The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/9/1981M. (FOURTH COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MEETING) WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1981 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE VERO BEACH JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CAFETORIUM, 1507 19TH STREET, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1981, AT 7:30 O'CLOCK P.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN; 14ILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD; ALFRED GROVER FLETCHER; AND DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; R. STEPHEN HOULIHAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. FOURTH PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LAND HSE MAP FOR INDIAN RIVER COU3T"Y THE HOUR OF 7:30 O'CLOCK P.'M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH -PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED, TO -WIT: SEP 9 F, PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR INlDtAN RIMER COUNTY ' . ...�.—.—. , ...•. <....._ ,... ------------------- AG AG LD1 LD2' Fit I 1 Boa PACE . R YYY q LD2 rr a:i 'ka•1 , '� "' *•�: Vii; LD�� AG 1 �p�^=tn•WW re�ttYi�t e*��itS":','i_f• t�••�.�i D _41 rtY.d►i< i. 'o ; , M 'S'.'y+ 4� = i'.:j i��fi�ti •�'•`'b jj .rears !1 S y .. .! i ; 3" ' �.._>aor. tit:.s�se �!ai�:+:sa.,'s�•.'a.i ...�`� 1 I � .... �..-.. ! � �� -� p 02 ; C r:•;a -'.�y •.<ft tiS�:-tq� Aim ILD -1 3 units per acre I o sa:«i =��-•t=s,:f� LD 6 AG •'D-2 12 " „ " , `.'SyY.4;t,t.�•:` 1 LD1: oY MAD 16 ^ f.� 1 2 I/t acre:. I 10 acres �"- ----------- If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record NOTICE OF REGULATION of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the OF. LAND USE proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is bas - The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County ed. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA proposes to regulate the use of land within the area shown in By /S/ Patrick B. Lyons, Choirmon the map in this advertisement. _ Public hearings on the proposal will be held on. Tuesday, September 8, 1981, and Wednesday, September 9, 1981, at 7:30 PA, The hearings will be held in different locations. The Tues- day, September 8th meeting will be held at the Vero Beach Senior High School, 1707 - 16th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. The Wednesday, September 9fh meeting will beheld at the Vero Beach Junior High School, 1507 - 19th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Copies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan are available at the Indian River County Planning and 'Zoning Department I ated t 2121 14th A V B h FI d OC a venue, we eQC OfI a. MEETING LOCATIONS: VERO BEACH JUNIOR HIGH i & VERO BEACH SENIOR HIGH t�M � n1OCE �-r-nTry.:s +at CTOIFeST J ��. t fXMJE �G ♦r.Olr3TRru. a WCON,STRaL/ erwca7-JvVn -alv VEnAS+TIAN ` \` MXD !$USI wNVErra Z --r L -r ae 1..1 Dsrrcr R YYY q LD2 rr a:i 'ka•1 , '� "' *•�: Vii; LD�� AG 1 �p�^=tn•WW re�ttYi�t e*��itS":','i_f• t�••�.�i D _41 rtY.d►i< i. 'o ; , M 'S'.'y+ 4� = i'.:j i��fi�ti •�'•`'b jj .rears !1 S y .. .! i ; 3" ' �.._>aor. tit:.s�se �!ai�:+:sa.,'s�•.'a.i ...�`� 1 I � .... �..-.. ! � �� -� p 02 ; C r:•;a -'.�y •.<ft tiS�:-tq� Aim ILD -1 3 units per acre I o sa:«i =��-•t=s,:f� LD 6 AG •'D-2 12 " „ " , `.'SyY.4;t,t.�•:` 1 LD1: oY MAD 16 ^ f.� 1 2 I/t acre:. I 10 acres �"- ----------- If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record NOTICE OF REGULATION of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the OF. LAND USE proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is bas - The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County ed. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA proposes to regulate the use of land within the area shown in By /S/ Patrick B. Lyons, Choirmon the map in this advertisement. _ Public hearings on the proposal will be held on. Tuesday, September 8, 1981, and Wednesday, September 9, 1981, at 7:30 PA, The hearings will be held in different locations. The Tues- day, September 8th meeting will be held at the Vero Beach Senior High School, 1707 - 16th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. The Wednesday, September 9fh meeting will beheld at the Vero Beach Junior High School, 1507 - 19th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Copies of the proposed Comprehensive Plan are available at the Indian River County Planning and 'Zoning Department I ated t 2121 14th A V B h FI d OC a venue, we eQC OfI a. MEETING LOCATIONS: VERO BEACH JUNIOR HIGH i & VERO BEACH SENIOR HIGH M. T CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED ANYONE WHO WISHED TO SPEAK TO FILL OUT A CARD AND TURN IT IN. HE THEN INTRODUCED THE BOARD AND STAFF MEMBERS AND EXPLAINED THE FORMAT AND PROCEDURE FOR THE HEARING. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED PAUL ROSSKAMP, MR. ROSSKAMP STATED THAT HE WAS FROM SURVEYING CONSULTANTS AND REPRESENTED THEIR CLIENTS, FST PARTNERSHIP. THIS GROUP SOMETIME AGO PURCHASED ABOUT 14 ACRES ON 43RD AVENUE AND 1ST ST. (R.D.CARTER ROAD). THEY PURCHASED THIS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE A PORTION WAS ZONED C-1 AND A PORTION ZONED RESIDENTIAL, AND THEY HAVE SINCE GONE INTO THE PLANNING STAGES WITH THE INTENT TO USE THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ALONG 43RD AVENUE FOR A COMBINATION TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX OF APARTMENTS AND OFFICE SPACE, THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN SHOWS ZONING INTO LD -2. THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT THE PRESENT ZONING BE MAINTAINED,BASICALLY BECAUSE ON THE WEST SIDE OF 43RD AT R.D.CARTER ROAD AND GOING NORTH, YOU HAVE MOBILE HOMES, TRAILERS AND A WAREHOUSE AREA, AND THEY DO NOT FEEL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SHOULD LOOK ACROSS THE STREET AT STORAGE BUILDINGS, ETC. CHAIRMAN LYONS INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT ALL SPECIFIC ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE THE PLAN IS ADOPTED; THE BOARD WILL NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY, BUT WILL HOLD THEIR COMMENTS UNTIL ALL PUBLIC INPUT IS RECEIVED. EARL SPYTEK WAS CALLED AND PASSED, WALT BURKETT SPOKE AS A HOME OWNER AND SMALL LAND OWNER. HE WISHED TO COMMEND THE BOARD FOR THEIR HANDLING OF THIS PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND USE PLAN AND FOR MAINTAINING A PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE DURING SOME OF THE VERBAL ATTACKS THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED AT THE VARIOUS HEARINGS. HE BELIEVED THE COUNTY COMMISSION HAS GONE THE EXTRA MILE IN PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY TO BE HEARD. MR, BURKETT COMMENTED THAT ESSENTIALLY THE MAIN ISSUE APPEARS TO BE HOW MANY PEOPLE THE COUNTY CAN ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATE. THIS QUESTION LED SOME TO A MATHEMATICAL EXERCISE IN DENSITY AND ACREAGES WHICH, IF YOU HAD A COUNTY WITH NOTHING IT IT, COULD RESULT IN A POPULATION OF 600,000. MUCH OF THE COUNTY, HOWEVER, IS ALREADY 3 Book PAE 410 SEP 9 1991 Boy 47 PAGE 411 DEVELOPED, SOME OF IT AT LOWER DENSITIES THAN ALLOWED, AND THIS WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ESTIMATING THE 6OOj000 FIGURE. FOR INSTANCE, IF HIS ACREAGE WERE DEVELOPED AS ALLOWED, IT WOULD HAVE OO PEOPLE, BUT IT ACTUALLY HAS ONLY 15. MR. BURKETT POINTED OUT THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT IS THE OFFICIALS DUTY TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS. HE FELT IT IS RIDICULOUS TO ACT AS IF. THIS IS DO OR DIE AND THAT WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT AS LONG AS PEOPLE CAN THINK AND REASON TOGETHER, WE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM, MR. TUERPE WAS CALLED AND PASSED. ERNEST KARCH OF GREY TWIG ROAD SPOKE OF DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLAN OF WHICH THE PLANNERS ARE AWARE, BUT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. MR. KARCH THEN QUOTED FROM THE FOLLOW- ING LETTER FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN TALLAHASSEE: L1 C9 STATE OF FLORIDA y n DEPARTMENT OF "VETERAN AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION OF LOCAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BOB GRAHAM Govcmur JOAN M. HEGGEN Secretary July 27, 1981 Mr. David M. Rever Planning and Zoning Director 2121 - 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Rever: 1 J L . /-: `.1ICH.-NU C. 6ARRETSON Dirtctur Pursuant to §163.3184, Florida Statutes, the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs has conducted a review of the proposed comprehensive plan for Indian River County. Our review indicated that your proposed comprehensive plan is adequate to meet the requirements of the law except as noted in the attached objections. Specific comments which provide the basis for our objections are shown in the attach- ment for your consideration and possible use, as well as additional general comments on the proposed plan. We would like to remind you that under the provisions of §163.3184(2), Florida Statutes, a written reply to our objections must be provided to this office within four weeks. We request that you provide us a copy of the adopted plan once the adoption process has been completed. If we may be of assistance, please contact us. SJcere 1y,, Michael C. Gar etson Director MCG/RFK/jp Attachments cc: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council BURE.' U OF LOCM_ GO\,T1X` NAENT ASSISTANCE 2571 EXECUTIVE CEX-rER CIRCLE, EAST • T.ALLAHASSEE. 110RIDA 3230-1 9:4) 3"�--.0;r L_ Bou 47 PAGE 412 F, Boa 47 PAPE SEP 1991 413 DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMENTS ON THE -PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY I. OBJECTIONS 1. The land use element does not designate proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for housing, business, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land as required by §163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. This element mentions a future land use map; however, no land use map was included with the materials submitted for our review. Further, we call your attention to the provisions of §163.3194(1), Florida Statutes, which states: "After a comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof has been adopted in conformity with this act, all development undertaken by, and action taken in regard to development orders by, governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such plan or element shall be consistent with such plan or element as adopted." If the County is to take three years to bring their zoning into conformance with the land use element (P65), they may not approve any development during the interim that is not consistent with the land use element. 2. The portions of the proposed sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water element that address sanitary sewer, drainage and potable water do not describe the needs and the general facilities that will be required for the solution of problems and needs as required by §163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes. The sanitary sewer and potable water portion of the plan does not indicate what facilities are presently in operation, their capacity and existing demand. Further, there is no information on projected future demand and the facilities that will be required to meet this demand. While some of the general planning philosophy appears sound, there is little guidance provided as a basis for decisions on future courses of action. The drainage portion of the plan contains some good policies but does not describe the needs and general facilities that will be required. The extensive areas covered by soils with very poor drainage characteristics (p. 20) are not identified, and a large catchment area is proposed (p. 20) as a prime location of new urban develop- ment. Further, since the County lacks a master drainage plan and the engineering capabilities necessary to ensure effective storm water management (p. 20), there appears to be a serious problem. For the County to proceed with land use planning and development without a better grasp of their drainage problems, real and potential, could result in the needless expenditure of funds to correct problems that could have been avoided by prior planning. 3. Fiscal proposals for capital improlements that will require the expenditure of public funds are not included as required by §163.3177(3), Florida Statutes. II. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Urban Service Area for Indian River County, Figure 2, in the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, and potable water element, appears to cover the barrier island east of the Indian River. Without a land use map we do not know what development density is proposed for the barrier island; however, based on policy statements in the land use element this area should be developed at a low density which could negate the need for urban services. f 2. The proposed housing element, while meeting most of the statutory requirements, does little more than identify some of the most serious needs. While there are 2,300 deteriorated or dilapidated housing units in the unincorpor- ated county area (p. 6) the Implementation Strategies only addresss rehabilitation of 76 dwelling units through 1983. Since the County already has twice as many housing units as Vero Beach and the County total is expected to double during the planning period, it does not appear to be rational to continue to rely on the Vero Beach Building Department for code enforcement (p. 12). 3. The proposed conservation and coastal zone protec- tion element does not include a survey of existing vegetation and wildlife that should be protected. The very general nature of many of the policy statements provide little guidance for the conservation, development, utilization, and protection of the natural resources of the area. 4. The proposed intergovernmental coordination element should be updated to reflect that the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs is responsible for the administration and review of plans under the LGCPA and the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget is responsible for the A-95 review process. The Division of State Planning was abolished on July 1, 1979. Further, this element should address coordina- tion with the County School Board. .5. The following developments of Regional Impact within Indian Fiver County were approved: Name La Mesa Indian River Trails Municipal Marina Lake Poinsett Martin Midway Type Residential Residential Ports Electrical Trans- mission Line Number ADA -674-002 ADA -674-105 ADA -1075-030 ADA -1074-004 (Pending) Village Green West Residential ADA -1081-020 and South 6. The following proposed developments projects have requested and received Binding Letters of Development of Regional Impact Status: Name Type Status Number Whispering Palms II Residential Not a DRI BLID-674-085 Sebastian Highlands Residential Not a DRI BLID-675-012 Sebastian Highlands Residential Not a DRI BLID-675-013 Sexton Grove Residential Not a DRI BLID-1081-032 Sea Oaks Residential Not a DRI BLID-1081-041 7. Under the provisions of §163.3211, Florida Statutes, the adoption of a local comprehensive plan neither exempts developers from DRI review, nor does it preclude the designa- tion of an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida,Statutes. i r 800X *47 PAGE 414 . I Box 47 fAr,E 415 MR. KARCH STATED.THAT WHAT HE HAS ATTEMPTED TO CONVEY IS THAT THE PLAN WHICH THE PUBLIC IS BEING URGED TO APPROVE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE LETTER OF THE LAW. IT IS INADEQUATE AND DOES NOT CONTROL EXPLOITATION OF OUR RESOURCES. HE URGED THAT THE PUBLIC DE- MAND THAT THE PLAN BE REVISED AND THAT A REFERENDUM BE HELD. LOUISE WOOLLEY OF 9350 NORTH U.S.1, WABASSO, OWNER OF D & L MARINE, SPOKE AGAINST COMMERCIAL NODES IN AN IMPASSIONED MANNER, SHE NOTED THAT THE NODE PLANNED IN THEIR AREA TAKES IN HALE GROVES, BUT IT DOESN T TAKE IN THEIR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. MRS. WOOLLEY QUESTIONED WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE ONLY EIGHT PODS ON U.S.1 AND ASKED WHETHER ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES SHOULD HAVE TO LEAVE BECAUSE YOU DON T WANT BUSINESS. SHE FELT THE PLAN HAS BEEN PARTIAL TO ONLY A FEW, AND NOTED THAT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FOODTOWN CONGRATULATED THE BOARD, BUT HE WILL NOT BE NON=CONFORMING WHILE HER BUSINESS WILL. MRS. WOOLLEY EMPHASIZED THAT THE PLAN IS DEFINITELY DISCRIMINATING AND FELT THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE A `SHOW -CAUSE" MOTION PASSED AGAINST THEM. MRS. NINA HAYNES OF SMUGGLERS COVE QUOTED FROM THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM FROM THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, CITING INCONSISTENCIES IN THE PLAN, ETC: _I To: Courc i 1 f ILS; chars I l e; 6-A I^ro,n: Staff 0at0-: July 17, 1931 Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Cor.preir?nsiv. ! "1=:n o ,jai e;y _ Indi -n River County Introduction Tho Treasure Coast Regional Planning Coutnici1 has the statutory responsibility, under the provisions of the Local Goverr.-ent Cc::,prehensive Planning Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, to ravie;•► all l,;cal goverment comprehensive plans and to as to the consistency of such plans with regional plans and policies. In addition, this review is used to provide corr-m?nis that will assist local governments in complying �.Jth the require ents of the Act. Indian River County has submitted its Comprehensive Plan for Council revie•;r. Ovcrvievi The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act requires that a completed compre- hensive plan include the eight element_, listed below, plus a coastal zone protec- tion element, if appropriate: 1. A future land us-- Element; 2. n traffic circulation element; 3. A general sanitary sewer, solid ;caste, drainage, and potable Vra -ar elenent; 4. A conservation element; 5. A recreation and open space ele-ent; 6. A housing el emn-t; 7. An intergovernmental coordination element; 2. A utility element. The Act also requires that the plan satisfy the following overall requi r=_:12 -n is : 1. All el omen is of the plan must he consistent with e-rch other; 2. The comprehensive plan mast be ecunomic7,lly feasible ant; the economic assumptions upon w,'li ch it is bl::sed must be set out; 3. Those elements requiring ca;j i tal imp•rovei^eats MUs t contain fiscal proposals that inclu.dr:! esti!-,rated costs,priority rankings, and proposled funding sources; 4. The comnprehensive plan must incl-rde a sp-�ci fie policy st ►torrent coordinating future dlevelopi;.ent within thi jurisdiction with that of all adjacent municipalities, the county, the region, and the state; 5. The comprehensi va plan and its ellylprts, must i ncl uda recerrrznda.- tions for implementation of the plan or elements. PiaC- round Indian River County's p,rpulation a docade ailo v.as 35,99. Ey 1930, th:- liar da - tion had increased to 57,739. This is a 6101 ii.cr•ease in than County's popuI:irion over the past decade. Approximataiy 61;, of the County's population, just 35,600 people,live in the unincorporated areas covered by the plan. The plan is presented in a series of functional elements. They includ-e Intergovernmental Coordination, Land Use, Transportation, -Utilities, Cons-- vation and Coastal Zone Protection, Recreation and Oppn Space, Sanitary Solid Waste, Drainage and Potable Water, and Housing. SEP 9 1981 BOOX', 47 past 4� � r SEP 9 191 Boot 47 PAGE 417 _valuation Staff has reviewed th^ Indian River Co inty Comnrahensive Plan in accord:.nce %,ii th the requlrem'nts of the Local Cove Coiiipr'henSiYP_ Planning r�Ci L:'d adapted Counci 1 procedures for revi e,rr. The fol i otqi ng cci gents aro presented for Council consideration: 1. Required Elements The Plan contains policies dealing with all element areas as required by the Act. The foiiO:Jin3 .'.i:rei,'tS (�,ntc.;i` ('ith:_r' a very r;,inimal level of detail or no background information: 1) land use 2) -transportation 3) sanitary sewers, solid ~Taste, drainage, and potable mater 4) conservation 5) coastal zone management This information is essential in describing*.the demands, needs and problems either presently existing, or those generated by future growth. Further, ttIis information should be utilized in addressing and providing justification for the problem statements set forth in the elements,,as well as the policies contained therein. Additionally, an identification Of future public improvements necessary to adequately acccmr.odate the future growth is needed. 2. Overall Requirements There is an apparent inconsistency between the Transportation and Land Use Elements regarding the proposed plan densities on the barrier island and the capacity of SR A -1-A. SR A -1-A is designated.an arterial. A typical arterial as defined in the Transportation Element is a 4-6 lane facility. However, the Element contains no proposed improvement to upgrade the present two-lane status of SR A -1-A. Therefore, there needs to be a clarification as to exactly what the proposed capacity of SR A -1-A is planned to be, as well as an assurance that the surrounding, development pattern and A -1-A will be supportive of each other. The Plan does not contain any fiscal analysis as required by the Act. Specifically, the Plan should contain fiscal proposals for any elements of the Plan that would require the expenditure of public funds for cap- ital improvements. The fiscal proposals should contain, at a minimum, the estimated cost of the improvements, a priority ranking relative to o-�her proposed improvements, and proposed sources of financing. 3. Consistency with Council Plans and Policies The policies as sat forth in the Plan are found to be consistent ar i th currently ador)ted regional plans and policies including Land Use, Housing, Coastal Zone and Energy. 4. General Comments The Plan was submitted as a set of individual plan elements. Although not statutorily required, the Comprehensive Plan would be strengthened greatly if it contained a section that attempted to pull all the elements together. At a minimum, it should include a brief overview, a summary of findings, and recommended policies and implementation strategies. The plan as presentA y formulated makes the document difficult to Us,-:- Each seEach individual plan element has a group of policies; however, witiiout considerable effort understanding the relationships bet.geen the various functional policies is difriurlt. i?�cnmmendation Tha COU -Cil accept the staff repot -t and aj'; rove its transmittal to Indian. giver County in fulfillment of the rcouirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. MRS. HAYNES FELT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF THIS PLAN HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY ANYONE AND OUR TAXES WILL RISE. SHE NOTED THAT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SAYS THEY NEED FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW WORKING FAMILIES TO LIVE HERE, BUT HIGHER TAXES WILL NOT HELP THE WORKING FAMILIES. RALPH SEXTON NEXT TOOK THE FLOOR. HE COMMENDED THE BOARD FOR THE WORK DONE ON THIS PLAN AND STATED THAT HE WISHED TO SUPPORT THE PLAN. MR. SEXTON EMPHASIZED THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND AS SUCH IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT THIS PLAN TOGETHER AND IMPLEMENT IT. HE FURTHER FELT THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE WHO WILL CONSIDER ALL THE VIEWS AND TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED. ISR. SEXTON NOTE` THAT HE HAS HEARD THAT THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY, BUT THIS IS DEMOCRACY AT WORK AND EVERYONE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO MAKE A SPEECH, SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, HOWEVER, A DECISION HAS GOT TO BE MADE, AND THE COMMIS- SIONERS ARE THE ONES WHO SHOULD MAKE IT. HE FELT CONFIDENT THAT THE BOARD WOULD MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND SUPPORTED THEIR EFFORTS. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE. CHAIRMAN LYONS WISHED TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT NOTES HAVE BEEN TAKEN, AND THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE COUNTY PIECE BY PIECE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THEY HAVE HEARD, WHAT THEY KNOW AND WHAT HAS.GONE ON BEFORE. THE CHAIRMAN ONCE AGAIN ASKED IF ANYONE ELSE WISHED TO BE HEARD, AND THERE WERE NONE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMIS- SIONER BIRD,TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED WHETHER IT IS THE INTENT TO CLOSE THE HEARING ON THE LAND USE PLAN OR THIS HEARING TONIGHT. CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT THIS IS THE CLOSING OF THE HEARINGS ON THE LAND USE PLAN AND REPEATED THAT HE INTENDED TO SUGGEST THAT WE NOW HAVE A SERIES OF MEETINGS, POSSIBLY THREE, IN WHICH WE DIVIDE THE COUNTY INTO AREAS AND AT THAT TIME CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS SEP 9 1981 11 �o� 47 ?AcE 418 r SEP 9 1991 BOX 47 mAA THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THOSE SPECIFIC AREAS, THESE WILL BE PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND IF THERE HAS TO BE PUBLIC INPUT, THEN HE FELT WE WILL HAVE IT. THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT WE HAVE A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT REPUBLIC INPUT TO THE LAND USE PLAN THAT WE NOW HAVE MET WITH THIS HEARING, AND HIS INTENT, HAVING MET THAT REQUIREMENT, IS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LAND USE PLAN. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK INQUIRED ABOUT ESTABLISHING A FORMAT FOR THE SERIES OF MEETINGS, AND THE CHAIRMAN FELT THAT COULD BE DONE AT A WORKSHOP MEETING. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED WHETHER AT THE PROPOSED THREE MEETINGS TO ADDRESS SPECIFICS, WE WILL RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT FROM ANYONE OEHTER THAN THE CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNERS, CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED HIS OPINION IS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THE PUBLIC INPUT AS & GENERAL THING. AS WE APPROACH A PROBLEM, IF IT TURNS OUT WE NEED MORE PUBLIC INPUT, THAT IS FINE, BUT HE DID NOT WANT TO SAY WE WILL HAVE FROM NOW TO INFINITY ONE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER ANOTHER. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, THE CHAIRMAN THANKED EVERYONE FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:10 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK 12