inc.
Box 788
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Mae=
aus 37 rniA-".11'1'
NOV 2 1197bfi -
PROPERTY OWNERS - OSLO ROAD REZONING
STUDY - 122nd AVENUE TO 43rd AVENUE
Withers & Harshman, Inca
Cook;. Jr., R. H.
P. 0. Box 1299
710 Riomar Dr.
Sebring, Fla. 33870
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Aqua_Linda Corp.
Barnes, Thomas Marshall (et al)
Att.: Mr. Walter Thayer
P. 0. Box 846 Grove 11
110`West 52st Street
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Room 4600
New York, N. Y. 10020
Durrett, Forrest M.
606 5th Avenue W.
Cocoa Cola Co.
Springfield, Tn. 37172
Attention: Tax Dept.
P. 0. Box 247
Helseth, Phillip R., Jr. and Karen and
Auburndale, Fla. 33823
Philip R. and Patsy E. Helseth
Box 53
R. W. Graves, Inc.
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 1172
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Quade, Vincent F.
P. 0. Box 547
Houck, Philip H. (TR)
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 3569 Beach Station
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Packers of Indian River, Inc.
Box 2468
Keene, R. Bruce & Barbara J. (et al)
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
856 Lake Howell Rd.
Maitland, Fla: 32751
Nolte, David C.
P. 0. Box 3521
Cardinal Groves, Inc.-
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. O. Box 365
Greenville, Ky. 42345
O'Rouke, Joseph E. and Judith T.
Rt. 1 Box 65R
Morris, L. Allen, Trustee
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
KAI Properties
1000 Brickell Bldg. 12th Floor
S.T.B. Corp.
Miami, Fla. 33131
c/o Walter S. Buckingham
P. 0. Drawer 1208
Moore, W. Wallace, Jr.
Vero.Beach, Fla. 32960
3408 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20016
Blue Goose Growers, Inc.
. P. 0. Box 589
Newman, Robert W. (et al)
Fullerton, Ca. 92632
Time & Life Bldg. Room 4016
Center
Lykes Pasco Packing Co.
.Rockefeller
New York, N. Y. 10020
P. 0. Box 97
Dade. City, Florida 33535
Knight, C. Reed, Jr. and Jan R.
1306 29th Street
Gracewood, Inca (et al)
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 370
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
He Jr., Phillip R. & Karen E. and
Philip R. and Patsy E. Helseth
Knight, C. Reed and John R. and
Box 53
Jean L. Gould
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 6310
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
NOV 2 1197bfi -
PROPERTY OWNERS: PAGE -2-
Miller, Howard L. and Gladys Beatty
105 Cedarwood Park
Aiken, S. C. 29801
Prince, Philip H. Celeste Orr
1052 Otis Blvd.
Spartanburg, S. C. 29302
Banyan Groves, Inc.
Rt. I Box 257
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
I
NOV 2 11978 aurj 7
t
NOV 2 11978 aurj 7
I
co
r—
Cil
C=
I
44
fJ
co
C%a
e
y t
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK CAME BEFORE THE BOARD TO MAKE THE
PRESENTATION AND INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT THERE ARE ONE OR TWO
SITUATIONS WHERE HE WILL MAKE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT, AND THAT IS WHERE
THERE HAVE BEEN ACTIONS TAKEN SUBSEQUENT.TO THE NOTICES THAT WILL HAVE
AN AFFECT ON THE REZONING PROPOSED.
HE REFERRED TO THE MAP DISPLAYED AND STATED THAT THE FIRST AREAS
TO BE DISCUSSED WILL BE HO. 1 AND No. 2 LOCATED SOUT14 OF SR 512 JUST
EAST OF THE CITY LIMITS OF FELLSMERE. BASICALLY IT IS THE AREA OF
MORNINGSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION AND TROPICAL VILLAGE ESTATES. THE EXISTING
ZONING SITUATION IS BASICALLY COMMERCIAL FOR 660' SOUTH OF THE CENTER
LINE OF THE HIGH.VAY. THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THE NORTH 270' OF THIS AREA
REMAIN IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONING AND THAT THE BALANCE OF THE*AREA SOUTH
OF THAT, RUNNING APPROXIMATELY 1100' DEEP, BE REZONED TO R-1 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE REASON FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING
& ZONING BOARD IS THAT THIS IS A MIXED AREA OF DEVELOPMENT AT THE PRESENT
TIME. IT IS ALSO SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY. THUS THE FRONT 270' OF THE
SUBDIVISION WOULD REMAIN COMMERCIAL, AND THE BALANCE OF THE EXISTING
COMMERCIAL WOULD BE CHANGED TO R-1, AND THE R-1 EXTENDED TO THE SOUTH TO
INCLUDE ALL OF TROPICAL VILLAGE ESTATES AND MORNINGSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION.
ASSISTANT PLANNER BERG DISPLAYED A MAP SHOWING THE EXISTING
ZONING, AND MR. REDICK DISPLAYED A MAP SHOWING THE PROPOSED REZONING,
WHICH IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE WISHED TO BE HEARD.
ARTHUR DOM INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE OWNS SEVEN LOTS IN BLOCK
3 RIGHT OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF FELLSMERE, THREE LOTS FACING ON 512
WITH FOUR LOTS IN THE REAR. HE FELT THE 270' MEASUREMENT WOULD BREAK
UP HIS LOTS IN THE REAR.
ATTORNEY COLONS INQUIRED WHAT LOTS MR. DOM OWNS IN BLOCK 3,
AND HE STATED THAT HE OWNS LOTS 1, 2, 3,. 4, 5, 6 AND 7. THE ATTORNEY
INFORMED HIM THAT THOSE LOTS ARE TO REMAIN COMMERCIAL AND WILL NOT BE
CHANGED.
MR. DOM THEN ASKED IF THE FIGURE OF 270'.WOULD BE FROM THE
MIDDLE OF THE STATE ROAD, AND PLANNER REDICK STATED THAT THE ZONING IS
FROM THE CENTER LINE, BUT MR. DOM'S PROPERTY WOULD REMAIN COMMERCIAL IN
ANY EVENT.
Q.
•
M.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE INFORMED MR. DOM THAT THE MOTION WILL INCOR-
PORATE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND THE ATTORNEY NOTED THAT MR. DOMES LOTS
WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE MOTION BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BE CHANGED.
ANN AUSTIN STATED THAT SHE OWNS 18 LOTS IN TROPICAL VILLAGE
ESTATES - FOUR LOTS IN BLOCK IS AND THE WHOLE OF BLOCK 19. SHE NOTED
THAT AT PRESENT, EIGHT OF THESE LOTS ARE COMMERCIAL AND ASKED IF THE FOUR
LOTS IN THE BACK OF 19 WILL REMAIN COMMERCIAL.
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT BLOCK 19 WILL BE CHANGED TO
RESIDENTIAL, AND THE FOUR REAR LOTS OF BLOCK 18 WILL BE CHANGED TO
RESIDENTIAL.
MRS. AUSTIN NOTED THAT THEY HAVE A DUMP OUT THERE NOW, AND
HER NOTICE STATED THEY ARE ZONED UNDER AGRICULTURAL BUT THEY.WANT TO
CHANGE IT TO RESIDENTIAL. SHE COULD NOT VISUALIZE ANYONE WANTING TO
COME IN BY A DUMP, AND FELT THIS SHOULD REMAIN AGRICULTURAL.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK FELT IT MIGHT BE WORTH EXPLAINING TO
THE PEOPLE HERE THAT IN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, YOU CANNOT BUILD A
RESIDENCE AT THE.PRESENT TIME. THIS IS A SUBDIVIDED AREA; HENCE WE HAVE
SUBDIVISION LOTS THAT COULD NOT BE BUILT ON UNDER THE COMMERCIAL ZONING.
IN AGRICULTURAL ZONING YOU MUST HAVE FIVE ACRES OF GROUND TO BUILD ON,
MUCH OF THE CHANGE PROPOSED HERE AND IN OTHER.AREAS IS SO THAT THE LAND
CAN BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL THAT CANNOT BE AT THE PRESENT TIME.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE ELSE WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS AREA.
.MR. DOM STATED THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT THE DUMP
AND A PENALTY SET FOR PEOPLE WHO LET TRASH FLY ALL OVER OTHERS PROPERTY.
ATTORNEY COLLINS DIRECTED THE COMMISSIONERS TO THE NOTICE ON
THE WABASSO ROAD REZONING AND NOTED THAT ITEM H IS THE PROPERTY JUST
DISCUSSED. HE REQUESTED THAT THE MOTION INCLUDE AN ACTUAL READING OF
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND THE CHANGE AND THE REASONS FOR IT.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMI.SSIONER
LYONS, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT MORNINGSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 93; AND TROPICAL VILLAGE ESTATES SUB-
DIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 941 LESS THE AREA LYING WITHIN
270' SOUTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF S.R. 512, AND LESS LOTS 91 11, 13, 15
AND 17, BLOCK 21 AND LOTS 8, 101 121 131 14, 15, 161 BLOCK 3; AND
26
sca / � -GE TA
.
TROPICAL VILLAGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION UNIT 2 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5,
PAGE 65, LESS THE AREA LYING WITHIN 270' SOUTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF
S.R. 512, ALL PLATS REFERRED TO BEING PLATS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: BE REZONED FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL
AND A -AGRICULTURAL TO R-1, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO BRING
THE LAND MORE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING USE.
(AREA #2) NOS. 3 AND 4 - SOUTH AND NORTH OF STATE ROAD 512,
1700' FROM THE INTERSECTION WITH 1-95.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING
COMMITTEE IN ITS EVALUATION DETERMINED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL
AREA WITHIN THE COUNTY IS FAR IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH CONC IVABLY CAN
BE UTILIZED IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. THEREFORE, AS A PA T OF REDUCTION
OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS COMMERCIAL AREA AND, BECAUSE IT HAS NO
SPECIAL ATTRIBUTES MAKING IT PARTICULARLY GOOD FOR COMMERCIAL, THEY WOULD
RECOMMEND REZONING TO AGRICULTURAL FOR A DISTANCE OF 660' FROM EITHER
SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE. HE NOTED THAT IN THE FASTER PLAN THE LAND IS
ALL LISTED AS AGRICULTURAL. THE PRESENT USE OF THE LAND -IS VACANT OR
AGRICULTURAL, AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DID NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY
RESIDENCES IN THE ENTIRE AREA AND CERTAINLY NO COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISHED TO BE
HEARD.
EDMUND ANSIN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE OWNS A BLOCK OF PROPERTY
THAT INCLUDES THE AREA DESCRIBED AS N0. 4 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 512 AND
EXTENDS OVER TO THE WEST SIDE OF S.R. 510. HE' STATED THAT HE ESSENTIALLY
SUPPORTS THE PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THE STRIP ZONING ON 512 AND 510 AND,
CONSEQUENTLY, IS IN FAVOR OF THIS PARTICULAR MATTER, BUT WOULD LIKE, AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME, TO ADDRESS HIMSELF TO THEIR PROPERTY AS A WHOLE,
PRIMARILY AT THE INTERSECTION OF 510 AND 512.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 19,
TWP, 31S, RANGE 38E LYING WITHIN 660' OF THE CENTER LINE OF S.R. 512;
AND ALL THAT PART OF FELLSMERE FARMS, SUBDIVISION IN TWP. 31S,
RANGE 37E, LYING WITHIN 660' NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE -OF S.R. 512, WHICH
LIES WITHIN TRACTS 1547 THROUGH 1554 OF SAID SUBDIVISION;
mFA
0
L�
M
AND THAT PART OF TRACTS 1644, 1645 AND 1646 IN FELLSMERE FARMS
SUBDIVISION IN TWP. 31S, RANGE 37E LYING WITHIN 660' SOUTH OF THE CENTER
LINE OF S.R. 512;
AND THE 'TEST 1275' OF SECTION 20, TWP. 31S, RANGE 38E, WHICH
LIES WITHIN 660' OF THE CENTER LINE OF S.R. 512; AND THE EAST 610' OF
SECTION 20, TWP. 31S, RANGE 38E, WHICH LIES WITHIN THE AREA 660' NORTH OF
THE CENTER LINE OF S.R. 512,
BE REZONED FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO A -AGRICULTURAL BECAUSE OF
THE LARGE AMOUNT OF TOTAL ACREAGE IN EXISTENCE IN COMMERCIAL IN THE
COUNTY, WHICH .IS MORE THAN COULD BE UTILIZED IN']THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
.(AREA 4) MOS. 6 AND 7 - THIS IS ON BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH
SIDES OF 512 FOR A DISTANCE OF 660' FROM THE CENTER LINE AND STRETCHES
FROM A POINT 1700' EAST OF THE CENTER LINE OF 1-95 OVER TO THE EXTENSION
OF 510 ON THE NORTH SIDE, AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE TO A POINT 1320' WEST
OF 510.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING
BOARD EXAMINED THIS AREA AND FOUND, ALTHOUGH IT WAS ZONED C-1, IT WAS
LARGELY UNDEVELOPED, THEY FELT THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED THAT 660' ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE
CENTER LINE OF 512 FROM 1700' EAST OF THE CENTER LINE OF.1-95 BE REZONED
FROM C-1 To A, AND FROM 1700' EAST ON.THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE
OF THE INTERSTATE TO THE EDGE OF VERO LAKE ESTATES, IT BE REZONED FROM
C-1 TO R-1. MR. REDICK CONTINUED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACTION OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD, A BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE AREA
NORTH OF 5121 WHICH DOES PROVIDE A VESTED RIGHT FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL,
WHICH SHOULD .BE CONSIDERED.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE SCHOOL IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
512 IN THIS AREA, AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED WHY THE SCHOOL WASN'T
PUT IN PUBLIC OR SEMI PUBLIC -ZONING.
MR. REDICK STATED THIS IS ZONING AND NOT IN THE MASTER PLAN.
MOST OF THE SCHOOL IS ALREADY IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE. HE NOTED THAT
THE'ENTIRE NORTH SIDE WOULD BE FROM C-1 TO A; THE ENTIRE AREA'ON THE
SOUTH THROUGH VERO LAKES WOULD BE R-1; AND THE REMAINDER TO A.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE INTERSECTION AS
A WHOLE.
C
'( 7 ci.
e
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE WOULD PREFER TO STICK TO THE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE NOTICE, BUT IF THE BOARD WISHES TO ADDRESS IT
DIFFERENTLY, THAT CAN BE DONE.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO SPEAK IN
REGARD TO AREA 4, WHICH COMBINES NOS. 6 AND 7.
ROY COWLE SPOKE ON BEHALF OF ROLAND MILLER, WHO OWNS A PARCEL
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 4 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF 512 AND 510 THAT IS PRESENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL. HE NOTED
THERE IS A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH ALL APPROPRIATE SITE
PLAN APPROVALS, BUILDING PERMITS, ETC., WERE RECEIVED, AND IT IS
APPROXIMATELY 75-80% COMPLETE AT THIS TIME. IN RECOGNITION OF,THIS FACT,
MR. COWLE REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD LEAVE THE FOUR ACRE PARCEL -ZONED AS
IT IS PRESENTLY ZONED.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE FELT BASICALLY THE INTERSECTION SHOULD BE
COMMERCIAL AND POSSIBLY SOME OF THE AREA IN NOS. 10 AND 12 ON THE MAP
(ALSO CALLED AREA 6) SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. (THIS IS PROPERTY ON 510
SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION.) HE CONTINUED THAT HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT
VOTING ON AREA 4 .(NOS. 6 AND 7 ON THE MAP) AND WHAT WILL OCCUR IN AREA 6.
COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING ON AREA 5 AND THEN COME BACK AND VOTE ON 4, 5 AND 6.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK EXPLAINED THAT AREA 5 IS BASICALLY
THE NORTH SIDE OF 512 BEGINNING AT THE NORTH SIDE OF 510 AND GOING UP TO
THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF 512 BEGINNING AT A POINT
1320' EAST OF 510 AND GOING UP TO THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN. THE SAME RE-
ZONING'IS PROPOSED IN TERMS OF NEED FOR COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE TOTAL
COUNTY AND IN THIS AREA IN PARTICULAR.
MR. REDICK CONTINUED THAT AREA 6 IS nos. 10, 11 AND 12 AS
SHOWN ON THE MAP. N0.•10 IS 1320' WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 510 AND
512 AND RANGES 2640' SOUTH FROM 512. THAT AREA IS TO BE CHANGED FROM
C-1 AND R-1 TO B-1. NO 12, WHICH IS THE AREA DIRECTLY EAST OF N0. .10 AND
EAST OF S.R. 510, IS TO BE CHANGED FROM C-1 AND A TO -B-1. NO. 11, WHICH
IS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF NOS. 10 AND 12 ON BOTH SIDES OF 510 IS TO BE CHANGED
FROM R-1 TO R-3 ON THE WEST AND FROM A TO R-3 ON THE EAST.. THE BASIC
REASONING WAS THAT THERE WAS ROOM AND NEED FOR SOME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
gfl
aca 37 �
AROUND THE INTERSECTION OF 510 AND 512. SECONDLY THE SITUATION AROSE OF
MR. ANSIN HAVING A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT WAS
BEING CHANGED TO AGRICULTURAL, AND THERE WAS SOME TRADE-OFF TO PRODUCE
A. COMMERCIAL LOCATION IN THIS AREA. MR. REDICK STATED THAT AS TO THE
R-3, HE CAN FIND LITTLE OR NOTHING IN THE RECORDS FOR THE REZONING OTHER
THAN MR. BRENNAN'S COMMENTS THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT MUCH
COMMERCIAL, YOU NEED SOME HIGHER DENSITY TO SUPPORT IT. MR. REDICK STATED
THAT THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE AREA SHOWS AGRICULTURAL. ESSENTIALLY
WE ARE NOW CONSIDERING THE STRIP FROM 1700' EAST OF THE 1-95 INTERCHANGE
TO -THE CITY LIMITS OF SEBASTIAN AND SOUTH FOR A DISTANCE OF ONE MILE.FROM
THE INTERSECTION OF 510 AND 512.
MR. ANSIN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY OWN THE R -3 -ON THE WEST
SIDE OF 510. THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE POND IN THAT AREA, AND THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT A DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE AREA WITH ON-SITE WATER RETENTION
AND A LAGOON SYSTEM IN THE R-3 BLOCK. HE STATED THAT HIS FAMILY IS
ACTUALLY CONCERNED WITH THREE QUADRANTS OF THE INTERSECTION. THEY HAVE
A 40 ACRE PIECE ON THE EAST SIDE WHICH STRADDLES 510; A SMALL PARCEL ON
THE SOUTH SIDE; AND 40 ODD ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE. IN THAT AREA IS A
MAIN DRAINAGE SLOUGH. IN REVIEWING THAT FACT AND THE DRAINAGE FACTORS,
MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HE AND MR. BRENNAN AGREED THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT
AN 30 ACRE BLOCK OF COMMERCIAL ON THE WEST SIDE OF 512. THE BLOCK ON
THE EAST OF 512 ENCOMPASSES A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OWNERSHIPS, AND HE FELT
MR. BRENNAN ADDED IT AS A MATCHING BLOCK. MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HIS
FAMILY WAS WILLING TO FOREGO THE STRIP ZONING AND TO FOREGO COMMERCIAL
ZONING ON TWO OF THE THREE QUADRANTS OF THE INTERSECTION, AND INSTEAD
HAVE THE SO ACRE BLOCK AS NOW SHOWN WITH THE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE AN
APPROPRIATE LOCATION TO SERVICE THE ENTIRE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY. HE
POINTED OUT THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD DETERMINED THAT IT IS AN APPROPRIATE
LOCATION TO SERVE THE FUTURE NEEDS OF THE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE WISHED TO CONFIRM THAT THE 80 ACRE PIECE IS
WEST OF 510 IN THE B-1 AREA, AND MR. ANSIN STATED THAT IT IS.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE WONDERED WHY NO COMMERCIAL WAS LEFT ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION. MR. REDICK STATED THAT HE HAS NOT
DETERMINED ANY REASON FROM THE RECORDS..
0
vt
L�
ASSISTANT PLANNER BERG STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THERE WAS SORT
OF A TRADE-OFF. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH INCLUDES THE CEMETERY AND THE
SCHOOL PROPERTY, AND IT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD AT
THAT TIME DID NOT WANT ANY COMMERCIAL.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF MR. ANSIN WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF MOVING
THE COMMERCIAL FORWARD ACROSS THE INTERSECTION. HE FELT THAT 660' ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD IS ADEQUATE, AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT
ONE OF THE BOARD'S CONCERN WAS THE SCHOOL CHILDREN HAVING TO CROSS THE
ROAD WITH NO COMMERCIAL ON THE NORTH SIDE.
MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO COMMERCIAL
ON THE NORTH SIDE, BUT HE WAS NOT CERTAIN HOW MANY ACRES THEY WERE TALKING
ABOUT.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE SUGGESTED MOVING THE COMMERCIAL MORE TO THE
NORTH AND REDUCING IT TO THE SOUTH, AND MR. ANSIN ASKED DID HE MEAN TO
TAKE THE 80 ACRE BLOCK AND SHIFT IT NORTH?
CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED IF WE LEFT THE B -I LINE WHERE IT WAS AND
WENT NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION, WE WOULD END UP WITH ABOUT 180-200 ACRES
COMMERCIAL AND HE FELT THAT WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR FUTURE NEEDS.
MR..ANSIN STATED THAT THEY HOPED TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A
LARGER INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL AREA IN -THE FUTURE. IF THE 80 ACRES WERE
REDUCED TO 60 ACRES, HE FELT IT WOULD CAUSE THEM NO PROBLEMS, BUT THEY
WOULD REQUEST THAT THE R-3 BE EXTENDED TO ABUT IT.
COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED WHAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE R-3,
MR. ANSIN STATED THAT THEY WOULD JUSTIFY THE R-3 IN TERMS OF
BEING SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMMERCIAL AND THE OTHER SERVICES THAT WOULD
BE DEVELOPED.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THAT THE R-3 AT THIS POINT IS PERHAPS
A LITTLE PREMATURE. IT IS THE HIGHEST DENSITY WE HAVE,
COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED HOW MR. ANSIN WILL SEWER IT.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT THAT IS THE PROBLEM. HE NOTED THAT
THE MASTER PLAN CAN BE USED AS A TOOL, AND THE R-3 ABUTTING R-1 WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, BUT IN REGARD TO REZONING AT
THE PRESENT MOMENT, IT IS PREMATURE. THERE IS ALSO THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER OR NOT SHOWING IT ON THE MASTER PLAN AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLES YOU
TO A REZONING.
31
eua 37
jjo
�'`�
4
77
1R. ANSIN POINTED OUT THAT MOST OF THE PROPOSED R-3 IS NOW
ZONED COMMERCIAL AND HAS BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL OVER TWENTY YEARS. IN
HIS VIEW, AT LEAST IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR BEING ASKED FOR SUPPORT
OF THE PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE STRIP, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO.PERHAPS BE
ZONING AHEAD, BUT NEVERTHELESS HAVE A REASONABLE PLAN FOR FUTURE USE
AS AN OFFSET TO THE COUNTY'S REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF THE COMMERCIAL
AREA.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE COULD NOT TOTALLY DISAGREE
WITH THAT.
COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED AGAIN THAT R-3 IS THE HIGHEST DENSITY
IN THE COUNTY, AND ALLOWS 15 UNITS PER ACRE.
MR. ANSIN FELT THEY WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO LESS DENS-ITY AND THAT
A DENSITY OF 8-12 COULD ACCOMPLISH THE PLAN HE HAS IN MIND.
COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT THE MASTER PLAN INDICATES LOW
DENSITY FOR THE AREA,
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT EXPLAINED THAT THE BOARD PROBABLY DID NOT
CHANGE THIS BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE ZONING HEARING WAS COMING UP AND WERE
SOMEWHAT GUESSING ABOUT WHAT THE AREA WOULD LOOK LIKE. HE STATED THAT IF
WE DO CHANGE IT, WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS THE MASTER PLAN
AGAIN BEFORE JULY.
. MRS. MCCAIN CAME BEFORE THE BOARD'AND STATED THAT SHE OWNS
LOTS 4 AND 5 IN UNIT 1 IN THE PROPOSED R-3 AREA DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THE
LAKE. SHE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SHE AND HER SISTER PURCHASED THIS
COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY FROM_MR. ANSIN Z% YEARS AGO FOR RETIREMENT
PURPOSES, SHE CONTINUED THAT AST BECAUSE THEY ARE LITTLE OWNERS OF
LAND, SHE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HAVE TO SIT BACK AND GO ALONG
WITH THIS, WHICH SHE DOES NOT FEEL IS CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER LYONS AGREED, AND DID NOT FEEL WE SHOULD TRADE
BACK AND FORTH_, BUT THAT EACH THING MUST BE CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN MERITS.
MRS. MCCAIN CONTINUED THAT SHE NEVER DREAMT TIDE COMMERCIAL
STRIP ALONG THE ROAD WOULD BE ELIMINATED AND REPLACED WITH R-3.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF SHE FELT IT SHOULD REMAIN
COMMERCIAL WHERE THE R-3 DENSITY IS PROPOSED, AND WHETHER SHE WOULD RATHER
LOOK TO THE NORTH ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY -INSTEAD OF MULTI -FAMILY.
WA
MRS. MCCAIN FELT'THE COMMERCIAL SHOULD REMAIN 300' DEEP ON
THE PERIMETER OF THE HIGHWAY. SHE FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE ARE A LOT
OF SPRINGS IN THE AREA, AND WITH HIGH DENSITY YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO
HAVE A SEWER PLANT TO DEVELOP THIS. SHE FURTHER NOTED THAT SHE ORIGINALLY
PROMOTED THIS AREA TO RETIREMENT PEOPLE.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED FIRS. MCCAIN IF SHE WOULD AGREE THAT TO
HAVE COMMERCIAL STRUNG OUT ALONG WABASSO ROAD ALONG 512 AND INTO FELLSMERE
IS NOT THE WAY TO DEVELOP,
MRS. MCCAIN STATED THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW IT WAS THAT WAY, BUT
POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE LITTLE HOMES WITH STORES IN THEM PRESENTLY,
AND THEY WILL NEVER BE ELIMINATED. SHE WAS HOPING THE AREA WOULD DEVELOP
INTO HOMES WHEN THE SCHOOL CAME IN AND HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL TO SUPPORT
IT. SHE REITERATED THAT SHE DID NOT FEEL THE BOARD SHOULD SACRIFICE
PEOPLE LIKE HER FOR BIG DEVELOPERS.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE DECISIONS
ON THE PROPER LOCATION FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND PERSONALITIES
DO NOT ENTER INTO IT.
MRS. MCCAIN NOTED THAT APPARENTLY THE BOARD HAS BEEN MAKING
TRADE-OFFS, AND THEN TALKED ABOUT THE HIGH TAXES SHE WAS PAYING.
COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT THE TAXES ARE BASED ON THE
USE OF THE LAND,
PHYLLIS DORSETT INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SHE OWNS APPROXIMATELY
TWO ACRES ADJOINING THE CANAL ON THE -DRAINAGE DITCH PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED
AND SHE IS INTERESTED IN SOME WAY TO MAINTAIN THIS AS RESIDENTIAL. SHE
STATED IT IS HER UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THIS SHOULD BE REZONED TO B-1,
AND THE STRUCTURES SHOULD BURN DOWN, SHE COULD NOT REPLACE THEM,
ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT SHE COULDN'T DO SO IN A COMMERCIAL
AREA EITHER.
MRS. DORSETT STATED SHE IS SOUTHEAST OF THE ANSIN PROPERTY
` AND IS,AT THE PRESENT TIME, IN COMMERCIAL ZONING. SHE WOULD PREFER THIS
MOVED INTO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND SHE IS NOT CONCERNED.WITH THE TYPE
OF RESIDENTIAL ZONE. SHE NOTED THAT SHE IS IN THE PROPOSED B-1 AREA.
CHAIRMAN VIODTKE ASKED IF ANYONE WAS PRESENT REPRESENTING
PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE EAST OF 510. THERE WERE NONE, AND THE CHAIRMAN
33
NOV 2x.1978
37 mt 5
D
ASKED MR. BERG ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF B-1 EAST OF 510 WHERE ALL THE
LOW LAND IS LOCATED,
PSR. BERG STATED THAT HE BELIEVED MR. GRICE OF THE PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION FELT IT WAS PREMATURE AND COMMENTED ON THE LAND
BEING EXTREMELY LOW,
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT B-1 SPECIFICALLY
EXCLUDES SERVICE STATIONS.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ANNOUNCED THAT WE ARE NOW DEALING WITH AREAS
4, 5 AND 6, WHICH INCLUDES Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 AND 12.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT AGRICULTURAL IS A HOLDING ZONE
FOR FUTURE USE. HE DISCUSSED R-1 FOR VERO LAKE ESTATES AND DID NOT
FEEL IT WOULD BE BEST TO PUT THAT AREA IN AGRICULTURAL ZONING.BECAUSE
MOST OF IT IS ALREADY PLATTED AND ON RECORD AND SHOULD STAY IN A
RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER. HE THEN ASKED THE ATTORNEY IF WE COULD MOVE UP
TO A HIGHER ZONING AND MAKE SOMETHING R-1 INSTEAD OF R-3.
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE WOULD TAKE THE POSITION THAT
WE SHOULD READVERTISE THAT PORTION.
COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF R-3 IN
THAT AREA,
CHAIRMAN WODTKE FELT THAT THE FUTURE NEEDS OF THE AREA MIGHT
WARRANT A HIGHER DENSITY, BUT THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME THE PROPOSED
ZONING IS QUITE PREMATURE. HE POINTED OUT THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO RE-
EVALUATE AND FINALIZE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN 1979 SO WE CAN TAKE A
FURTHER LOOK AT IT AT THAT TIME. HE ALSO NOTED THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY
INPUT ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF COMMERCIAL AND R-3 ON THE EAST OF 510,
AND HE WISHED THERE WAS SOMEONE HERE TO REPRESENT THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE CHAIRMAN CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE COMMERCIAL AT THE
INTERSECTION, BUT IF WE LEAVE IT AT BOTH SIDES OF 510 WHERE THE LINE
IS BETWEEN R-3 AND B -I, WE WILL•BE LOOKING AT WELL OVER 200 ACRES OF
COMMERCIAL AREA, WHICH IS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT. HE FELT. IF WE CAN
ELIMINATE THE COMMERCIAL ON ONE SIDE UP TO THE 660' EXTENSION, IT WOULD
HELP. CHAIRMAN WODTKE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT MRS. DORSETT WOULD BE IN A
BETTER POSITION IN AN AGRICULTURAL ZONE THAN THE ZONE SHE PRESENTLY IS
IN BECAUSE AGRICULTURAL IS A HOLDING ZONE. HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE
R-3 BECAUSE OF THE SLOUGH AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS THAT WOULD RESULT FROM
NOV 211978
34
W
7 3-
P9
THE LOWNESS OF THE AREA, AND FELT THE ONLY ARGUMENT TO•JUSTIFY THE R-3
ON THE EAST IS TO KEEP IT COMPATIBLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD., THE
CHAIRMAN STATED THAT HE STRONGLY BELIEVES THAT CONCENTRATION OF
COMMERCIAL AREAS IS THE WAY TO GO, AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE
COMMERCIAL DOWN AT 510 WHERE IT MAKES THE TURN.
COMMISSIONER DEESON STATED THAT HE, TOO, BELIEVES R-3 I$
PREMATURE AT THIS TIME AND IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT MUCH B-1. HE ALSO
EXPRESSED THE,WISH THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE NORTH AND EAST OF THE 510
AND 512 INTERSECTION WERE PRESENT. HE FELT THE COMMERCIAL SHOULD BE
CONCENTRATED IN THAT AREA, PROBABLY 660' EAST, NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE
INTERSECTION.
COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE IS CURIOUS AS TO WHY THE
B-1 IS AS DEEP AS IT IS WHEN WE DONT SEEM TO HAVE IT THAT DEEP IN OTHER
AREAS.
PLANNER REDICK STATED THAT HE WOULD IMAGINE THAT IT WAS DUE
TO THINKING AHEAD IN THE LONG RANGE STUDY TO A SHOPPING CENTER TYPE
DEVELOPMENT.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT DISCUSSED FINAL ADOPTION OF THE MASTER
PLAN AND NOTED THAT WE ARE PERMITTED TO SHOW CERTAIN THINGS IN THE
MASTER PLAN THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A REZONING UNTIL OTHER THINGS ARE
ACCOMPLISHED; THEREFORE, HE FELT IT WOULD BE ALL RIGHT TO PUT A LOT ON
THE MASTER PLAN AS MULTI -FAMILY AND INCLUDE SOME BUSINESS AREA, BUT TO
VOTE FOR AN ACTUAL REZONING AT THIS TIME WOULD BE PREMATURE. HE FELT
9 THAT THE MASTER PLAN COULD WELL SHOW SOME COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY HERE AS
BEING APPROPRIATE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.
PLANNER REDICK STATED ESSENTIALLY WHAT HE AND ATTORNEY COLLINS
HAVE SAID IS THAT THE MASTER PLAN AS.ADOPTED WAS TANTAMOUNT TO A RE-
ZONING BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND PLACED ON A MAP. IN
THE MASTER PLAN THEY ARE PREPARING FOR THE BOARD AT THE PRESENT TIME,
HOWEVER, THERE ARE THINGS WHICH ARE SCHEDULED FOR SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE
WHEN CERTAIN.CONDITIONS ARE MET, I.E., WHEN ADEQUATE WATER AND SEWER
ARE•AVAILABLE, ETC. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU CAN PUT SOMETHING
INTO THE MASTER PLAN AND NOT HAVE TO CHANGE THE ZONING, BUT CONDITIONS AND
SCHEDULING WOULD HAVE TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE TEXT OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
PLAN AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE VERY CAREFULLY.
35
NOV 21197
m
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF, IN HIS PROFESSIONAL OPINION,
HE FELT THE PROPOSED REZONING IS PREMATURE.
PLANNER REDICK STATED THAT HIS FEELING IS THAT THERE IS ROOM
FOR SOME COMMERCIAL, DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION, BUT HE WOULD NOT AGREE
WITH THE AMOUNT BECAUSE THERE IS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF POPULATION TO
BE SERVED IN THIS LOCATION AND THERE ALREADY IS A SHOPPING CENTER BEING
DEVELOPED AT ROSELAND ROAD, HE FELT THE COMMERCIAL SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE INTERSECTION.
COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF WE COULD CONSIDER AREA 4 UP TO THE
NORTHERN EXTENSION OF THE LINE ON THE WEST SIDE OF B-1 AS A UNIT SINCE
THERE DOESNIT SEEM TO BE ANY BIG CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THAT. HE POINTED
OUT IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION ON THAT, WE COULD DISPOSE OF AREA 4 WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THE EAST 1320'. HE THEN STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO
SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE THE WHOLE INTERSECTION THERE AS A RESTUDY FOR
ANOTHER SHOT SINCE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED, AND THE
ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO READVERTISE.
MR. ANSIN STATED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO OBJECT TO ANY ELIM-
INATION OF THE EXISTING ZONING UNLESS THEY, AT THE SAME TIME, HAD A PLAN
FOR THE REMAINING PROPERTY, HE FELT, JUDGING FROM THE SIZE OF THE
ATTENDANCE AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETINGS, THERE CLEARLY IS AN
EXISTING AND INCREASING NEED FOR FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION. HE CON-
TINUED THAT THIS WAS VERY THOROUGHLY STATED AT -THOSE MEETINGS, AND HE
DOES NOT FEEL ANY SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE NEED DOES
NOT EXIST. MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HE CERTAINLY COULD NOT AGREE TO ANY
ZONING DRAWBACK ON ANY OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT SOME FAIR AND EQUITABLE
PROVISION AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. HE AGREED THAT POSSIBLY THEY DO NOT
NEED THE R-3 DENSITY, BUT MULTI -FAMILY WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF
AN INTEGRATED PLAN. HE POINTED OUT THAT THEY ARE, IN FACT, THE ONLY
PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF 510 IN THIS AREA AND SUGGESTED IT
WOULD SUFFICE IF THEY WAIVED NOTICE FOR A REDUCTION FROM.R-3 TO ANOTHER
MORE'SUITABLE DENSITY, IF THAT IS THE BOARD'S WISH.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF MR. ANSIN WOULD CONSIDER IT
REASONABLE IF, ON THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN BY NEXT JULY, IT
SHOWED BASICALLY WHAT IS UP THERE NOW, BUT THE REZONING ACTUALLY TOOK
PLACE AT A MORE APPROPRIATE TIME?
36
NOV 2 1 1978�R � �cr
o 7 p���30
{
r
MR. ANSIN NOTED THAT THE PROPOSAL NOW BEFORE THE BOARD IS
FOR REZONING; THE BOARD IS NOT BEING ASKED TO DEFER ON ZONING BUT TO
ELIMINATE SOME THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR TWENTY ODD YEARS. HE FELT WE
MUST ADDRESS THE REZONING.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT IF THE BOARD TOOK NO ACTION,
THE ZONING WOULD REMAIN C-1 AND R-1.
MR. ANSIN STATED THAT THEY HAVE SOME 240 ACRES ZONED C-1, AND
THEY.ARE WILLING TO FOREGO ICO ACRES OF THIS. HE FELT THE PROPOSED
PLAN TO HAVE A BLOCK OF EIGHTY ACRES COMMERCIAL WITH SUPPORTING MULTI-
FAMILY IS MORE APPROPRIATE,
CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT HE APPRECIATES MR. ANSIN'S POSITION,
BUT DISAGREES WITH THE FACT THAT MR. ANSIN WOULD BE THE OWNER -OF ALL THE
COMMERCIAL THERE. HE CONTINUED THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE AREA MOST
SUITABLE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REGARDLESS OF WHO OWNS THE LAND. HE
AGREED THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE THE PRIMARY
REASON WE ARE DOING THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO ELIMINATE MILE UPON MILE OF
COMMERCIAL ON BOTH SIDES OF SIO AND 512.
MRS. MCCAIN ASKED IF THE CHAIRMAN PUT THE B-1 AND THE COMMERCIAL
IN THE SAME CATEGORY, AND CHAIRMAN WODTKE STATED THAT BASICALLY B-1 IS
A RESTRICTED TYPE OF BUSINESS CATEGORY WITH A 75` SETBACK. C-1 IS
COMMERCIAL AND LESS RESTRICTIVE.
MRS, MCCAIN STATED THAT SHE CANT SEE ANY REASON FOR INCREASING
THE RESIDENTIAL AREA WHEN THE RESIDENTIAL PRESENTLY THERE IS NOT DEVELOPED.
SHE SUGGESTED IF COMMERCIAL IS NOT DESIRABLE, WHY NOT PUT A BUSINESS
AREA (B-1) NEAR THE INTERSECTION.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THE COMMERCIAL AREA PRESENTLY
THERE HASNIT DEVELOPED EITHER, AND THE BASIS OF HIS OPINION FOR NEEDING
TO HAVE THE CHANGE IS BECAUSE IN TODAY�S TIME AND THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT,
IT IS NOT DESIRABLE TO HAVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THE ENTIRE LENGTH
FROM FELLSMERE TO SEBASTIAN. HE NOTED THAT THE BOARD MUST MAKE A
DECISION AS TO THE AREA WHERE IT IS MOST APPROPRIATE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE,
MRS. MCCAIN ASKED IF HE DIDN'T FEEL WHERE THERE IS A PLANNED
SUBDIVISION THERE IS LIABLE TO BE MORE DEVELOPMENT AND MORE COMMERCIAL
NEEDED.
r y,
37
`:i
CHAIRMAN !'iODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, ESPECIALLY
AS TO VERO LAKE ESTATES AND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN.
COMMISSIONER LYONS AGAIN SUGGESTED THAT ON AREA 4 WE'HAVE A
PARTIAL MOTION TO REZONE UP TO THE NORTHWARD EXTENSION OF THE B -I BOUNDARY
THAT GOES ALONG 510; ALL AREA 4 EXCEPT THE EAST 1320'.
ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THAT COULD BE DONE.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
THES IS AN INTERIM THING AND WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE
ENTIRE INTERSECTION WITH POSSIBLY SOME COMMERCIAL OR PLANNED BUSINESS
TO THE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING SOME OR
WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WILL BE ZONED INTO THE .(MASTER PLAN AND IN
REZONING BY JULY, HE WOULD MAKE A (MOTION.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COM-
MISSIONER LYONS, THAT: -
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 31S, RANGE 38E,.LYING WITHIN
660' OF THE CENTER LINE OF S.R. 512, LESS THE EAST 1320' LYING
SOUTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF SAID S.R. 512; AND LESS
THAT PART OF THE EAST.706.40 FEET OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38
EAST, NORTH OF STATE ROAD 512 LYING SOUTH OF THE TRANS -FLORIDA -
CENTRAL RAILROAD, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING
4.091 ACRES MORE OR LESS; AND
THE 660' OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 315, RANGE 38E, LYING NORTH OF
' THE CENTER LINE OF S.R. 512 AND THE NORTH 660.' OF THE EAST 1320'
OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31S, RANGE 38E, LYING SOUTH OF THE CENTER
LINE OF S.R. 512
BE REZONED FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO A -AGRICULTURAL, AND THAT
THE 660' OF SECTION•21, TOWNSHIP 315, RANGE 38E, LYING SOUTH OF
t THE CENTER LINE OF S.R. 512 LESS THE -EAST 1320' THEREOF, AND
THE EAST 610' OF THE WORTH 660' LYING SOUTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF
S.R. 512 IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 315, RANGE 38E
BE REZONED FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
38
NOV 2 11978' Boa
s
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK EXPLAINED THAT THIS AREA STARTS
1700' EAST OF I-95 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD AND CHANGES FROM C-1
TO R-1 HALFWAY; FOR THE REST OF THE DISTANCE TO AGRICULTURE. ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD STARTING 1700` EAST OF THE -INTERSECTION, IT CHANGES
ALL THE WAY TO THE EXTENSION OF S.R. 512 AND S.R. 510 INTERSECTION FROM
C-1 TO A, EXCEPT FOR THE FOUR ACRES THAT IS IN THE VESTED RIGHTS.
COMMISSIONER LYONS COMMENTED THAT THE MASTER PLAN SHOWS LOW
DENSITY, AND COMMISSIONER Loy NOTED THAT AGRICULTURE IS THE LOWEST DENSITY
WE HAVE AND IS ALSO A HOLDING ZONE.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE DOES NOT FEEL YOU DESTROY
THE INTENT OF THE MASTER PLAN BY PUTTING SOMETHING IN A LOWER DENSITY
THAN IS SHOWN ON THE MASTER PLAN.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE MOTION IS EXACTLY AS THIS WAS
PRESENTED TO US, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FOUR ACRES ALREADY PUT INTO
THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO
THE MINUTES THE REASONS FOR THE REZONING, WHICH ARE REDUCTION OF THE
TOTAL COMMERCIAL AREA, WHICH WE FEEL TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE NEEDS OF THE
COUNTY IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE AND FOR CONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE IN
THE PLAN.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AREA 5 (HOS. S AND 9) - AN AREA BEGINNING AT THE EXTENSION OF
S.R. 510 - 660' ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD TO THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK FELT IT WOULD BE BETTER PLANNING
PRACTICE TO HAVE COMMERCIAL AT ALL CORNERS OF THE INTERSECTION. HE ALSO
FELT THERE MIGHT BE SOME LEGAL PROBLEMS INVOLVED IF THERE WERE COMMERCIAL
ON THREE CORNERS AND NOT ON THE FOURTH.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE AND -COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ALSO FELT THAT ALL
FOUR OF THE CORNERS ON THE INTERSECTION SHOULD HAVE SOME PLANNED BUSINESS
AND COMMERCIAL, AND THAT THE B-1 SHOWN JUST ON 510 SHOULD BE REDUCED IN
SIZE. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING, THEY DID NOT KNOW HOW
THIS COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED AND FELT IT MIGHT BE PREMATURE WITHOUT MORE
STUDY.
39
COMMISSIONER LYONS SUGGESTED RESTUDYING JUST N0. 8 IN AREA 5,
AND MAKING A DECISION ON THE REST.
ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT A PORTION COULD BE DELETED FROM
WHATEVER MOTION IS MADE.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES FOR
THE INTERSECTION AT THE CURVE.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE COULDN'T REALLY SEE ANY
PROBLEM WITH ACCEPTING THE ZONING BOARD'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION AS AN
INTERIM STEP.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COM-
MISSIONER LYONS, THAT:
THE PROPERTY WHICH LIES 660' SOUTH AND EAST OF THE CENTER LINE
OF S.R. 512, LESS THE WEST 1320' AND LESS THE S'i. 1/4 OF THE
NE 1/4, AND THE PROPERTY WHICH LIES WITHIN 660' NORTH AND WEST
OF THE CENTER LINE OF S.R. 512, ALL LYING IN SECTION 23, TWP.
31S, RANGE 38E; AND
THAT PART OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TwP. 31S,
RANGE 38E,.LYING SOUTH AND EAST AND WITHIN 660' OF THE CENTER
LINE OF S.R. 512;
BE REZONED FROM C-1.COMMERCIAL TO A -AGRICULTURAL,
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE GOING TO RESTUDY THE ENTIRE
INTERSECTION THERE AND POSSIBLY CHANGE SOME OF THAT PROPERTY BACK
TO A MORE INTENSE USE, THE REASONS FOR THE REZONING BEING TO REDUCE
e
THE TOTAL COMMERCIAL ACREAGE TO A FIGURE THAN CAN MORE REALISTICALLY
BE UTILIZED IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE AREAS OUTLINED AS N0. 8 AND NO. 9 ON THE MAP
COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS WE ARE GOING
r�
TO COME BACK AND TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE INTERSECTION OF 510 AND 512 AT
A LATER DATE, AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT WAS CORRECT.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
40
NOV 2 11978
F US �j PnF 365
AREA 6 (NOS. 10, 11, 12) - PROPERTY DIRECTLY SOUTH OF INTER-
SECTION OF 510 AND 512 AND RUNNING SOUTH TO SLIGHTLY NORTH OF THE EAST-
WARD CURVE OF 510.
COMMISSIONER LOY FELT IT IS VERY PREMATURE TO HAVE ANY R-3
IN THIS AREA. SHE NOTED THAT WE HAVE NO RULES AND REGULATIONS ABOUT
HOW IT CAN BE DONE, AND SHE FELT THIS IS WAY FAR AHEAD IN THE FUTURE AS
FAR AS REZONING IS CONCERNED.
MOTION WAS MADE BY, COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SIEBERT, TO REMAND AREA 6 TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR A PLAN CONSISTENT
WITH OUR ACTIONS ON THE OTHER AREAS REZONED TODAY.
MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HE WOULD BE PERFECTLY AMENABLE TO A
LOWER DENSITY AND AGREED THAT R-3 MIGHT BE HIGH. HE FELT IN THE LONG
TERM SOME DENSITY SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE USE FOR THIS AREA AND HOPED
THAT THE BOARD WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE REZONING THE VAST
AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL THAT HAS BEEN ZONED BACK. HE POINTED OUT THAT THEY
ARE REALLY DEPENDENT ON AREA 6.
IT WAS NOTED THAT THIS MUST BE RESTUDIED AND THAT WE CAN'T
TAKE ACTION ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN WAS ADVERTISED.'
MR. ANSIN STATED THAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PROPERTY HAS
BEEN ARBITRARILY DIVIDED INTO THESE SECTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
MEETING WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY ONE PIECE OF CONTIGUOUS LAND. HE FELT THESE
SECTIONS HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY SET.
COMMISSIONER LOY DID NOT BELIEVE THERE IS ANYTHING ARBITRARY
ABOUT THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED.
MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HE ONLY MEANT THE DIVISION OF THE
PROPERTY IS ARBITRARY IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE PROPOSALS. HE CON-
TINUED THAT THE PROPOSALS IN WHICH HE PARTICIPATED WERE BASED ON THE
PROPERTY AS A WHOLE AND NOT BASED ON THE SEGMENTATION THIS BOARD IS
NOW ADDRESSING ITSELF TO.
COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT EVERYTHING HE HAS HEARD INDICATES
THAT THE BOARD IS SENTITIVE TO THE PROBLEM, BUT DOESN'T SEE A SOLUTION
TO IT THE WAY IT IS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT THE MOTION ITSELF STATED THAT
THIS BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING
41
NOV 2 11978
Boa 37 PAGE N
MORE APPLICABLE TO WHAT WE FEEL THE AREA WILL DEVELOP INTO. IT DOES
NOT PRECLUDE THAT THERE WILL BE MULTI -FAMILY, ETC., BUT JUST SAYS WE
WILL LOOK AT IT IN MORE DETAIL.
. MR. ANSIN STATED THAT IN HIS VIEW ALL OF THE PROPERTIES
ADVERTISED SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING STAFF RATHER THAN TAKING
AN ARTIFICIAL SEGMENTATION AND ROLLING BACK THE ZONING ON 160 COMMERCIAL
ACRES. HE STATED THAT HE OBJECTS TO THE ROLLBACK WHEN THE PROPOSAL IS
TREATED IN THIS MANNER.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT WE.HAVE HEARD NO OTHER
OWNER REPRESENTATION OTHER THAN ONE LADY WHO OWNS A FEW LOTS. HE
CONTINUED THAT IT MAY BE THAT THE AREA MR. ANSIN IS DISCUSSING.IS THE
PROPER AREA FOR THE BUSINESS TO BE IN, BUT HE IS REALLY OF THE OPINION
THAT THERE IS TOO MUCH ACREAGE IN BUSINESS AND IN COMMERCIAL, AND HE IS
NOT IN FAVOR OF 12-15 UNIT ZONING AT THE PRESENT TIME IN ANY AREA UP
THERE NO MATTER WHO OWNS IT BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE SEWAGE FACILITIES OR
WATER. HOPEFULLY THESE SERVICES WILL BECOME AVAILABLE, AND THAT IS WHEN
WE SHOULD ADDRESS THIS ZONING. THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT WE ARE RELATIVELY
RESTRICTED TO THE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION BECAUSE OF THE RAILROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY.
MR. ANSIN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY DO OWN TWO QUADRANTS ON
THE EAST SIDE OF 510 BUT THEIR CONCERN REALLY IS ON THE WEST SIDE. IN
VIEW OF THE ACTION THE BOARD HAS ALREADY TAKEN THIS MORNING, HE SUGGESTED
THAT PERHAPS THE BOARD COULD REMAND THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF
t 510, PROCEED ON THE WEST SIDE WITH 80 ACRES OR SOMEWHAT LESS, AND REDUCE
THE DENSITY OF R-3 TO WHATEVER THEY FEEL IS APPROPRIATE.
CHAIRMAN N+ODTKE STATED THAT HE WOULD HOPE THAT WOULD BE THE
TYPE OF THING THAT WOULD COME BACK FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT MR. ANSIN HAS SAID HE WOULD WAIVE
NOTICE, BUT THE ATTORNEY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT NOTICE TO THE REST OF THE
COUNTY RESIDENTS.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT WE WILL HAVE TO GO OVER
THIS WITHIN SEVEN MONTHS, AND HE DOES NOT FEEL THAT IS.TOO LONG TO WAIT.
42
NOV 211978
BOOK J 3�j07
FA.GE 30_ (i
j..
MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HE FEELS THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD
THIS MORNING SEVERELY PREJUDICES WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REST OF THEIR
PROPERTY. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE BASED ON THE TOTAL.
COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT MAYBE IT WAS PRESENTED THAT WAY,
BUT IT WAS NOT TAKEN THAT WAY. SHE NOTED THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE
THE ONES FACED WITH MAKING A DECISION AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE*MORE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AREA % (NOS. 13, 14) - ONE MILE SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF
510 AND 512 AND EAST TO A POINT OF AN R -1E ZONING ADJACENT TO 66TH
AVENUE ON S.R. 510.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT THIS IS A SIMILAR RECOM-
MENDATION BASED ON LACK OF NEED FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL. IT
IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE AREA BE REZONED FROM C-1 TO AGRICULTURAL. THIS
IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN WHICH IS PRIMARY AGRICULTURE.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT .WISHED TO BE HEARD.
A LADY IN THE AUDIENCE NOTED THAT THIS WOULD LEGALIZE THE USE
OWNERS MADE OF THEIR LAND, WHICH IS PRIMARILY AGRICULTURAL.
ATTORNEY EUGENE O'NEILL APPEARED REPRESENTING RYALL GROVES,
OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN SECTION 32. HE STATED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THEY
OWN JUST ABOUT ALL THE E 1/2 OF SECTION 31 AND PART OF THE OTHER 1/2.
HE NOTED THAT AS YOU COME IN FROM 1-95, LATERAL A IS THE FIRST PAVED
' ROAD SHOOTING DOWN INTO THE COUNTY. HE CONTINUED THAT ACROSS THE STREET
FROM HIS CLIENT'S PROPERTY IS C-1 ZONING, WHICH HE UNDERSTANDS IS NOT
TO BE CHANGED TODAY. MR. O'NEILL NOTED THAT WITHIN A BLOCK OF HIS CLIENT'S
PROPERTY, THERE IS A CHURCH, A GAS STATION, A SCHOOL, A LITTLE LAUNDROMAT,
AND A CONVENIENCE STORE. HE STATED THAT IT IS THEIR POSITION THAT WHERE
HIS CLIENT'S PROPERTY IS SITUATED, THE BEST USE WOULD BE TO CONTINUE
`t COMMERCIAL AT THE CORNER BECAUSE OF THE PRESENT USES AND THE POTENTIAL
FOR DEVELOPMENT. THEY FEEL THAT AT LEAST PART OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE
LEFT COMMERCIAL ALONG LATERAL A.
MR. RYALL CAME BEFORE -THE BOARD AND POINTED OUT THE PROPERTY
HE OWNS. HE NOTED THAT THE R -IE TO THE NORTH OF HIS PROPERTY WAS REZONED
FOR MRS. HABAKKUK WHITFIELD.
43
BOOK 3 7 PAGE 368
r
s
MRS. MCCAIN STATED THAT SHE NOW REALIZES THAT HER PROPERTY
IS LOCATED IN THIS AREA ON THE WEST SIDE JUST BELOW THE DIVIDING LINE
IN VERO LAKE ESTATES. SHE STATED THAT IF HER PROPERTY SHOULD BECOME
AGRICULTURAL, SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE COULD DO WITH IT,
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE
PARCEL. THE -INDIVIDUAL NOTICE TO THE LAND OWNER INDICATED R-1 AND THE
NOTICE IN THE PAPER INDICATED AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING. HE FELT THE
COMMISSIONERS MIGHT WANT TO HOLD OFF ON THIS LITTLE PARCEL AND RECONSIDER
IT AT THE SAME TIME WITH THE OTHER. HE FELT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL NOTICES
THAT WERE MAILED OUT WOULD CONTROL, AND IT.WAS THE PLANNING & ZONING
BOARDS INTENT TO REZONE TO R-1 ON THE WEST SIDE.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO HOLD
OFF, IF THE ATTORNEY WILL EXPLAIN HOW THIS CAN BE DONE.
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT VERO LAKES ESTATES COULD JUST BE
DELETED FROM THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMIS -
SIONER LYONS, THAT:
THE SOUTH 660' OF SECTION 30, TWP. 31S, RANGE 39E, LESS
THE EAST 1320';
THE I4ORTH 660' OF SECTION 31, TWP. 31S, RANGE 39E, LESS THE
EAST 855' THEREOF;
THE SOUTH 660' OF SECTION 25, TWP. 31S, RANGE 38E;
THE NORTH 660' OF SECTION 36, TWP. 31S,.RANGE 38E, LESS THE
NORTH 660' OF THE W 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4;
THE SOUTH 660' OF SECTION 26, TWP. 31S, RANGE 38E, LESS THE
WEST 660';
THE WEST 660' OF THE SLI 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 26, Twp.
31S, RANGE 38E;
AND THE NORTH 660' OF SECTION 35, TWP. 31S, RANGE 38E,
BE REZONED FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO A -AGRICULTURAL,
FOR THE REASONS OF REDUCING THE TOTAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH
IS DETERMINED TO BE TOO LARGE TO UTILIZE IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE,
AND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN.
NOV 2 11978
44
pl�E
I
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT FOR THE RECORD HE FELT IT
SHOULD BE INDICATED THAT, ALTHOUGH HE HAS NOT FILED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST,
HE IS ASSOCIATED WITH MR. RYALL BUT HAS NO DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN
THE PROPERTY,
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SIEBERT, TO REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRESENT THE BOARD WITH
A NEW PROPOSAL FOR THE PORTION DELETED FROM AREA 7.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK ASKED IF THE BOARD WISHED THIS AS A
PART OF THE MASTER PLAN OR NEEDED SOMETHING AHEAD OF THAT TIME.
COMMISSIONER LOY FELT WE SHOULD PROCEED AND GET RID OF THE
COMMERCIAL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. IT WAS AGREED TO MOVE ALONG WITH
AREA 7 AND RESTUDY AREA 6.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AREA 3 (No. 5)-.- 660` NORTH AND SOUTH OF S.R. 512 FOR A
DISTANCE OF 1700' EAST AND WEST OF THE CENTER LINE OF 1-95.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT.BASICALLY THE RECOMMENDA-
TION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IS TO MAKE NO CHANGE WITHIN
THAT 3400' OF AREA, AND LEAVE IT C-1 COMMERCIAL. THE BASIC REASON IS
THAT AS AN INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE, IT DOES HAVE COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL.
THIS IS BASED ON EVALUATION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ON THE
DISTANCE BACK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE DOT FOR ACCESS.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD.
GORDON NUTT FROM ORLANDO INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE OWNS
APPROXIMATELY 100 SQUARE ACRES IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTER-
SECTION OF 1-95 AND 512. HE STATED THAT HE HAS HAD FOR SOME TIME A
BUILDING CONTRACT BASED ON THE EXISTING ZONING. HE NOTED THAT FOR THEIR
'l PARTICULAR LAND USE, THEY HAD IN MIND USING THE ZONING AS IT EXISTED FOR
THE FULL LENGTH OF THE ROAD, AND THEY WOULD LIKE ACCESS TO CLOSE TO THE
OFF -RAMP OF 1-95. HE CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR CONSIDERA-
TION OF EXTENDING THE COMMERCIAL ZONING TO HIS WESTERN BOUNDARY. HE FELT
THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE IN SOME INSTANCES TO CONSIDER THE OWNER S PROBLEMS.
45
x 37 ����7
THE OFF RAMP INTO 512 TAKES A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY IN EACH
DIRECTION. HE ASKED IF SOMEBODY WERE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND ASK
FOR A ZONING CHANGE SHORTLY AFTER THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN IS
ADOPTED, IS IT MORE DIFFICULT AFTER IT IS ADOPTED?
THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT IT IS.
MR. NUTT FELT THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL REASON FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY,
AND REQUESTED THAT THE C-1 BE EXTENDED AN ADDITIONAL 660' WEST.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT WOULD EXTEND THE C-1 INTO
AREA 2 WHICH THE BOARD HAS ALREADY TAKEN ACTION ON, AND THEY WOULD HAVE
TO RESCIND THAT ACTION AND HAVE A NEW MOTION.
MR. NUTT AGAIN INQUIRED ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF CHANGING THE
COMPR€HENSIVE LAND USE PLAN, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT
HE FELT WITH THE NEW FORMAT, THERE WILL BE SOME LATITUDE IN USES. HE
FELT AN EXPANSION OF THE -COMMERCIAL MIGHT BE ALLOWED UNDER THE PLAN THEY
WOULD BE PRESENTING.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON THE POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING THE MASTER
PLAN AND AS TO WHETHER THE LINES IN THE PLAN ARE DEFINITIVE LINES OR
NOT. THE TIME FRAMEWORK ALSO WAS DISCUSSED. IT WAS NOTED THAT A RECENT
CHANGE WAS MADE IN THE MASTER PLAN TO SQUARE THIS OFF.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING TODAY
ABOUT CHANGING THE MASTER PLAN AS IT REQUIRES AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARING.
COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT THE FIRST HEARING ON THIS WAS
o HELD IN (NOVEMBER OF 1977, AND THE COMMERCIAL WAS ENLARGED AT THAT TIME
SO ACTUALLY THIS 1700' WOULD GIVE MR. MUTT MORE THAN HE HAS NOW.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK EXPLAINED THAT THIS MATTER IS INCLUDED
IN THE DISCUSSION TODAY BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL MOTION CHANGED THIS AREA
FROM 1320' TO 1700'. HE FELT THE ACTION TAKEN THIS MORNING ELIMINATED
THE NEED TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER,
'�` ON iMOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 75-39 AMENDING
ORDINANCE 71-3 TO INCORPORATE ALL THE CHANGES MADE BY MOTION OF THE
BOARD THIS MORNING.
46
li
7
M1A9�Sn ?;a.
'INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 78-39
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 71-3 BY THE REZONING OF
PROPERTIES DESCRIBED BELOW AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; and
WHEREAS, there is a need in Indian River County to reduce
the number of acres zoned Commercial to prevent excessive
traffic congestion, business sprawl,excessive density.of
commercial development and to reduce the amount of commercially
zoned property to a level consistent with the needs and growth
pattern of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the economic value of existing agricultural and
residential uses shall be maintained;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Indian River
County Ordinance 71-3, being the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River
County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map be amended as
follows:
1. Morning Side Park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book
1, page 93; and Tropical Village Estates Subdivision
as recorded in Plat Book 4, page 94 less the area
lying within 270' South of the center line of S.R. 512,
and less Lots 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17, Block 2, and Lots
8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, Block 3; And Tropical
Village Estates Subdivision Unit 2 as recorded in Plat
Book 5, page 65 less the area lying within 270' South
of the center line of S. R. 512, all plats referred to
plats recorded in the public records of Indian River
County, Florida;
Be rezoned from C-1, Commercial and A -Agriculture to R-1,
Single Family District.
2. The West 1275' of Section 20, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E
which lies within 660' of the center line of S. R. 512;
And the East 610' of Section 20, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E
which lies within the area 660' North of the center
line of S. R. 512;
All that part of Section 19, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E
lying within 660' of the center line of S. R. 512;
All that part of Fellsmere Farms Subdivision in Twp.
31 S, Range 37 E,lying within 660' North of the center .
line of S. R. 512, which lies within Tracts 1547
through 1554 of said Subdivision;
Boa 37 PACE3721,
M
That part of Tracts 1644, 1645, and 1646 in Fellsmere
Farms Subdivision in Twp. 31 S, Range 37 E lying
within 660' South of the center line of S. R. 512;
All that part of Section 22, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E
lying within 660' of the center line of S. R..512
less the East 1320' lying South of the center line
of said S. R. 512, less that part of the East 706.40
feet of the North one half of the Southeast quarter
of Section 22, Township 31 South, Range 38 East,•North
of S. R. 512 lying South of the Trans -Florida -Central
Railroad, Indian River County, Florida. Containing
4.091 acres more or less.
The 660' of Section 21, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E lying
North of the center line of S. R. 512 and the North
660' of the East 1320' of Section 21, Twp. 31 S,
Range 38 E lying South of the center line of S. R. 512;
The property which lies within 660' South and East of
center line of S. R. 512, less the West 1320' and less
the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, And the property which lies
within 660' North and West of the center line -of S. R.
512 all lying in Section 23, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E;
That part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 14,
Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E, lying South and East and within
660' of the center line of S. R. 512;
The South 660' of Section 30, Twp. 31 S, Range 39 E,
less the East 13201;
The North 660' of Section 31, Twp. 31 S, Range 39 E,
less the East 855' thereof;
The South 660' of Section 25, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E;
The North 660' of Section 36, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E,
less the North 660' of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the
NE 1/4;
The South 660' of Section 26, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E,
less the West 660';
The West 660' of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section
26, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E;
® The North 660' of Section 35, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E;
Be changed from C-1 District to A -District.
3. The 660' of Section 21, Twp. 31 S, Range 38 E lying
South of the center line of S. R. 512 less the East
1320' thereof;
The East 610' of the North 660' lying South of the
center line of S. R. 512 in Section 20, Twp. 31 S,
'rt Range 38 E;
Be rezoned from C-1 Commercial to R-1, Single Family District.
All with the meaning and intent as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.
This Ordinancs shall take effect December 18, 1978.
NOV 2 11978BUOK 3 7 Pa
o
THE BOARD THEREUPON RECESSED FOR LUNCH AT 1:00 O'CLOCK P.M.
AND RECONVENED AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT.
THE HOUR OF 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK
READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT:
49
7 PA.v.374
NOV 211978 3
I
as.r!-a .e e. ,. ,a R- w.+.W'. ex .., ..ary it. eo.s+.,.t:,vw w^ ..n,,. ,:.t-.r..y.t -.o _ - .. -- �^�i'.-^_-..�•..... s•.- _ ... -
4 L la'b,aw�i63.. c«.�_. �_•.-w�&8`w. r�1..' �?moi:drew�__.. ., ...>.. . .�.... .« ._. _ ._-_ - _ _ __�. -,.. _ a.
LEGEND
A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
R -I SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
M-1 RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL
PREPARED SYt
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
Nonce33eirhwweit+oi+Pewen:iriuo'e:nime'oi
Nance IS HEREBY GIVEN mat M, 1 -ria
alert Ri9e, cm
Board a C9Var Com' The Norm /63'Ot Sectiep Tb. Tw0.7ffi. Reap
missbmn will hada Pottle P— we an Sag Irm9 West N tae (rest HpYWP.3 . Bm 01
yon", November 71, 1978 of 1:30 o'ciWY I-951
4m. ro me Canary Commissba Ream of rm The NWM633•PI SWIM S3. TwP.374 RAMP
ndi- Rive, cab" ca "IN... Vero Besas,
Pwride, for proposed toaarp cMrrges on me „The NWth6walsectbo S4TWILMRapgP
fatarrne deurthed PraPertw6. at vrMch time.
pert.es m mferest omi eMmw stun save an TAe ESSt n r d Sec"bo 14 Twp. AS. Reap
oppWiamfrtpMhard: _ 398:
A. Tne Seom 16P el SSCHYn H, Trp. 355. 3987 ealf ]7!• M Secllae A. Tp. 31L Rasp
Range 388r ae seroned from C•1, Ca --hl a A.
The Nath 660'o/SKNW >e, Twp.135, QonPe AytcuTA.lturat Pistrktl AND
The !bate "r ad Sec"M 74 Trp. 314 RAMP RarrPa 398 West 3m• of 5mtbe O. Tey. 714
3TM ISWmffCel Sectbe 3r, Tr0.3f4Ropy � Wnt3m'ot
Sed 34 T.P. $74 Rapp
�Tlrosamla aseatae33.rrp.a4Ra�a a Hama tram e.4 ea�oefa a A.
DiatrM Or R•1; WyU pan"
The North 6n• a SMImf S4 Two. 33L Rim" Mum Rdolhartam"
The SWm 6w of swim 77. Twp. 314. Raga BS"' � odea. Vic. CRabmPR
SamThe NarthwafSecNwt3S,Tw.334Rwp Oct. 1477. iffl.
358+
VERO BEACH PRESS•JOII
VERO BEACH PRUWOURHAL
PDblbkedWeekly
Vass Beack, Indian Rim County, Plarids
COi1NTY of INDIM trim
iTATI M fL01UDA
Bells tM orrdersierwd authorRr permnallr epWarod J. J. Schwevub Jr. rYlw a+ mos
beNA
atom dwt he q Buthuss Mansaer of dw Vero Beed. Pros-lrpnn+t. o +res5 na.sWPP.
ENsB
m"
W Vas Baadr b Indian I�Uar/C�oun�t4, F4IaWa: nut Iha attedmd a:P► of edwMi�sw:t
- f. Nie mesas of
Cow was Dut'
now to .6d "www"m the ISP= of ,mac �l i $,t.�a,.9 7 Jp)
WIN
AiRaR {wNhes ell elut the 6eid Vero Beech Prewloornet te s twwspow pubtRlyd at
ifdien Rire< C�'mty, and the the tela r--ww ;8==
Vom Beach, in wid
been mmhtmuly pubBstwd b nfd Mien Rive, Cwnty. Fbdde, VAMMY and fus bear entered
el ncerrd den mall matter M the poet oN VsropByep= oft "diinrtaehed wnty4 F
!ar I Period of aw t'77r rwnt WaceeNng ther paid re, Wamited anY oeesan,
he hn nei
Terporotien osr ditcauntr Sav+ that � f� �-
rdfaro, cpnmission W rotund for rite iwRl7tNs oecurina
in rrewsNPer.
1LariwO ter pubikatmn the sold
f�i.
S1tam a ad atfbwawd bdae fa of .1T1,-
dd
1 RAautn)
ICak of Ow QN0 GOW4 uwzum,R,)rer pima fbrtdel
LEGEND
A AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
R -I SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
C-1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
M-1 RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL
PREPARED SYt
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
Nonce33eirhwweit+oi+Pewen:iriuo'e:nime'oi
Nance IS HEREBY GIVEN mat M, 1 -ria
alert Ri9e, cm
Board a C9Var Com' The Norm /63'Ot Sectiep Tb. Tw0.7ffi. Reap
missbmn will hada Pottle P— we an Sag Irm9 West N tae (rest HpYWP.3 . Bm 01
yon", November 71, 1978 of 1:30 o'ciWY I-951
4m. ro me Canary Commissba Ream of rm The NWM633•PI SWIM S3. TwP.374 RAMP
ndi- Rive, cab" ca "IN... Vero Besas,
Pwride, for proposed toaarp cMrrges on me „The NWth6walsectbo S4TWILMRapgP
fatarrne deurthed PraPertw6. at vrMch time.
pert.es m mferest omi eMmw stun save an TAe ESSt n r d Sec"bo 14 Twp. AS. Reap
oppWiamfrtpMhard: _ 398:
A. Tne Seom 16P el SSCHYn H, Trp. 355. 3987 ealf ]7!• M Secllae A. Tp. 31L Rasp
Range 388r ae seroned from C•1, Ca --hl a A.
The Nath 660'o/SKNW >e, Twp.135, QonPe AytcuTA.lturat Pistrktl AND
The !bate "r ad Sec"M 74 Trp. 314 RAMP RarrPa 398 West 3m• of 5mtbe O. Tey. 714
3TM ISWmffCel Sectbe 3r, Tr0.3f4Ropy � Wnt3m'ot
Sed 34 T.P. $74 Rapp
�Tlrosamla aseatae33.rrp.a4Ra�a a Hama tram e.4 ea�oefa a A.
DiatrM Or R•1; WyU pan"
The North 6n• a SMImf S4 Two. 33L Rim" Mum Rdolhartam"
The SWm 6w of swim 77. Twp. 314. Raga BS"' � odea. Vic. CRabmPR
SamThe NarthwafSecNwt3S,Tw.334Rwp Oct. 1477. iffl.
358+
VERO BEACH PRESS•JOII
J PROPOSED ZONING
REZONING AREA
0
WIN
Rim
in,
ENEIM
J PROPOSED ZONING
REZONING AREA
0
S
ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT THE COUNTY HAS
ADVERTISED THE HEARING TODAY WITH A MAP SHOWING THE AREA INVOLVED
AND YNCLUDING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE AREAS SUBJECT TO REZONING. HE
STATED THAT THE CLERK, PURSUANT TO STATUTE, HAS SENT A DIRECT.MAILING
NOTICE TO THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS AS EVIDENCED BY HER SWORN
STATEMENT, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES OF THIS MORNING S HEARING
AND IS AGAIN INCORPORATED IN THE MINUTES AS PERTAINING TO OSLO ROAD
AND 43RD AVENUE. COPIES OF THE NOTICES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK.
NOV 2 11978
51
1
9
37
F
0
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
I, Freda Wright, Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Indian Fiver County, Florida, did on October 18, 19789
pursuant to direction of the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, mail the attached notice, Exhibit A,
to the persons listed at the address indicated reflecting
proposed re -zoning of their property as set forth in composite
Exhibit B. Also enclosed with the notice the maps of the
existing and proposed re -zoning of SR 512 and SR 510 and
Oslo Road and 43rd Avenue, Exhibit C.
In :fitness whereof I have hereunto set my hand
and seal this day of October, 19.78.
FREDA :-1RIGHT, CLER CIRCUIT COURT
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this -14ay of October, 1978
X/
fJ t ry PubYfc
My Commission expires:
NOTARY MLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1932
QED THRL GEN.R.'A INS. UNDERWI;ITERi
r+
NOV 211978
BOOK 37 PA.GE 37-7
tt�
1 A
i WILL/\I.d_ X. SILL0 I, .IMI:-, ..
I
K, Uww S. SCHMUCKEti
(,`�� .• ( R. DON QEESON
. tai .r. U JENNINGS. Administrator 2145 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32140
October 1.3, 1978
.,:Gilbert E. & Mary E. Smith �
` Rte. 1 Box•1026
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
RE: Proposed rezoning of property oxi each.side of State
Road 510 and 512, Indian River County, Florida
Dear Property Owner:
In compliance with Florida Statute 125.66, the following
is a Notice of Public Hearing for rezoning, as initiated by
the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission, so
that the zoning will be more in keeping with the existing,
use and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The legal description
of your property, which is under consideration, and maps of the
existing zoning and rezoning, are attached for your irformatfon.
A Public Hearingin relation thereto; will be held by the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
in the County Commission Room, in the'Indian River County Court-
house, Vero Beach, Florida on November 21, 1978 at 9:00 o'clock
A.M. f
Sincerely,
Freda Wright
Clerk
FW:ef
Enclosures
t
•
NOV 2x.1978
BOOK 37 PAGE37-0
J
{ �i:i': ✓lid S. 51
A. DON U,�
Vero
2145 14th Avonue ---
JENNINGS. Administrator
,
PROPERTY OWNER:mi th,lGilberBox E. and Mary E.
Fellsmere, Fla. 32948
RANGE 37E
LEGAL`..DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: SECTION Oo,TW'16391S, RA
0001
All lying in Indian River County, Fla.
Fellsmere Farms Co. Sub. Tracts 1639, 1640, 1641, 1i 2, 1643 lying North
of road be rezoned from C-1, Commercial
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: SECTION 0p,TWP5441S, GE 37E
Ool-RANGE
All lying in Indian River County, Fla.
1554
Fellsmere Farms Co. Sub. The Sout1549x, androf 15 155acts 0, less 1001ft15strip5of,land
and all of Tracts 1547, 1548, parallel to and
off E. side of said Tracts, the W. line of the strip being
600 ft. side
froof line of said Trs. and Trs. 1548 to 1554 inc. be, rezoned
from C-1, Commercial to A -Agricultural. {
t
• wl
' y
• P
J FAGS
NOV 21197
•
NOV 211978
N -i sir '� •,. .
PROPERTY OWNERS - 43rd AVE.
REZONING STUDY - OSLO ROAD
TO SOUTH COUNTY LINE
Durrett, Forrest M.
606 5th Avenue W.
Springfield, TN 37172
Graves, Jr., W. C. & Audrey
Box 517
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Shulock, Michael F. & Ellen F.
2966 59th Avenue
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Tripson, John R. & Charles R.
Sexton
P. 0. Drawer 1208
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Bishop, Robert C.
4701 N. Federal Hwy.
'Suite C-10
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Graves, Jr., W. C. & Audrey
P. 0. Box 517
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Graves, Jr., W. C. & Audrey
P. 0. Box 517
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Sexton, Charles R.
P. 0. Drawer 1208
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Troiano, Michael & Mary Ann
5801 S. W. 44th Terrace
Miami, Florida 33155
Graves, Jr. , W. C. & Audrey
Box 517
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Moody, Troy & Margaret
'
Box H
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Schawelson, Robert & Sandra I.1Qri-nom
2 Horse Hill Road
Brookville,
Glen Head, N. Y. 11545
Jo Bar Farms, Inc.
Box 788
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
NOV 211978
r
J
V
PROPERTY OWNERS - OSLO ROAD REZONING
STUDY - 122nd AVENUE TO 43rd AVENUE
Withers & Harshman, Inc.
Cook;. Jr., R. H.
P. 0. Box 1299
710 Riomar Dr. ,
Sebring, Fla. 33870
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Aqua Linda Corp.
Barnes,.Thomas Marshall (et al)
Att.: Mr. Walter Thayer
P. 0. Box 846 Grove 11
110 West 52st Street
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Room 4600
New York, N. Y. 10020
Durrett, Forrest M.
606 5th Avenue W.
Cocoa Cola Co.
Springfield, Tn. 37172
Attention: Tax Dept-
eptP. 0. Box 247
P.
Helseth, Phillip R., Jr. and Karen and'
Auburndale, Fla. 33823
Philip R. and Patsy E. Helseth
Box 53
R. W. Graves, Inc.
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 1172
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Quade, Vincent F.
P. 0. Box 547
Houck, Philip H. (TR)
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 3569 Beach Station
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Packers of Indian River, Inc.
Box 2468
Keene, R. Bruce & Barbara J. (et al)
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
856 Lake Howell Rd.
Maitland, Fla. 32751
Nolte, David C.
P. 0. Box 3521
Cardinal Groves, Inc.
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 365
Greenville, Ky. 42345
O'Rouke, Joseph E. and Judith T.
Rt 1 Box 65R
Morris, L. Allen, Trustee
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
KAI Properties
1000 Brickell Bldg. 12th Floor
S.T.B. Corp.
Miami, Fla. 33131
c/o. Walter S. Buckingham
P. 0. Drawer 1208
Moore, W. Wallace,'Jr.
Vero.Beach, Fla. 32960
3408 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20016
Blue Goose Growers, Inc..
• P. 0. Box 589
Newman, Robert W. (et al)
Fullerton, Ca. 92632
Time & Life Bldg. Room 4016
Rockefeller Center
Lykes Pasco Packing Co.
New York, N. Y. 10020
P. 0. Box 97
•
Dade City, Florida 33535
Knight, C. Reed, Jr. and Jan. R.
1306 29th Street
Gracewood, Inc. (et al)
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 370
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Helseth, Jr., Phillip R. & Karen E. and
Philip R. and Patsy E. Helseth Knight, C. Reed and John R. and
Box 53
Jean L. Gould
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
P. 0. Box 6310
. Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Miller, Howard L. and Gladys Beatty
105 Cedarwood Park
Aiken, S. C. 29801 .
Prince, Philip H. Celeste Orr
1052 Otis Blvd.
Spartanburg, S. C. 29302
Banyan Groves, Inc.
Rt. 1 Box 257
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
r
J
I
i
I
707�
F-5,
moo
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT THE
.FIRST AREA TO BE CONSIDERED IS THE AREA FROM THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SECTION
19, TOWNSHIP 33, RANGE 38, WHICH IS 122ND AVENUE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 660'
BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF OSLO ROAD MOVING EAST TO THE
CENTER LINE OF 1-95.
THE EXISTING ZONING IN THE AREA IS C-1 COMMERCIAL, AND THE
EXISTING LAND USES IN THE AREA ARE IN GENERAL AGRICULTURAL OR VACANT.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING IS TO A -AGRICULTURAL, AND THE REASON FOR
THE CHANGE IS THAT THERE IS AN AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL AREA WITHIN THE
COUNTY THAT FAR EXCEEDS THAT WHICH CAN BE USED IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FELT THE AREA IN QUESTION HAS LITTLE REASON TO BE
COMMERCIAL AS THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS THAT MAKE IT A NATURAL
COMMERCIAL AREA. THERE IS NO INTERCHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 1.-95,
AND HE DID NOT FEEL IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE COMMERCIAL IN THAT AREA,
ALTHOUGH IT WAS DISCUSSED AND COULD BE IN THE "TASTER PLAN FOR SOME FUTURE
TIME. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS AGRICULTURAL IN THAT AREA, AND IT IS
RECOMMENDED THAT THE AREA BE REZONED TO AGRICULTURAL.
COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF THERE IS ANY INTERCHANGE EVER
CONTEMPLATED AT OSLO ROAD AND 1-95, AND THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT WE HAVE
NO INDICATION THAT THERE IS.
COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT WE TRIED DESPERATELY TO GET
AN INTERCHANGE THERE, BUT WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD.
BILL GRAVES CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING BANYAN GROVES.
HE STATED THAT THEIR GROVE IS RIGHT NEXT TO 1-95, AND HE FEELS THEY HAVE
BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE THERE I.S GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF 1-95. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE DOT WANTS 0.3 ACRES
FROM THEM, AND THEY ARE JUST WAITING FOR THE TIME WHEN THE PROPERTY MAY
BE REZONED TO AGRICULTURAL BECAUSE IT WILL NOT BE WORTH AS MUCH. MR.
GRAVES STATED THAT HE DID NOT SEE HOW THE BOARD CAN SAY THERE IS TOO MUCH
COMMERCIAL LAND - WHO IS THE JUDGE? HE CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD HATE TO
SEE IT GO FROM AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL AND -BACK AGAIN AND WOULD
LIKE IT TO REMAIN AS IT IS.
59
BOOK •
NOV 2 11978
0
9
r
COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED WHETHER HE WOULD FEEL THE SAME IF THE
STRIP TO BE REZONED WERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF I-95, AND MR. GRAVES STATED
THAT HE WOULD STILL ARGUE THE POINT, BUT WOULD NOT FEEL QUITE SO STRONGLY
ABOUT IT AS HE WOULD NOT FEEL IT WAS, DISCRIMINATORY.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT AGRICULTURAL IS A
HOLDING ZONE AND NOT A PERMANENT USE OF THE LAND. THE BOARD RECOGNIZES
THAT THERE IS A TIME WHEN IT BECOMES ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE TO DEVELOP
LAND IN CITRUS, AND THIS IS A HOLDING ZONE WHICH CAN BE CONVERTED AT A
FUTURE DATE,
MR. -GRAVES STATED THAT HE WOULD RATHER HOLD IT THE WAY IT IS
PRESENTLY HELD. HE NOTED THAT AT ONE MEETING HO PEOPLE WERE PRESENT,
ALL WITH THE SAME VIEWPOINT.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF SIR. GRAVES WOULD FEEL BETTER
ABOUT IT IF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN SHOWED THE GENERAL VICINITY
AS BEING COMMERCIAL, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO GET A REZONING LATER
AND MR. GRAVES STATED THAT WOULD BE A POOR SECOND CHOICE.
C. REED KNIGHT, JR., NEXT APPEARED AND NOTED THAT HE HAD A
PIECE OF PROPERTY HE SOLI} IN THIS AREA AND SOLD IT ON THE PRETENSE IT
WAS COMMERCIAL. HE ALSO NOTED THAT AT A MEETING HELD A FEW WEEKS AGO
ABOUT HO PEOPLE WERE PRESENT, AND NO ONE WAS IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE
COMMERCIAL ZONING. HE STATED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD THE
MEETING, AND IT WAS PRETTY APPARENT TO MOST PEOPLE THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT
TO BE CONFUSED BY THE FACTS AND THAT THEIR MINDS WERE MADE UP BEFORE THEY
CAME TO THE MEETING. HE STATED THAT HE ASKED THEM IF THEY WERE AWARE
OF THE FACT THAT OSLO ROAD WAS PROPOSED TO BE PAVED OUT TO THE DIKE LINE.
HE DID NOT FEEL ANYONE REALLY HAD ANY OBJECTION WEST OF THE INDIAN RIVER
FARMS DIKE LINE AND NOTED THAT OCEAN SPRAY IS IN THERE, AND THE PRISON
AND THE DISPOSAL AREA, HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE IS A RED LIGHT ON
RANGE LINE ROAD AND OSLO NOW, .AND THE AREA IS BUILDING UP. MR. KNIGHT
STATED THAT HE DIDNIT WISH TO HAVE LOTS OF LITTLE COMMERCIAL AREAS ALL
OVER THE COUNTY, BUT FELT THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS DEFINITELY AN INDUSTRIAL
AREA. AS TO THIS BEING A TEMPORARY HOLDING ZONE, HE STATED THAT
ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS THE VARIANCE BOARD HAS IS THAV IT IS COSTLY AND TIME
CONSUMING TO CHANGE BACK AND FORTH FROM AGRICULTURAL TO INDUSTRIAL.
.4
S
m
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT MR. KNIGHT SAID HE WAS NOT
IN FAVOR OF HAVING LITTLE POCKETS OF COMMERCIAL ALL THE WAY BACK FROM
I-95 TO U.S. 1.
MR. KNIGHT FELT EVENTUALLY THIS IS ALL GOING TO BECOME
COMMERCIAL JUST LIKE PAST 43RD AVENUE OUT TO THE CITY LIMITS.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED HE MIGHT AGREE IF 1-95 HAD AN
INTERCHANGE,
COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T HAVE AN
INTERSECTION AND WE DO NOT SEE ONE IN THE FUTURE, SHE DOES THINK OSLO
IS GOING TO BE A MAIN THOROUGHFARE IN THE COUNTY. SHE ASKED WHAT MR..
KNIGHT WOULD THINK OF A B-1 PLANNED BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH IS A
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, BUT A LITTLE MORE RESTRICTIVE AND REQUIRES A 75'
SETBACK OFF THE MAIN ROAD. SHE FELT THIS ACTUALLY PROMOTES A HIGHER
GRADE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
PSR. KNIGHT STATED THAT HE WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS, BUT DID
KNOW THAT ABOUT THE ONLY THING LEFT IN THE CITY LIMITS FOR INDUSTRIAL
IS THE AIRPORT PROPERTY. HE NOTED THAT IF WE ARE TO GROW, WE MUST HAVE
INDUSTRIAL AREA.
RALPH LINDSEY APPEARED REPRESENTING ROBERT NEWMAN, AND STATED
THAT MR, NEWMAN REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD KEEP THIS PROPERTY COMMERCIAL
FOR HIS PLANS INTHEFUTURE. THAT AREA NOW IS IN CITRUS, AND MR. NEWMAN
HAS PLANS FOR A PACKING HOUSE.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON WHETHER THIS IS ALLOWED IN AGRICULTURAL
ZONING. MR. REDICK FIRST STATED THAT AGRICULTURALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES
ARE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS IN AGRICULTURAL ZONING, BUT THEN NOTED THAT THIS
DOES NOT INCLUDE PROCESSING OPERATIONS.
ROY HOGAN NEXT APPEARED AND STATED THAT HE AGREED WITH SIR.
KNIGHT THAT FROM 1-95 WEST TO THE ST. .JOHNS DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 98TH ST.,
SHOULD REMAIN COMMERCIAL THE WAY IT IS. HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT
BELIEVE IN HAVING JUST A LITTLE AREA REMAIN COMMERCIAL BECAUSE THOSE
PEOPLE OUT THERE NEED SERVICES AND NOW HAVE TO COME ALL THE WAY TO VERO.
EVEN NOW SINCE WE HAVE THE OCEAN SPRAY INDUSTRY, THE PRISON AND THE DUMP,
THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC'ON THAT ROAD, AND HE FELT IT WILL HAVE TO BE
A COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE IN THE FUTURE. THEREFORE, HE WOULD LIKE TO
SEE IT REMAIN THE WAY IT IS.
61
D
m
CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THIS BOARD MUST MAKE THE DETERMINA-
TION AS TO WHERE THE'BEST AREA IS FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND STATED HE DID
NOT FEEL IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ANYONE TO HAVE MILE AFTER MILE
OF STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MANY REASONS. HE AGREED THAT IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 1-95 AND OCEAN SPRAY THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT DID NOT FEEL IT NEEDS TO EXTEND ALL THE WAY
OUT TO THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT OR THE FULL LENGTH OF THE ROAD. HE FELT
THERE IS ENOUGH COMMERCIAL ON THAT ROAD TO BE EQUIVALENT TO THE COMMERCIAL
IN THE WHOLE CITY OF VERO BEACH. THE CHAIRMAN CONTINUED, THAT BASICALLY.
AS IT STANDS NOW, IF ANY OF THOSE OWNERS WISH TO COME .1-N AND PULL A
PERMIT AND PUT IN A GAS STATION, THEY CAN DO IT. THE BOARD MUST DECIDE
IF THAT IS THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THE AGRICULTURAL PEOPLE REALLY WANT
OR WHETHER IT IS PROPER FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THE CHAIRMAN HOPED THAT
IT WILL BE A LONG TIME BEFORE THAT AREA WILL BE USED FOR ANYTHING BUT
AGRICULTURE AND FURTHER HOPED THAT BY THE TIME COMMERCIAL IS NEEDED, WE
WILL HAVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR A METHOD TO ADDRESS THE NEED
PROPERLY. HE SAW NO PROBLEM WITH ALLOWING SOME COMMERCIAL ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE INTERSECTION.
MR-. REDICK STATED THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION IS
RECOMMENDING THAT THE ENTIRE NORTH PART OF SECTION 25 AND 30 AND THE SOUTH
OF SECTION 24 BE LEFT ZONED COMMERCIAL AND THAT THE INDUSTRIAL AREA BE
LEFT EAST OF I-95. THIS WOULD LEAVE TWO MILES OF COMMERCIAL ON THE SOUTH
SIDE AND ONE MILE ON THE NORTH SIDE, PLUS THE M-1 DISTRICT.
IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL USE BEING MADE OF THE
C -I AT ALL AT PRESENT.
C. REED KNIGHT, JR., CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AGAIN AND STATED
THAT HE SPOKE EARLIER AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN AND NOW WISHES TO SPEAK AS
A PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNER OF LAND IN THE SECOND AREA TO BE CONSIDERED
THIS AFTERNOON. HE STATED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE BOARD'S POSITION]
THAT ORIGINALLY THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED IN A HAPHAZARD MANNER, AND THIS
MUST BE CORRECTED AS THE COUNTY IS GROWING SO FAST. HE FURTHER NOTED
THAT HE REALIZES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED,
BUT STATED THAT HE FEELS THERE HAS BEEN SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE
PLAN WHICH WAS PRESENTED ORIGINALLY JUST AS A GUIDE AND NOW WILL BECOME
NODI 2 11978
62
potx 37 .
J
LAW. MR. KNIGHT CONTINUED THAT OSLO HAS HAD THE HIGHEST GROWTH RATE
IN THE COUNTY. OCEAN SPRAY HAS JUST PUT A PLANT IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK
AREA; HERCULES PECTIN HAS JUST PUT A MILLION DOLLAR WELL IN THE AREA
WHICH MAKES IT THE MOST DESIRABLE FOR DISPOSAL OF CHEMICAL WASTE IN THE
UNITED STATES. HE STATED THAT THIS HAS CAUSED A TREMENDOUS INQUIRY
FROM PEOPLE WISHING TO BUILD INDUSTRIAL PLANTS IN THIS AREA. MR. KNIGHT
STATED THERE WILL BE A NEW CENTER AT OSLO AND U.S. 1; THE CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTE IS GROWING; AND THE PAVING OF OSLO ROAD FROM I-95 TO THE
DRAINAGE DISTRICT INDICATES THAT THE STATE THINKS THIS IS A GROWING AREA.
HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HAD DONE THEIR
HOMEWORK BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EVEN KNOW THIS ROAD WAS GOING TO.BE PAVED,
MR. KNIGHT CONTINUED THAT HE FELT THE NEW ZONING PROPOSED WOULD BE
VERY MUCH SPOT ZONING BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE C-1, SKIP AN AREA,AND THEN
HAVE MORE C-1. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDED ZONING
WAS APPROVED ONLY BY A 3-2 VOTE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WOULD
ACTUALLY MEAN THAT BASICALLY ONE PERSON WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHANGE
IN ZONING, WHICH HE DID NOT FEEL WAS DEMOCRATIC. HE NOTED THAT IF THIS
PROPERTY WERE TO BE CHANGED TO AGRICULTURAL, THE VALUE WOULD DROP, AND
PEOPLE COULD BUY IT AND BUILD A HOME ON A FIVE ACRE PIECE.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF MR KNIGHT WERE INDICATING THAT HE
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE AGRICULTURAL CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL, AND MR.
KNIGHT STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK POINTED OUT THAT IT IS NOT THE USUAL
PROCEDURE FOR COMMERCIAL TO COME IN FIRST AND THEN RESIDENTIAL - IT
IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. HE CONTINUED THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME THE ENTIRE
AREA IS AGRICULTURAL IN USE. HE STATED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEMS
TO HIS KNOWLEDGE IN CHANGING ANY OF THE PLANNED AREA TO RESIDENTIAL. HE
FELT ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY WAY FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT YOU WILL GET
ANY MAJOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA IS IF YOU FIRST HAVE A
MARKET FOR THAT COMMERCIAL AREA. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR NOTED THERE IS
NO MARKET FOR COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA BECAUSE THERE IS NO POPULATION TO
BE SERVED. HE FELT THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARDS RECOMMENDATION FOR
REMOVAL OF THIS AREA TO THE WEST IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO
MARKET FOR COMMERCIAL IN THE AREA IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
63
NOV 21 1978
F�. L FJ
I
s
COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE IS CURIOUS ABOUT THE PAVING
OF THIS ROAD WEST AND ASKED IF THE TRAFFIC COUNTS JUSTIFY THIS.
COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ROAD IN
THE FARM -TO -MARKET PROCEDURE, AND IT IS ON OUR PRIORITY LIST. IT IS
NOT STRICTLY THE STATE WHO WANTS THIS; WE WANT IT ALSO,
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF THE BOARD WANTED TO WAIT AND VOTE ON
THE MATTERS TOGETHER OR MAKE DECISIONS SEPARATELY.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT COMMENTED THAT IN SOME WAY WE HAVE TO
REDUCE THE GENERAL TOTAL ACREAGE FOR COMMERCIAL ALONG OSLO ROAD. THERE
IS JUST TOO MUCH OF IT. HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF
RESTRICTING ALL THE COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST OF 1-95; THAT HE FELT THERE
SHOULD BE SOME B-1 TO THE WEST.
COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED THAT 1-95 DOESN'T ACTUALLY PRESENT
A BARRIER.
MR. HOGAN POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD WOULD BE CUTTING OUT SIX
MILES IF THEY CUT OUT THE COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST.
COMMISSIONER Loy SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMERCIAL BE LEFT. FROM
1-95 OUT TO 90TH AVENUE ON THE WEST SIDE.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE WOULD RATHER SEE IT PLANNED
BUSINESS, BUT THAT CANNOT BE DONE RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE FELT THAT TO EXTEND THE
COMMERCIAL TO 90TH AVENUE WAS A LOT OF TERRITORY, AND HE WOULD VOTE TO
GO HALF THAT FAR,
PHIL HOUCK INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE OWNS PROPERTY IN SECTION
27 AND PRESENTLY THE NORTH HALF IS ZONED COMMERCIAL JUST AS IT WAS WHEN
HE BOUGHT THE LAND, AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ROAD HAS BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL
SINCE 1955, HE FELT IT HASN'T HURT ANYTHING AND WHY CHANGE IT?
CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE REASON IS THAT WE CANNOT HAVE
MILE AFTER MILE OF STRIP ZONING THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COUNTY.. HE POINTED
OUT THAT ZONING IS NOT AN INHERENT RIGHT YOU HAVE WITH YOUR PROPERTY,
AND CONTINUED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY MAY HAVE BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL,
IT HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED AS COMMERCIAL BUT AS AGRICULTURAL, AND MAYBE
THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE ZONED. YOU CAN ARGUE EITHER WAY.
64
F , i 37
MR. HOUCK THEN DISCUSSED THE USE OF THE ROAD, COMMENTING THAT
THE 1-95 TRAFFIC HAD BEEN DIVERTED ONTO IT AND THAT IT IS A`TRAFFIC
STREET AND A LOGICAL PLACE TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ZONING.
COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT HE BASICALLY WAS REFERRING.
TO 1-95 EAST, WHEN HE REFERRED TO THE BY-PASS.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SIEBERT, THAT THE SOUTH 660' OF SEC. 19, TwP. 33S, RANGE 38E;
THE NORTH 660' OF SEC. 30, TwP. 33S, RANGE 38E;
THE SOUTH 660' of SEC. 20, TwP. 33S, RANGE 38E;
THE NORTH 660' OF SEC, 291 TwP. 33S, RANGE 38E;
THE SOUTH 660' OF SEC. 21, TwP, 33S, RANGE 38E;
THE NORTH 660' OF SEC. 28, TwP. 33S, RANGE 38E;.
THE SOUTH•660' OF SEC. 221 TwP. 33S, RANGE 38E; AND
THE NORTH 660' OF SEC. 27, TwP. 33S, RANGE 38E;
STOPPING AT 90TH AVENUE;
BE REZONED FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO A -AGRICULTURAL
IN LINE WITH THE BOARD'S EFFORTS TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF OUR
COMPREHENSIVE MASTER LAND USE PLAN�TO CUT DOWN THE•COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT
ARE NOT BEING USED,AND SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT FOR REASONS OF GOOD PLANNING.
COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT HE IS WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH
AN EXTENSION OF COMMERCIAL ON THE WEST, BUT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE
SHOULD GO SO MUCH FURTHER ON THE EAST SIDE. HE NOTED WE HAVE GOT A
' STRIP NOW GOING FOR THREE MILES, WHICH IS A BIG HUNK OF PROPERTY. HE
FELT POSSIBLY JUST A MILE ON EACH SIDE MIGHT BE PREFERABLE.
COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT ON THE EAST YOU HAVE A LITTLE
DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH EXISTING USES, AND POINTED OUT THIS MOTION ONLY
DEALS WITH THE AREA WEST OF 1-95.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONER LYONS VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
AREA 2 - SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO EAST OF 1-95 FROM 66TH AVENUE TO
THE CENTER LINE OF 43RD AVENUE.
MR. REDICK NOTED THAT WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THE NORTH SIDE
WHICH IS ALREADY ZONED AGRICULTURAL, NOR ANYTHING BEYOND 43RD. HE NOTED
65
NOV 211978 jn7m489,
J
0
THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FELT THAT THEY LEFT SUFFICIENT
COMMERCIAL IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA AND THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC REASON
THIS AREA WAS PARTICULARLY SUITABLE FOR COMMERCIAL. THEY, THEREFORE,
RECOMMEND THAT FROM THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 30 TO 43RD AVENUE BE.CHANGED
FROM C-1 TO AGRICULTURAL.
REED KNIGHT, .JR., INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK IN REGARD TO HIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS IN THIS
SECTION AT THE CORNER OF 58TH AVENUE AND OSLO ROAD, HE STATED THAT HE
FEELS THIS IS A VERY PRIME INTERSECTION BECAUSE IT GOES TO AND FROM THE
INDUSTRIAL PARK AND IS ALSO THE FIRST THROUGHWAY TO RT. 60. TRAFFIC ON
IT COMES ALL THE WAY FROM WABASSO AND FELLSMERE. HE NOTED THAT THIS
INTERSECTION NOW HAS A BLINKER LIGHT AND HE FEELS IT WILL HAVE A RED LIGHT
PRIOR TO THE INTERSECTION AT 43RD BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC GOING TO THE
INDUSTRIAL PARK, MR. KNIGHT, THEREFORE, FELT THE PARK SHOULD HAVE SOME
COMMERCIAL ZONING TO SUPPORT IT AND THAT THE COMMERCIAL ZONING SHOULD BE
AT THIS INTERSECTION. HE STATED THAT THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD BE STUDIED
AND UPDATED TO THE PRESENT CONDITIONS BEFORE THE PROPERTIES ARE REZONED
AND FELT THE REZONING AT THIS TIME IS BEING DONE WITHOUT THE PROPER
STUDY AND THAT TRAFFIC COUNTS AND DOT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT BEING
CONSIDERED. MR. KNIGHT STATED THAT HE DOES NOT FEEL THE MASTER PLAN IS
PROPERLY DEFINED AND IF AGRICULTURAL IS TRULY A HOLDING ZONE, IT SHOULD
BE SO DESIGNATED, BECAUSE UNTIL IT IS, WE CANNOT ACCEPT IT FOR A REALITY.
HE FEARED THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT
AND EXPENSIVE TO CHANGE IT BACK. IN REGARD TO B-1 ZONING, HE STATED THAT
HE IS ALL IN FAVOR OF A 75' SETBACK BECAUSE HE FEELS OSLO WILL SOME
BE FOUR-LANED. HE SUGGESTED THAT THIS MATTER BE TABLED UNTIL THESE
IDEAS ARE FINALIZED AND CHANGED.
COMMISSIONER LYONS INQUIRED WHAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL VENTURE
HE WAS THINKING ABOUT FOR THIS INTERSECTION, AND MR. KNIGHT STATED THAT
IT WOULD BE A SERVICE AREA FOR THE INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH POSSIBLY A
CONVENIENCE STORE, A REPAIR SHOP, ,ETC.
ATTORNEY STEVE HENDERSON CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING
BOB AND NANCY COOK, WHO HAVE A 40 ACRE TRACT IN SECTION 29. HE STATED
THAT HE AGREED WITH MR. KNIGHT ABOUT THE INTERSECTION AT 58TH AVENUE AND
BOOK 3 7 PAGE uu
ml
B
V 4
.r
OSLO, BUT DID NOT AGREE THAT IT WOULD DEVELOP SOONER THAN THE INTER-
SECTION AT 43RD AVENUE. MR. HENDERSON ASKED WHY THE REZONING WAS TAKING
PLACE NOW TO IMPLEMENT THE MASTER PLAN AND WHY IT COULDN'T WAIT UNTIL THE
PLAN IS ADOPTED. HE STATED THAT THEY SEE LITTLE'BASIS FOR STOPPING
THE C-1 AT THE EDGE OF SECTION 30 AND NOT CONTINUING IT AND ALSO DO NOT
SEE THE RATIONALE OF STOPPING TWO MILES FROM OCEAN SPRAY INSTEAD OF ONE.
HE POINTED OUT THAT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE COOK'S PROPERTY IS
HYATT'S PACKING HOUSE, ONE OF THE FEW EXISTING USES OUT THERE. HE
DISCUSSED THE NEWNESS OF THE PACKING PLANT AND FELT IF IT IS IN AN
INDUSTRIAL ZONE, THE ZONING ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT SHOULD STAY,
COMMERCIAL.
T. M. BARNES, JR., APPEARED REPRESENTING HIS FATHER WHO HAS
OWNED PROPERTY IN THIS AREA FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS. HE STATED THAT HIS
FATHER IS IN THE CITRUS BUSINESS AND PLANS TO CONTINUE, BUT HE FEELS
VERY BETRAYED BECAUSE THE ZONING HAS BEEN CHANGED BACK AND FORTH. HE
NOTED THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE PROPERTY WILL ALL STAY CITRUS BECAUSE
OF THE PRESSURES FORCING THEM TO CHANGE, AND THEY WOULD PREFER, TO HAVE
THE PROPERTY LEFT AS IT IS. SNR. BARNES CONTINUED THAT THEY ALSO FEEL
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE THEY ARE RIGHT AT 66TH AVENUE ON THE
BORDERLINE OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA AND DO BELIEVE THIS IS ARBITRARY.
MR. BARNES FELT THERE WERE SOME ALTERNATIVES TO THE PLANS WHICH WERE
OFFERED AND ALSO FELT SOME OF THE DECISIONS IGNORE SOME VERY BASIC
ECONOMIC ASPECTS. HE NOTED THAT THE BOARD IS SAYING THERE ARE NO MARKETS
FURTHER WEST, BUT HE FELT THIS IS BEING DETERMINED BY THE BOARD'S ACTIONS.
HE NOTED THAT AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD'S PUBLIC HEARING THERE WAS
A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PRESENT, AND HE FELT THIS IS AN INSTANCE
OF HOW GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RESPOND TO THE TAXPAYERS. MR. BARNES POINTED
OUT THAT JUST BY REDUCING SO MANY MILES OUT IN ST. .JOHN'S MARSH, YOU j
HAVE CUT OFF.SIX MILES OF COMMERCIAL. HE STATED THAT THESE DECISIONS
HAVE A FAR REACHING ECONOMIC IMPACT AND THAT IT IS NAIVE TO SAY IF ACROSS
THE ROAD THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED COMMERCIALLY AND THEIRS CANNOT, THAT
THERE IS NOT DEFINITELY AN INFLUENCE ON THEIR LAND. HE CONTINUED THAT
MARKETS AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY BY THE
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE, AND THEY WANT IT TO STAY AS IT IS.
NOV 210978
67
t?�K 7 pAu
I
9
VINCENT QUAY INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE OWNS PROPERTY ABOUT
1,000' WEST OF 43RD AVENUE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. WHEN HE BOUGHT THIS
PROPERTY IT WAS COMMERCIAL. HE CONTINUED THAT HE HAD TO TEAR DOWN ABOUT
1500 TREES BECAUSE OF SOME INFECTION, AND IT WOULD NOT PAY HIM TO PUT A
GROVE IN AT HIS AGE. HE FELT THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD DOWNGRADE HIS
PROPERTY AND THAT HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GIVE IT AWAY. IF IT REMAINED
COMMERCIAL, HE COULD BUILD MINI -WAREHOUSES, ETC., AND HE, THEREFORE,
WISHED TO HAVE HIS 40 ACRE TRACT REMAIN ZONED COMMERCIAL.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT MR. QUAY HAD THIS PROPERTY UP
FOR SALE WHEN IT WAS COMMERCIAL AND THERE WERE NO TAKERS.
MR. QUAY STATED THAT HE HAD A HIGHER PRICE ON IT FOR COMMERCIAL,
AND COMMISSIONER SIEBERT FELT, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NOBODY DID PURCHASE
IT, IT WOULD INDICATE THERE REALLY ISN'T THE DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL IN
THAT AREA.
PATSY HELSETH CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND STATED THAT SHE AND
HER HUSBAND OWN EO ACRES IN THIS AREA AND WISH TO GO ON RECORD AS OPPOSING
THE PROPOSED REZONING. SHE NOTED THAT THEY ARE OLD TIMERS AND HAVE HAD
GROVES HERE SINCE THEY WERE STARTED AND THEY FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT
THE WHOLE THING. THEIR PROPERTY IS ON BOTH THE SOUTH AND NORTH SIDES OF
OSLO ROAD.
REED KNIGHT, SR., COMMENTED THAT MOST OF THIS CITRUS GROVE IS
OLD GROVE AND IS ON THE WAY OUT. SOME OF IT IS FROM 40 TO SO YEARS OLD.
THE NEW GROVES ARE ON LAND THAT IS UNDESIRABLE BECAUSE DOLLARS ARE
INVOLVED. HE NOTED THAT THEY HAVE OFFERED MORE MONEY THAN CITRUS PRICE
FOR PROPERTY NEAR THE INDUSTRIAL AREA, AND OTHER LAND THEY TRIED TO BUY
HAS BEEN PULLED OFF THE MARKET. MR. KNIGHT STATED THAT.WHEN YOU CHANGE
THE ZONING DOWN, YOU DEVALUATE. HE THEN SPOKE OF PEOPLE SPECULATING FROM
LOOKING AT THE LAND USE i•IAP.
COMMISSIONER Loy WISHED TO HEAR DISCUSSION ON 43RD AVENUE AND
FELT THAT PART OF.IT IS GOOD LOCATION FOR COMMERCIAL.
MR. REDICK STATED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A NEW COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING A LAND USE CAPABILITY
ANALYSIS TO TRY TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY AND WHAT THE BEST USES ARE.
NOV 211978
BOOK 37 FnE392' 39
0
IN REGARD TO THE INTERSECTION AT 58TH AND OSLO,MR. REDICK CONTINUED
THAT THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT THE AREA IN A DIFFERENT MANNER THAN THEY
HAVE BEEN AT THE PRESENT TIME, AND HE FELT VERY STRONGLY THAT THERE WILL
BE SOME COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL AND THAT -INDUSTRIAL WILL BE EXPANDED.
COMMISSIONER LOY FELT THAT 43RD OUT TO I-95 IS A BONA FIDE
COMMERCIAL AREA, WITH A POTENTIAL FOR B-1, AND THAT IT WILL SOME DAY
BE FOUR LANED.
COMMISSIONER LYONS STATED THAT IT BOTHERS HIM THAT -WITH C-1
YOU CAN HAVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT UP TO THE ROAD.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE, TOO, WOULD LIKE TO SEE
SOMETHING IN WRITING STATING THAT AGRICULTURAL IS A HOLDING ZONE, BUT
ASKED)IF WE SHOULD LEAVE THE AREA TO THE SOUTH COMMERCIAL, THEN WHAT
ABOUT THE AREA TO THE NORTH — ALL OF A SUDDEN ARE THEY AUTOMATICALLY
ENTITLED TO COMMERCIAL ALSO? HE FELT IT IS ARBITRARY TO SAY IT IS ALL
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. HE THEN DISCUSSED HAVING COMMERCIAL AT ALL FOUR
CORNERS OF THE INTERSECTION.
REED KNIGHT, .JR., NOTED THAT THOSE WHO ALREADY HAVE COMMERCIAL
DON T WANT TO LOSE IT; THE OTHERS DON T HAVE IT YET, WHICH HE FELT IS A
DIFFERENT SITUATION.
AREA 3 — THE WEST SIDE OF 43RD AVENUE FROM 660` SOUTH OF (OSLO
ROAD TO THE SOUTH COUNTY LINE. AREA 4 — THE EAST SIDE OF 43RD AVENUE
FROM 660' SOUTH OF OSLO ROAD TO THE SOUTH COUNTY LINE. AREA 5 — THE
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF OSLO ROAD AND 43RD AVENUE.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD.
CRAIG BAKER APPEARED REPRESENTING MICHAEL TROIANO WHO OWNS
PROPERTY ON TRIPSON TRAIL. HE STATED THAT MR. TROIANO APPROVES THE
PROPOSED REZONING FROM C-1 TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. MR. BAKER STATED THAT HE ALSO REPRESENTS
A MR. HOLSINGER WHO OWNS PROPERTY IN THE SAME AREA AND APPROVES THE PRO—
POSED REZONING.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK STATED THAT THE AREA TO THE WEST OF
43RD AVENUE IS RECOMMENDED FOR AGRICULTURAL. THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
WAS TO CHANGE THE EAST SIDE FROM C-1 TO R-1, AND HE NOTED THAT IN THE
HURRY TO GET ALL THIS TOGETHER, THIS ENTIRE STRIP WAS ALSO RECOMMENDED
TO THE BOARD BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AS AGRICULTURAL. IT
WAS ADVERTISED AS BOTH AGRICULTURAL OR R-1.
MR. BAKER CONFIRMED THAT THE LETTER SENT TO MR. TROIANO
INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE CHANGED TO EITHER A OR R-1.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK RECOMMENDED THAT THE STRIP FROM 660'
SOUTH OF OSLO ROAD ON THE EAST BE CHANGED TO R-1 RATHER THAN A. HE NOTED
THAT AREA 51 THE CORNER 330' EAST OF 43RD AVENUE AND 660' SOUTH OF OSLO,
WAS RECOMMENDED TO BE CHANGED FROM C-1 To A. AND HE BELIEVES THAT WAS
NOT THE INTENT AND RECOMMENDED THAT THIS.AREA REMAIN IN C-1 COMMERCIAL,
WHICH WOULD BRING THE COMMERCIAL ZONE RIGHT UP TO THE ROAD,
ATTORNEY HENDERSON NOTED THAT ABOUT HALF OF HIS CLIENT'S
PROPERTY, WHICH RUNS 1250' SOUTH, WOULD BE IN COMMERCIAL AND THE OTHER
HALF RESIDENTIAL.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FELT AREA -2 SHOULD BE
RESTUDIED.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REDICK NOTED THAT IF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GETS TOO BOGGED DOWN NOW IN DOING LITTLE STUDIES, THEY MAY NEVER GET AT
THE BIG ONE. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD PREFER TO DO THIS STUDY AS PART
OF THE OVERALL STUDY SINCE THEY NEED TO PUT TOGETHER AN INTEGRATED PLAN
THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE WHOLE COUNTY.
ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO REFER AREA 2 BACK TO THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT FOR FURTHER STUDY.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT THE EAST 330' OF SEC. 28, TWP. 33S,
RANGE 39E, LESS THE NORTH 660' THEREOF;
AND THE EAST 330' OF SEC. 33, Twp'. 33S, RANGE 39E
BE REZONED FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO A -AGRICULTURAL, AND THAT:
,. THE WEST 300' OF SEC. 27, Twp. 33S, RANGE 39E, LESS THE NORTH
660' THEREOF, AND
THE WEST 330' OF SECS 34, Twp, 33S, RANGE 39E
BE REZONED FROM C-1 COMMERCIAL TO R-1 SINGLE FAMILY.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, -SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT,
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO.. 78*0 INCORPORATING ALL THE
CHANGES MADE BY PREVIOUS MOTIONS RELATING TO OSLO ROAD AND 43RD AVENUE.
70
NOV 211978
K 7 PnE 39
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 78-40
_'Sko R ;
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 71-3 BY THE REZONING OF
PROPERTIES DESCRIBED BELOW AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; and
WHEREAS, there is a need in Indian River County to reduce
the number of acres zoned Commercial to prevent excessive
traffic congestion, business sprawl,excessive density of
commercial development and to reduce the amount of commercially
zoned property to a level consistent with the needs and growth
pattern of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the economic value of existing agricultural uses
shall be maintained;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Indian River
County Ordinance 71-3, being the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River
County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map be amended as
follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following
° described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
The South 660' of Section 19, Township 33 S, Range 38 E;
The North 660' of Section 30, Township 33 S, Range 38 E;
The South 660' of Section 20, Township 33 S, Range 38 E;
The North 660' of Section 29, Township 33 S, Range 38 E;
The South 660' of Section 21, Township 33 S, Range 38 E;
•Y 4
The North 660' of Section 28, Township 33 S, Range 38 E;
The South 660' of Section 22, Township 33 S, Range 38 E;
The North 660' of Section 27, Township 33 S,,Range 38 E;
The East 330' of Section 28, Township 33 S, Range 39 E,
less the North 660' thereof;
The East 330' of Section 33, Township 33 S, Range 39 E.
Be changed from C-1 District to A District.
sw 37 PnE
z
•
2. The West 330' of Section 27, Township 33 S, Range 39 E
less the North 660' thereof;
The West 330' of Section 34, Township 33 S, Range 39 E.
Be changed from C-1 District to R-1 District.
All with the meaning and intent as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect as provided by law.
This Ordinance shall take effect December 18, 1973.
NOV 2 11978
CHAIRMAN WODTKE ANNOUNCED THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO BRING UP AN
EMERGENCY MATTER RELATING TO QUARTERS FOR THE NEWLY ELECTED CIRCUIT
COURT .JUDGE.
ON %LOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED. BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT,
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADDED THE EMERGENCY ITEM DESCRIBED ABOVE TO TODAY�S
AGENDA.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE CONTINUED THE PROBLEM IS THAT ALTHOUGH .JUDGE
SHARPS CASE LOAD WILL BE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, HE MUST ESTABLISH A HOME
OFFICE, AND IT IS UP TO THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE THE .JUDGE WITH ADEQUATE
SPACE AND EQUIPMENT. WE, THEREFORE, NEED TO ACQUIRE AN OFFICE FOR HIM.
THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT HE HAD TALKED TO .JUDGE SHARP ABOUT THIS, AND THE
.JUDGE HAS INDICATED THAT WHATEVER FACILITIES WERE MADE AVAILABLE WOULD
BE ADEQUATE. HE WILL BE ROTATED DURING HIS SIX YEAR TERM, BUT HIS HOME
OFFICE WILL BE HERE. CHAIRMAN WODTKE THEN DISCUSSED VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
FOR OFFICE SPACE FOR THE JUDGE. HE STATED IT SHOULD BE A MINIMAL TYPE
OFFICE, AND ALSO NOTED THAT THE COUNTY MUST.SUPPLY A TYPEWRITER, OFFICE
SUPPLIES, ETC., IN FACT, EVERYTHING EXCEPT SALARY.
COMMISSIONER SIEBERT REPORTED THAT THEY -ARE LOOKING FOR THIS
OFFICE SPACE ON KIND OF AN EMERGENCY BASIS AND ARE TALKING ABOUT A ONE
YEAR LEASE IN THE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING WITH A 90 DAY CANCELLATIONAL
CLAUSE. HE NOTED THAT WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE BUDGET FOR THE
BASIC NEEDS AND MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT A SECRETARY WILL HAVE
TO BE IN THE OFFICE ALL DAY.
' COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO THE BARE
MINIMUM ON AN INTERIM BASIS UNTIL WE CAN MAKE OUR PLANS FOR THE HOSPITAL.
THE CHAIRMAN DISCUSSED WHERE THE MONEY WILL COME FROM, AND
IT WAS FELT REVENUE SHARING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR
COULD BE AUTHORIZED TO WORK WITH .JUDGE SHARP AND MAKE SOME ARRANGEMENTS
TO CONSIDER AT THE DECEMBER 6TH MEETING.
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON GAVE AN ESTIMATE OF APPROXIMATELY
$2,900 FOR SUPPLYING A TYPEWRITER, AN EXECUTIVE DESK, A CREDENZA, A -DESK
FOR THE SECRETARY, A CABINET FILE, CHAIRS, ETC. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED
ON A CONFERENCE TABLE, BUT MR. NELSON STATED THAT THE .JUDGE HAD SAID HE
DID NOT NEED ONE.
73
NOV 211978
7 PAGE397
ON LOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LYONS,
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PURCHASE A TYPE-
WRITER AND NEGOTIATE A LEASE FOR SPACE TO BE USED BY THE NEW CIRCUIT
COURT JUDGE AND INSTRUCTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR AND COMMISSIONER
SIEBERT MEET WITH .JUDGE SHARP TO DETERMINE THE OTHER NEEDS OF HIS OFFICE.
CHAIRMAN WODTKE REPORTED THAT SOME MAJOR CHANGES HAVE BEEN
MADE IN THE iMID-FLORIDA PURCHASE CONTRACT IN REGARD TO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE.
THE COUNTY IS NOW PROPOSING THAT MID -FLORIDA READ METERS AND BILL IN
DECEMBER AND POSSIBLY BILL UP TO AN ADDITIONAL THREE MONTHS FOR US ON
THEIR COMPUTERS WITH OUR READINGS. THE COUNTY WOULD BE COLLECTING THE
MONIES PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY, BUT IMID-FLORIDA WOULD DO THE BILLING FO'R
US UNTIL WE CAN GET THE BILLING ON OUR NEW COMPUTER PROGRAM.- WE WOULD
PAY THEIR COSTS OF BILLING, BUT WE WOULD NOT BILL FOR THEIR OLD ACCOUNTS,
WHICH IT WILL BE UP TO THEM TO COLLECT. HE STATED THAT WE DO NOT KNOW
WHETHER THEY WILL ACCEPT THESE CHANGES OR NOT, BUT THE COUNTY DOES NOT
WANT TO GET INTO THE POSITION OF BILLING FOR THEIR BAD DEBTS.
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT IT IS HIS INTENTION TO FORWARD THE
CONTRACT TO MID -FLORIDA TOMORROW.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE MEETING,
ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, IT ADJOURNED AT 4:40 O'CLOCK P.M.
ATTEST:
CLERK
74
,aK 37 €rA . `