Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/6/1982Wednesday, January 6, 1982 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, January 6, 1982, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; William C. Wodtke, Jr., Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Alfred Grover Fletcher; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Coordinator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director; Neal Bird, Bailiff;.and Janice Caldwell, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Commissioner Fletcher led the Pledge of Allegiance to -the Flag, and James Ratcliff, Pastor, Christ Methodist -by -the -Sea, gave the invocation. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the agenda. Attorney Brandenburg requested adding an item concerning a letter from D. T. Salter regarding Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc. On'Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to add this emergency item to the agenda. Administrator Nelson requested adding a proposed resolution to honor Charles Parks, who will be retiring as Recreation Director to the City of Vero Beach. Commissioner Bird suggested that the resolution could be adopted today and presented to him at,a later date. After some discussion, it was determined that Commissioner Bird would bring the matter up under his items. JAN 61982 EOox 48 �F4 E. JAN 61982 890A 48 FA;;F 417 Administrator Nelson requested adding preliminary plat approval of the Meadows Subdivision. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to add the emergency item concerning the Meadows Subdivision to the agenda. Commissioner Scurlock discussed the resignation of the Planner and felt it would be a good idea that a policy be set as to the position of Planner. He suggested having a workshop session before hiring a new Planner. Administrator Nelson interjected that he would be asking for a workshop concerning the Kelton reorganizational report. The Board agreed that it would be put on the agenda at the earliest possible date. Chairman Lyons requested adding an item regarding the unemployment office. On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to.add the item concerning the unemployment office to the agenda as an emergency item. ADOPTION OF MEETING POLICY PROCEDURE The Chairman reviewed his following memorandum; 50 2 TO: Board of Countv Com- DATE: missioners December 22, 1981 FILE: Schedule of Commission Meetings FROM: Pa i r�4cZ B Lyons CYREFERENCES: r�ian s_ In response to my memo of December 17, 1981, the following procedure will be followed,' -effective the first meeting in January, 1982. Regular Commission meetings will be held the 1st and3rd Wednesday of each month and will dispose of priority matters first. Any matters left over at 5:00 P.M. wz-14 be considered at 9:00 A.M. on the succeeding Wednesday. (2nd Wednesday of the month) Fire- Districts and other District meetings, such as, Taxing Districts and so forth w+±-1 be held on the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 9:00 A.M., when a need has been established. If County Commission matters are held over, they will be considered first. The 4th Wednesday of the month will be held open for Special Meetings, such as controversial Public Hearings, meetings with Consultants, and also for items not completed on the 3rd Wednesday. This meeting will start at 9:00 A.M. After a brief discussion, it was determined that the Board would set a time limit of 1:00 o'clock P.M. for the meetings held on the second Wednesday of the month. It was suggested that the wording in the memorandum be changed from "will" in lines 6 and 10 to "may." On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted the meeting policy procedure as recommended by Chairman Lyons in his memorandum of December 22, 1981, as amended. APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS Attorney Brandenburg then presided over the meeting and explained the procedure for the Appointment of JAN 61992 JAN 61992 600K. 8 PA, r,F 41 the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board; and the Reappointment of the County Administrator. Chairman. Chairman Lyons nominated Commissioner Scurlock as Commissioner Wodtke nominated Commissioner Fletcher as Chairman. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the nominations. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Commissioner Bird voted for Commissioner Fletcher. Commissioner Fletcher voted for Commissioner Scurlock. Commissioner Scurlock voted for Commissioner Scurlock. Chairman Lyons voted for Commissioner Scurlock. Commissioner Wodtke voted for Commissioner Fletcher. Attorney Brandenburg announced that by a.vote of 3 to 2, Commissioner Scurlock was elected Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman.Scurlock then nominated Commissioner Fletcher as Vice Chairman of the Board. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the nominations. Attorney Brandenburg announced that Commissioner Fletcher was approved as Vice Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners by acclamation. Chairman Scurlock commented that he would not accept, if nominated next year, the Chairmanship of the Board as he felt each of the Commissioners should share that responsibility. He then expressed appreciation to 4 � � r Commissioner Lyons for doing an outstanding job as Chairman during the past year. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the Board reappoint Neil Nelson as County Administrator. Chairman Scurlock commented that he had had some problems with the Administrator in the past but in the last several months he was very pleased with the Administrator's progress and felt he deserved a hand. The Chairman recommended that, in the future, the Board establish a date, before the budget session to evaluate and consider both compensation and reappointment for the County Administrator and the County Attorney. Commissioner Fletcher stated he would support Mr. Nelson; in the past he had let him know when he was right and when he was wrong, and he would continue to do so. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. A brief discussion followed regarding the merits of having a roll call vote vs the spontaneous vote of "aye" or "nay." It was determined to continue voting in the same fashion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 19, 1981. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 19, 1981, as written. JAN 61982 5 ZLW�; 420, _I JAN a 1992 ggoK F f 421 The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 4, 1981. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 4, 1981. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 4, 1981. Commissioner Fletcher discussed the last sentence on page 36 for clarification. Commissioner Bird referred to page 59, fifth paragraph, and suggested the Motion be amended to read, after "traffic": it, and that the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission be requested to post a sign at the entrance to Middleton Fish Camp at State Road 60 indicating that it is for boat launching purposes only." Commissioner Lyons modified his Motion to include the amendment on page 59, fifth paragraph. Commissioner Wodtke amended his second. Commissioner Fletcher referred to page 45 regarding the unanimous vote, and -requested the tape be researched to determine the vote. After researching the tape of the meeting, the Minutes should reflect that the Motion was voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher -Voting in opposition. Commissioner Fletcher referred to page 86, paragraph five, regarding the unanimous vote and requested the tape be researched to determine the vote. After researching the tape of the meeting, the vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, was correct as reflected in the Minutes. � s � The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously, subject to the amendment on page 59 and of research of the tape. CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Budget Amendment On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Budget Amendment, as requested by the Finance Director, for furniture and fixtures for the Courthouse and Administration Building as follows: (as discussed at the meeting of December 16, 1981.) If the approval is made to refund Federal Revenue Sharing for exoenses for furniture and fixtures for the Cour.t•h,)Use and Administration Building, the following transfer and budgLyt amendment must be made for the 5165,553.65. Account Title Account Number !ncrease Decrease Transfers Out 301-190-581-99.21 167,554. 59, 12'.1.53 Debt Proceeds 301-000-384-10.00 167,554. (Tn -erest) Transfers In 102-CC?0-?51-0.00 167,554. Const. Jail 102-qOc-523-66.39 70,000. The above infeJ' -atiCn Office Furnt. S ,^.nnies are *accounted, for. %0 JAN 61982 Equipment 102-22.0-519-66.4i 50,000. Reserve for Cont. 102-199-584-99.91 47,554 B. Condemnation Matter The following memorandum was reviewed by the Board: D center 28, 1981 -'TMJu : Hoard of County Covrti.ssioners of Indian aver County ,? ' 1"'114: Je f f ro}- 'K . La-ar r_c n , F in._ince Di rector :tee eject: Lndi«n River Cc.Lnty vs. E. T. O'Neill & Sons (Condc-nnation i,iatter) ;Aie total .award in the Bove case was as follaas : $50, ;50.00 W Ogc�rt for land taken) 21,616.53 (Costs and Attornevs fees) 1,702.71 (Interest) $73,799.24 Total (liocks pail la l.registry of ccurt %%--,:,rea ,re as .s fol.l: $,1',700-00 WrJginal pa7',ont) 59, 12'.1.53 (Second 1,702. 71 (Tn -erest) ;23.00) (Refulxi)_ _ $73,77)— ? Total The above infeJ' -atiCn is correct :3? i all ,^.nnies are *accounted, for. %0 JAN 61982 6004 P�f� _I JAN 61982 On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the preceding information from the Finance Director regarding the County vs. E. T. O'Neill & Sons. CONSENT AGENDA A. Pistol Permit On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the application for a permit to carry a concealed firearm for William'Earl Bartsch. B. Public Official Bond On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board unanimously accepted the Public Official Bond issued on behalf of Paul X. Parent as Hospital Board Trustee, as follows: ____Rospital__ u d__Trustee STATE OF FLORIDA, Countv of ...... India9--- iver............. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we,.__Paul_-.X.__farent-.......... as principal, and ..... Vnitem..St.aiies__Fi_re--- Irls-cance__Company--- _____________ as surety, are held and firmly bound unto .__.__Robert._Graham............... ........-....__------.._---__---_Governor of the State of Florida, and his successors in office, in the sum of .Fi.ve..Iho.usand_.k$a QQQ_Dll.�.._--.___Dollars, lawful money, for the payment whereof wellanti .truly to be made, we do bind ourselves, our and each of our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals, and dated this.___1b_th---------- day of_.___Hn�rember______ _., A. D. 19$1... THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That, where, the above bounden ...... Pau1..X._._P_r-ent----------- ------------------- =- -- __-__was, on the__..___!Eib ___..day of.__ KQYemt er __, A. D. 1961___ appointed -io-_the.__BQa_r_d__Qf_the_Ind-tan____Enver___Memor_i 1_Nas itaL�s►�r__Q_� h�_Faorida. to hold his office from the date of_ November 1§j-_ 1981 ----- _--- � - commission, until __ The_neA_Qe.ner_.a election__---- ---------- _--------- and until his successor is appointed and qualified, according to the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, If the said�Pa t�_1___X�__ParQ[►t _� _______���_ �___ _ ._ shall diligently and faithfully perform all the duties of said office as prescribed by law, this obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virt i 'i incl al Sign Here _ (SQL) Signed and sealed in presence of us: United States Fire Insurance CompanyHamilton G. Arden, Jr. Attorney -In -Fact Wit WitnesP The above bond is approved this ._________-- --------- da of ---------- _ _�2' _ �____ __ _._ ____, 19��✓ --------------- -- Chaim of the Bo rd of .County C ssioners. *n C t /4-1 c - - ----- — -------- County Commissioners. This bond is approved this --------------------day of -------------------- ------------------ ----------------------------- 19._... ----------- - ---- - -- - -------------------------------------- ------------ --------- -------- Comptroller. r q elec-6 JAN 6 7982 ROK '48 PAcA24 9 ATTORNEY WER JAN 6 1982 UNITED STATOES FI EFINSURANCE COMPANY PRINCIPAL OFFICE, NEW YORK, N.Y. !'r KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY a Cor- poration duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, and having its administrative offices in the Township of Morris, New Jersey, has made, constituted and appointed, and does by these presents make, constitute and appoint Hamilton G. Arden, Jr. and Beckett E. Waddell of Vero Beach, Florida, each its true and lawful Agent(s) and Attorney(s)-in-Fact, with full power and authority hereby conferred in its name, place and stead, to execute, seal, acknowledge and deliver: Any and all bonds and undertakings each in a penalty not to exceed the sum of Five Hundred Thousand _ Dollars (S 500 '000 ) SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS LISTED BELOW: Bid, Proposal and Final Bonds and Undertakings guaranteeing contracts for the construction or erection of public or private buildings, improvements, and other works and guaranteeing public and private contracts for supplies. l�- and to bind the Corporation thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds had been duly executed and acknowledged by the regularly elected officers of the Corporation at its offices in Morris Township, New Jersey in their own proper persons. This Power of Attorney limits the act of those named therein to the bonds and undertakings specifically named therein, and they have no authority to bind the Company except in the manner and to the extent therein stated. This Power of Attorney revokes all previous powers issued in behalf of the attorneys) -in -fact named above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the United States Fire Insurance Company has caused these presents to be signed and attested by its appropriate officers and its corporate seal hereunto affixed this 6th day of July 192-9— Attest: 979 .Attest: UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Assistant Secretary resident Richard A. AnneseHarry F. Batt STATE O Y) COUN Int it ss.: On A - Y day of 191-9.—, before the subscriber, a duly qua to No lic of a State of NewJersey, came -the above-mentioned Vice President and Assistant Sec of e n ted �t s Fire Insurance Company, to, me personally known to be *the officers described in, a who RW he eceding instrument, and they acknowledged the execution of the saint, and being by m u4-, wornand said, that they are the officers of said Company aforesaid. and that the seal :affixed pde nstrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company, and the said Corporate Seal and their signal ` tcers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Company. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal at the Township of Morris, the day and year first above written. _"EREERT H: LI.NDER (Signed) NOTARY. PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY (Swal) My Commission Expires April Notary Public i) -This Power of Attorney is granted pursuant to Article IV of the By -Laws of the UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY as now in full force and effect. . 1. ARTICLE IV Execution of Instruments. "The Chairman of the Board, Vice -Chairman of tl,�e Board, President, or any Vice. President, in conjunction with the Secretary, or any Secretary, if more than one shall be appointed by the Board, or an Assistant Secretary, shall have power on behalf of the Corporation: (a) to execute, affix the corporate seal manually or by facsimile to, acknowledge, verify and deliver any contracts, obligations, instruments. and documents whatsoever in•connection with its business including, without limiting the foregoing, any bonds, guarantees, undertakings, recognizances, powers of attorney or revocations of any powers of attorney, stipulations, policies of insurance, deeds, leases, mortgages, releases, satisfactions and agency agreements; (b) to appoint, in writing, one or more persons for any or all of the purposes mentioned in the preceding paragraph. (a), including affixing the seal of the Corporation." This Power of Attorney is signed and sealed under and by the authority of Article III, Section 9 of the By -Laws of the UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY as now in full force and effect. ARTICLE III Section 9 Facsimfle Signatures. "The signature of any officer authorized by the Corporation to sign any bonds, guarantees, undertakings, recognizances, stipulations, powers of attorney or revocations of any powers of attorney and policies of insurance issued by the Corporation may be printed facsimile, lithographed, or otherwise produced ... The Corporation may continue to use for the purposes herein stated the facsimile signature of any person or persons who shall have been such officer or officers of the Corporation, notwithstanding the fact that he may have ceased to be such at the time when such instruments shall be issued." CERTIFICATE State of New Jersey County of Morris I, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary of the UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing POWER OF ATTORNEY remains in full force and effect and has not been revoked and furthermore that the above quoted abstracts of Article IV and Article III, Section 9 of the By -Laws of the Corporation are now in full force and effect. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seal of the said Company, this ` day of a' 19 Fit. 203.0.131 (12-73) JAN 61992 By Assistant Secretary Ernest: E. Smith Aw 48 FAsF 426 JAN 61982Qo8 PAGF 427 D. Administrator's Annual Report On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the Administrator's Annual Report. Copy of this report is on file in the Office of the Clerk. E. Davis Temple Church Progress Report The Board reviewed the following memorandum: TO: 'The Honorable Board of ®ATE: December 28, 1981 FILE: County Commissioners FROM: Neil Nelson County Administrator SUBJECT: DAVIS TEMPLE CHURCH PROGRESS REPORT - 30 DAYS REFERENCES: The intent of this letter is to show what progress has been made toward renovating of the building structure belonging to Davis Temple Church group located at 3446 45th Place, Gifford, Florida. As of this date, Zoning Permit #18127..has been issued, the County Health Department has approved the water and septic system, and the building plans are being reviewed.:by the Building Department at City Hall. At this time, our recommendation is that no action need to taken by this Board, due to the progress being made. The property has been cleaned of trash and debris has been removed from the site. The Board of County Commissioners gave the church group a 90 day extension on December 2, 1981, with requests for progress reports every 30 days. This is the first of these reports. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the progress report. 10 C. Property Appraisal Adjustment Board Discussion followed regarding the per diem payment to members of the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board, consisting of Dick Bird, Dorothy A. Talbert, Don C. When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the previous Friday shall be designated as the holiday and when a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall'be designated as the holiday. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the 1982 Holiday Schedule as recommended by Personnel Director Hardin. 11 am 8 FAu 1428 Scurlock, Jr., Alfred G. Fletcher, and Richard Bolinger, who met in November, 1981. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the per diem payment to members of the Property Appraisal Adjustment Board. HOLIDAY SCHEDULE FOR 198.2 The following is the proposed Holiday schedule for 1982: HOLIDAY DATES DATES OFFICES CLOSED 1. Good Friday April 9th Fri., April 9th 2. Memorial Day May 31st Mon., May 31st 3. Independence Day July 4th Mon., July 5th 4. Labor Day Sept. 6th Mon., Sept. 6th 5. Veterans' Day Nov. 11th Thurs., Nov. 11th 6. Thanksgiving Day Nov. 25th Thurs., Nov. 25th 7. Fri. after Thanksgiving Nov. 26th Fri., Nov. 26th 8. Christmas Eve Day Dec. 24th Fri., Dec. 24th 9. New Year's Day Jan. 1st Fri., Dec. 31st When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the previous Friday shall be designated as the holiday and when a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall'be designated as the holiday. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the 1982 Holiday Schedule as recommended by Personnel Director Hardin. 11 am 8 FAu 1428 . JAN 61992 800K 43 fAc,r 429 VERBAL REPORT ON 16TH STREET STATUS Mike Orr, Traffic Engineer, came before the Board and stated that the 16th Street study is on schedule, and a written report will be available in February which will include three items: the number of lanes on 16th Street; intersection design, and traffic operations. PETITION PAVING PROGRAM The Board reviewed the following memorandum from the Administrator: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil X. nelson, County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS DATE: December 28, 1981 F1 LE: JLEC T: Petition PavingProgram - Special Assessment Ordinance REFEREUCES: On August S, 1981, the Board of County Connnissioners adopted Special Assessment Ordinance 81-27 which is primarily intended to set forth the basic requirements for the Petition Paving Program. There was no funding approved for this program at that time. As a result of this ordinance, the Board adopted Resolution #81-105 providing for the Paving,of.14th Avenue between 7th Street and 8th Street at an estimated- cost of $9981.88 on Dec. 16,1981. At the samic time, the Board requested the following information': 1) The•County Finance Director, via telephone prior to the December 16 Board meting, reco;imended a 12% annual interest rate on time pad -,vents. The Board requested justification for this amount. 2) A list of valid petitio;'`s received to date under the program. 3) A recommended funding amount to be set aside from the Road and Bridge Department Materials Account 4004 -214 -S41 -3S.39 or alternative means to pay for the cost of improvements during Fiscal Year 1951-82. This amount must include seed monev which will be reimbursed by the benefitted owners. Alternative funding recom�;.endations are also included. 4) An evaluation form for assigning project priority. This fora should be used by the staff to nwnerically rate the need for paving and prioritization can be recoimiended. .ALTE2\:%TIVES A\'D k\MYSIS The folloi;,ing valid petitions have been received as of Decel;ber 28, 19S1 for the Petition Paving ProcTram 1) 14th Avenue from 7th Street to 3th Street - length of project nppro:�. 700' - estim,ted cost $9,981.SS. 2) 13th Place east of 27th Avenue - - approximate cost - S6,000. - 12 length of project approx. 300 l.f. 3) 48th Avenue in Glendale Lakes Subdivision - Length of Project approx. 1300 l.f. - approx cost $26,000. ✓ 4) 47th Avenue in Glendale Lakes - length of Project approx. 1000 l.f. - approxim,ate cost $20,000. Tile residents of 44th avenue south of Walker Avenue sub;niitted a petition in :March, 1981, prior to adoption of th,e new ordinance. It is anticipated that they will submit a now petition under the neer Ordinance 1';'81-27 soon. The total estimated cost to pave the four roads for which we have received valid petitions to date is approximately $61,981.88 ($46,486.41 to be paid by benefitted owners, $15,495.47 to be paid by the County) The November 30, 1981 unencumbered Balance of Road and Bridge Department Materials Accotm t #004-214-541-35.39 is $54.6,779.00. This amount is anticipated to be expended as follows: Unencumbered Balance (11-30-81) $ 5462779. Projected E-mendi.tures Asphalt Resurfacing $ 200,000 Trafric Control Devices 30,000 Stripping 40,000 Asphalt Patching 10,000 Guard Rail 10,000 Subtotal 290,000 Projects Ongoing Waller. Avenue Paving (25 by Colulty) 20,000 R.D. Carter Rd. (Tentative approval by 50,000 Board) 18th Avenue South of Oslo Road to 18,000 Thompson School (25o by County) Powerline Road from 510 to Schumann Drive (Funding has not been approved) Subtotal $ 88,000 Total to be Expended by 378 000 above projects Unallocated Funds 168,779 RecomRiended funding for Petition 65 000 Paving Program Contingency (to be used .for Miscellaneous Expenses) $ 103,779 Also, the County has $ 1,081,738.27 available as of November 30, 1981 in Fund #101 Secondaiy Road Trust Fund. The funds available in this account can be applied to petition paving projects. An evaluation foan (copy attached) to assign priority rating to the petition paving requests has been prepared by the National Association of Coiuity Engineers. The staff recommends using this form with minor changes to evaluate priority. The staff is researching the interest rate to be applied to time payments. A report will be presented to the Board during the Jan. 6, 1982 meetinff. 0 RECO.M-NEVDATIONS JLND FUNDING Based upon an unencumbered balance (Nov. 30, 1981) of $546,7'9, in Account 7004-214-541-35.39 Road and Bridge Department Materials account, it is recd:ended that $65,000. be set aside for tl,e Petition Paving Program from said account. TI;is amount will provide seed money for the four projects now petitioned. If a higher priority project is petitioned, the Board will have the option of con- structing the higher priority project. 13 JAN 61982 n, c 48 Pd6F_.43 JAN 61992 I BOOK 4 8 P;,c,F ;3� Engineer Davis stated there was a question concerning the rate of interest to be applied to time payments. He recommended that $65,000 be set aside to fund the Petition Paving Program for this fiscal year. Discussion ensued about financing, and regarding the following sample priority evaluation form: COUNTY IMPROVEP4ENT NEEDS AND PRIORITIES ROAD DATA SHEET Needs Analysis Vllorked Out for Rural Arterial Road IDENTIFICATION PRIOF,iTY %_IOA1 'Y'SIS l 1 . noaci iVumcier 4. teCtlort nutllDer —,f rL— 1 -- - 2. Section length _�15 n 5. Log. miLL to %•� =' { 3. Federal -aid; Yes ( ), No (� i I CLASSI FI CA TION 6. Rural {,^r;erial (�-'" Local' ( 1 Urban ( } Coliector ( } SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS !Rural Local Roads only) 7, dumber of occupied dwellings per mile 8. Hail Route ( ), School Bus ( 1, Other (specify)_ ( } 9. Connects adjacent routes ( }. Stub route (no pts.) } TRAFFIC DATA 10. Current A.D.T. 4, Year 11. Prorected A.D.T. --?� Year I 12. SERVICE RATING INDEX ANALYSIS OF DEFICIENCIES DESIGN DEFICIENCIES 13. Terrain: Flat ( ), Roiling (v? Hilly—�-- 14. Remarks: – oLL 15. S surface Type (�!o F;�ir.ts} 16. _ - Suit C`YM1rldtfi (Max.G'J Pts.( r /6. 00 17. Shou'dcr i%!idt' ;;'.;::x. - 10 Fts '� -r– --C—�---- i 18.A4crage , saft� speed i:''.ax. - 2'0 Fts.) 37 � D—� I I 19�, Fiding Quality 10 9 7 5 4 ? 1 0 _0 LXC GOOD 4IR I POOR V.P. I 20, Structural I i Strength 20 18 1 ; 14 12 10' 8 6 it 2 0 EXC Gi OD ! i=A!R POORV.P. 21. Drainage I 1'' 1(i 1d 1, 10 F ij .1 2 Q EXC GOOD F,:R Y POOR 22 Total Condition Rating PRIORITY RATIA,G —� — I 23. Bast:G on Service R.,:irtu ar:d C.?nrdition F",tir ) TYPE OF IWROVEA:ENT 2•1. &J–No Cunc:trucno:i � Grad , Et;se, Bit. Surfacing 01 -Bit. Surfa6lig (,1;1i1) U9–Grad-_,, Base, Conc. Pavemunt i 02–Bit. 5urlaciriy !c,;rnp.) 10--P.Gr,de, E3ase & Bit. Surfacinri i u -Cur; r:9te P<w'rncnt 1 1- Grade, Base & Conc. PjVerne:1t 04-13 ase & B t.: ur,�:ii:� i^-P.rir3dc, P.B,jse& Bit. Surfa;:ing LJ-BJSe :.' conc. P,ibe'rlent 12--P.C.Gfjde, P.�,r,;d & conc. PJVf21;k.*r7t U::-P._�,:,cau i.it. Surt,n_ing 1-Ottti:r i tV _h�-�_ ��..;c ------ .�'' rl:ti 7i! (J •' -- r L ld-- - - Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board accept the recommendation as outlined in the Administrator's memorandum of December 28, 1981; that the money be paid back in two annual payments at 12% interest with no penalty for prepayment; that $65,000 be,transfered as per the following budget amendment for this.program; and that the priority evaluation form be approved: r_ Chairman Vice Chairman PATRICK B. LYONS WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. A. GROVER FLETCHER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. DICK BIRD District 2 District 4 District 1 District 3 District 5 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator Lawyers Title Building 2345 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 562-4186 To: Board of County Commissioners From) �ffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Re: Petition. Paving Program Secretary to Board Telephone: (305) 569-1940 January 25, 1982 The following budget emendment is necessary to establish a budget for the Petition Paving Program as recommended. I recommend the following budget: amendment to be adopted as part of the approval of funds. Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Transfers Out 004-199-581-99.21 65,000 Other Road Materials and Supplies 004-214-541-35.39 65,000 Transfers In 703-000-381-20.00 65,000 Other Road Materials and Supplies 703-214-541-35.39 65,000 J KB/dw JAN 61992 Boa pAr F 4 Z I JAN 61982 80' 4.$ - PA.c,F- 33 The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. ANNEXATION OF THE DUCK POINTE PROPERTY The Board next considered the following memorandum from the County Attorney: TO: Chairman and Members of the DATE: December 29, 1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Report on the annexation of the Duck Pointe Property by the City of Sebastian FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES: County Attorney The City of Sebastian adopted an ordinance on December 21, 1981 annexing the Duck Pointe Property. This writer appeared at the meeting of the City Council and made the following observations or objections: 1. The annexation creates an unincorporated enclave. The Florida Statutes Section 171.044 provides "The land shall not be annexed through voluntary annexation when such annexation results in the creation of enclaves". (the City is relying on a 1980 Attorney General opinion which indicates that the statute only prevents the creation of municipal enclaves) 2. The'property annexed is not contiguous to the municipality within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 171 et. sea. The Statute requires the land to be contiguous which means having a Substantial part of the Boundary of the annexed area coterminus with the municipality. In this case, of approximately 11,000 feet of boundary only 600 feet of the property is coterminus with the City limits (approximately 5.780). 3. The property annexed is not reasonably compact (see attachments) "Compactness" means concentration of a piece of property in a single area and precludes any action which would create enclaves pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. "_-any annexation proceeding in any County in the State s al_es 1 e igned in such a manner as to ensure that area shall be reasonably compact". The Duck Pointe Property could be considered as constituting a finger which also creates a County pocket or enclave. 4. The municipality does not have any plans or capacity to provide the property with additional municipal services. Law Enforcement patrols now provided by the Sheriff would be replaced by the City Police Department. There is a possibility that the property could be provided with water and sewer by a private developer regardless of annexation. Section 171 Florida Statures provides that "the purposes of this act are ... to set fol7th criteria for determining when annexations ... may take place so as to: (4) Insure that areas are not annexed unless �kmicipal Services can be provided to t rose areas S. The annexation of the Duck Pointe property has the potential of making traffic related lata enforcement more difficult. A traveler along US 1 will enter the City of Sebastian for a fete hundred feet, then leave the City for approximately three miles and then pass through this City once again for a distance of approximately 600 feet. 6. The legal advertizement published by the City of Sebastian for the annex- ation ordinance did not comply with Florida Statutes Section 286.0105. This section requires that each advertizement for a public hearing contain certain language. ALTERNATIVES Alternative # 1 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County could officially express their concern regarding the City of Sebastian's annexation policy and request a joint workshop. At such a workshop the City's annexation master plan could be analyzed in .Pieta of City and County goals and the ability of the City to provide municipal services to additional areas., Alternative #2. Request the County Attorney to file an action in Circuit Court to review the Duck Pointe Annexation. The proceeding would take the form of a petition for a writ of certiorari. This type of preceeding must be filed within 30 days of December 21, 1981. All legal work for this review process would., be handled by the County Attorney. Out of pocket costs to the County would be limited -to filing fees, Sheriffs service fees and court recorders fees. Alternatives 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive, the Commission may Nish to pursue both avenues simultaneously. item. The County attorney respectfully request direction from the -.Board on..this 17 Respe ull S i ted, :. Br andenbu g, o ty Attorne, D �' 1434 wi JAN 61992 �AP am 48 & PAic,43 5 A::atr�ss T:: L:7 e.: r� n :-6 Ai nra C,1 Bab Ce Did Amor Dr G 7 Ars S E 5 BraoOoct St C 5 C: 0.8 Braetwrr Tar G-7 t Arew Si E-6 &etiva D-3 ! \ AIT S: 0 5 Broo►aaee Ave G 7 J ; A; amu? , 9: D•7 ;�, \\ �• ,\ 6rooeeoQe Tr DJ Arab St DA Browning Tr D•7 Ammo Lail Brvonn C: E-8 Aare Ter E-5 Burne C-1 t` Lsape- St D-5 BY"WC AR D -E \�z \ Ea -r. 01 E{ La amonam S: EA 1 r` 6a re S. D 3 Cana*.' Ave C-5 E wtoa St E 5 Canal Cu E-6 Gants Ave E.6 Cane; St N&S 8aryan Si D 5 LL9 Baroaa St E$ Candie Ave GE \\e VA Earner St UJ Ceocn To, D-7 &reroot P. P WSW to F-6 \\ \ a 63rtr St C-6 Cassn Ter 0.7 11 Ba!ry Ave C-3 Caftimal Dr Efi \ Pav St C-7 Comm; Ter U$ \\ \\ Eavlront Ter D-7 Cmin Ta 0.8 \\ i Cayman Ad J-7 Cedar St DA ;x•y.�. \\ "T`7 Cemc Ave 0.6 rfg J•NYYC�171 \\ at'7 n1T1A Cefi rm Pd G1 C Central Ave 073 Central Ave N El ,. Cneuo Ave E•fi Chef Ave C-6 Cne'tenna:n St 0-7 SINS 1 `•' � `�°'` Churcn Ave D s Citrus Ave DA.H•11 Clair Ave e•7 CtlecGrooi Si D 7,8 r�r,..nA• SER• .w tit: Fist LTR yPRflr Clea!mon: S: IYC IILrY.vh esSEh.Sita.A.•,'[RARIA EMAMREAOFCOMMERCL •�� WJ�7` CIP4tenCS:EA "" nunA.7crvNAu \\£ v MELBA "a club Ct E-6 ISLAND atorcx Coconut St DA • :rr. cu '`y!. r•G7TlxRLASA \ .�, �\ sert m i Coco Burt: Le J-7 Mul ` ROLF CaCv AYE C-8 ,v i \\< Q I Cams S: O.S / r^�!� •,e \ I 1 Cote Ter C-6 \ O s I 3 �� Colunbra Ave E-5 A. <. saRASTu.snclAi\ n Co,.mbtzS:D•5 vuFYCA r ' CE ATER Ann \\ Q U C00:10k S: t_ R&A7 RAMI \ r!Af •r':l Sr - -. -' ��'�:',.• \ \ '7VATLE moans � CGY[-}ti:d Dr . s � i T•.-1 -�w�' -���:r n \\\ e, rax .S (ffJJJ el • •' E`x ' •`\, 1 ��\ �� Sona Pam C� I YCY•aj' ' a v \`` \ � 1 " _ r• icc \ ISLANDS PELICAN d L �\ ISLAND ROOSEVELT \ . \\ v �� ISLAv NORTH � r �� •� ,-... ,, �� \ PAUL \� ,•,,.• `\\BLAND- O!LSESNOE(j ISLAND F� MIDDLE •. 1 `• 1T \\ ISLAND ISLAND• �,• �� NE LSO \� C •�\ Is :1. Q ✓C LAah1L1 Fro et, 4 . SAE Is SAE The County Attorney reviewed the alternatives and then asked for direction from the Board. Discussion ensued. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously agreed to accept Alternate 2 in the memorandum dated December 29, 1981. On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to set up a workshop session with the City of Sebastian to review their annexation master plan. On Motion -by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously authorized the Attorney to readdress the past annexation that created an enclave in the Roseland -Sebastian area. MENTAL HEALTH BOARD - FUNDING REVIEW Attorney Brandenburg discussed the proposed resolution requesting a full review of the funding and service allocation practices of Mental Health Board No. 9 and suggested omitting the second paragraph on page 2 concerning the per capita amounts. Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the Board adopt Resolution 82-1 requesting funding review and service allocation practices of the Mental Health Board; eliminate the second paragraph on page 2 and insert a paragraph indicating the origination of the funds; distribute copies of the resolution to the appropriate parties; and authorize the signature of the Chairman. Lengthy discussion ensued. It was determined that the Board should arrange a joint meeting with the District 9 Board to help make decisions on the funding. The Chairman called for the question. voted on and carried unanimously. M JAN 61992 MR R It was FnF JAN s �9az 48, PA -437 RESOLUTION NO. 82-1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA REQUESTING A FULL REVIEW OF THE FUNDING AND SERVICE ALLOCATION PRACTICES OF MENTAL HEALTH BOARD NO. 9 INC. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County was advised by the Executive Director of Mental Health Center, Inc. that the Center would have to close its fifteen (15) bed inpatient unit due to inadequate funding, and WHEREAS, the County Commission has now learned that after repeated requests for assistance from Mental Health Board No. 9, Inc. and the State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services additional funds became available for the temporary continuation of inpatient services, and WHEREAS, the distribution of inpatient care in the five (5) County area is inequitable; the fifteen (15) bed facility serves four (4) Counties while three (3) inpatient receiving facilities exist and serve Palm Beach County with a one hundred and sixty (160) bed capacity, and WHEREAS, the inadequate distribution of these services place additional burdens on the governmental bodies in the four (4) County area causing the expenditure of tax funds for patient transportation and supervision in route, and WHEREAS, the Mental Health Board.No. 9, Inc. should dis- charge its funding and service allocation responsibilities in such a manner as to equitably distribute the services to all the residents that provide tax dollars to operate the programs, and WHEREAS, it appears -'that the per capita allocation of State Funded Mental Health Treatment Beds is weighted in favor of Palm Beach County to the detriment of the remaining four (4) Counties, and WHEREAS, it appears that the District Board has utilized discretionary State funding for institutional care in FY '81-'82 in the amount of $4.57 per capita in Palm Beach County and only $1.28 per capita in the remaining four (4) Counties,* and -1- WHEREAS, approximately $1,900,000 was spent in Palm Beach County on deinstitutionalization programs with no corresponding expenditure in the remaining four (4) Counties whatsoever,* and WHEREAS, it appears that the District Board utilized State funding for Mental Health and alcohol programs amounting to $10.60 per capita in Palm Beach County and only $6.54 per capita in the remaining counties.* [*Note: Data supplied by Reference to "Analysis of Mental Health District Board Allocation and Plans Affecting the Four County Psychiatric Inpatient Services" prepared by Indian River Community Health Center Inc., December 14 1981.] NOW, THEREFORE, be it -resolved -by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: 1. Mental Health Board No. 9, Inc. is requested to review its funding and service allocation practices to assure that citizens of Indian River County receive a fair, non-discriminatory share, and 2. Copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Okeechobee County, and Martin County. The foregoing Resolution is offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird vote was as follows: DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Aye A. GROVER FLETCHER Aye PATRICK B. LYONS Aye WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. Aye DICK BIRD Aye and upon being put to a vote, the The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 6th APPROVED A�A TO FORM AND LEGAL SU CI CY By a Branden rg my Attor 1 •• day of January , 1982. -2- INDIAN RIVER _COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY C014MISSIONERS By: C Don C. Scurlock., Attest: JAN 61982 WK 48 PAu439 PUBLIC HEARING — TRANSIENT MERCHANTS The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a 1 in the matter of i//lif.fi'f1-� C r'/ %b'Z) in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of O A.D.. (SEAL) NOTICE -` NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on January 6, 1982, at 10:00 A.M., in the County Commission Chambers in the Indian River County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider the adoption of an Ordinance regulating transient merchants: providing definitions: providing for licensing requirements; providing. for licensing fees; providing for enforcement; providing a savings clause and an effective date. If any person decides io appeal any decision made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida By: -s-Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman Dec. 18, 1981. (Clerk of the Circuit Court, IrOkan River County, Florida) Attorney Brandenburg recommended that this public hearing be postponed until the first meeting in February in order to rework the form of the ordinance and to work out some questions. 21 I ri Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board accept the recommenda- tion of the Attorney and postpone the public hearing until the first meeting in February: Lawrence A. Barkett, Attorney representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that he had no objection; the first meeting in February was acceptable_. _ The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY - AUDIT The Board -reviewed the following memorandum: JAN 6198222 EQOK Q$ PACE_ 440 \ a JAN 61992 TO: Gary Brandenburg DATE: December 22, 1981 FILE: County Attorney SUBJECT: Contract to Audit Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Program FROM:Edward J. Regin REFERENCES: attached Contract Kindly review the attached contract for legal sufficiency between Indian River County and O'Haire, Peterkin and Moran, Chartered, and Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, Independent Public Accountants. The purpose of the contract is to engage the accounting firms to perform an audit of the County's Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Program. When you are able to make a satisfactory finding, the contract should go to the Board of County Commissioners for its approval and authorization of its execution by the Chairman of the Board. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that the County as a public housing agency obtain a biennial audit of its operations. We are now due to have an audit for the 27 -month period ending September 30, 1981. In accord with an existing contract dated May 5, 1980, the con- tracting firms are in the process of completing an audit of the general accounts of Indian River County for fiscal years 1980/81. This enabled them to discount their usual fee from their standard rates in quoting a fee of $2500.00 to do the audit. The Jacksonville office of H.U_.D: has done a preliminary review of the contract and found it to be consistant with their model form. They have indicated by telephone that the contract and fees will be acceptable to them when it has been approved and executed by both the County and the Contractors. The Section 8 Account,has been credited by H.U.D. with $2500.00 to cover the cost of the audit. We have been advised by the representative of the contractinc, firms, Mr. Andrew W. Williams that they can complete the audit in accord with H.U.D. requirements by January 31, 1982. Transmitted herewith are six copies of the contract. Upon completion of review by the County Attorney, I respectfully request the contract to audit the Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Program be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for their ap,Iroval and authorization to the Chairman to execute the contract. Kindly return five executed copies of the contract to me to be forwarded to the Jacksonville office of H.U.D. for their formal approval prior to delivery to the contractor. 23 On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-2 authorizing the Chairman to sign the agreement engaging auditors to audit the records of the Public Housing Agency. 24 JAN 61992 690K JAN 61982 Erole X 8 PACE443 RESOLUTION NO. 82-2 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ENGAGING THE FIRM OF O'HAIRE, PETERKIN & MORAN, CHARTERED AND-DELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS, INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TO AUDIT THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY. WHEREAS, the Public Housing Agency has entered into a contract with United States of America acting through the Department of Housing and Urban Development for financial assistance for low- income housing pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937, and -WHEREAS, under said contract the government and the Comptroller ('%iteral o:," the' United .'fates or his representatives have the right to audit the books and records of the Public Housing Agency pertinent to its operations with respect to such financial assistance, and WHEREAS, the government has authorized the Public Housing Agency to procure such an audit by an independent public accountant in lieu of an audit by the government, and WHEREAS, the attached contract provides for the necessary audit services for the twenty-seven (27) month period ending September 30, 1981, for a lump sum fee of $2,500.00 inclusive of all costs and expenses. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY-, FLORIDA, that the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners are authorized to execute six (6) copies of the attached contract. The foregoing Resolution is offered by Commissioner Wodtke who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner T.vn_ns and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: PATRICK B. LYONS Aye WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. Aye A. GROVER FLETCHER Aye DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Aye DICK BIRD Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this h day of January 1982. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUF TCIENCY B y onty Attorn -2- By: 2- JAN 61982 By: e Don C. Scurlock,Jr., airman ATTEST: \ By ) Freda Wright, Clr LOOK 4 8 PACE 444 JAN 61992 800K48 Pic A5 THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of the 10th day of December 1981,, by, and, between the Indian River County Board of County Ccnrdssicners, State of Florida, (hereinafter referred to as the Public Housing Agency), and O'Haire, Peterkin & Nbran, Chartered and Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Independent Public Accountants of 2145 15th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 and Form III, 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 1000, West Palm Beach, Florida, respectively, (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the Public Housing Agency has entered into a contract (contracts) with the United States of America acting through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Goverment") for financial assistance for low-income public housing pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 42 United States Code section 1437 et seg.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said contract (contracts), the Goverment and the Comptroller General of the United States or his duly authorized representatives have the right to audit the books and records of the Public Housing Agency pert- inent ertinent to its operations with respect to such financial assistance; and WEBS, the Government has authorized the Public Housing Agency to procure such an audit by an Independent Public Accountant in lieu of audit by the Government, subject to Government approval of the specific contract for audit entered into between the Public Housing Agency and the Independent Public Accountant; and WHEREAS, the Public Housing Agency desires the Contractor to conduct and perform such an audit; NOW, THEREFORE, the Public Housing Agency and the Contractor do mutually agree as follaws: 1. The Contractor shall audit the accounts and records of the Public Housing Agency for the 27 month period ending September 30, 1981, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the auditing and reporting provisions of the applicable HUD Audit Guide for the Low-Incame Housing Program for use by Independent Public Accountants, herein referred to as Audit Guide. The audit performed shall be sufficient in scope to enable the Contractor to express an opinion in the audit report on the financial state- ments of the Public Housing Agency. 2. The books of account and financial records to be audited are maintained and are located at the Public Housing Agency's office at 2145 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960. These books and records will be made available to the Contractor by the Executive Director of the Public Housing Agency at the Contractor's request for the Contractor's use at the Public Housing Agency's office during normal business hours. M M M 3. If the Contractor ascertains that the Public Housing Agency's books and records are not in a sufficiently satisfactory condition for performing an audit, the Contractor shall disclose this deficiency to the Public Housing Agency. If the Public Housing Agency cannot get its books ready for an audit within 15 days, then the IPA should notify the Government. Notification to the Government shrill be by written ccnMunieation addressed to the Regional Inspector General for Audit, Regional Office, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Room 686, Atlanta, Ga. 30309, with a copy to the Director, Field Office, Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment, 661 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32204. The Contractor shall await further instructions from the Regional Inspector General for Audit before continuing the audit. 4. Upon completion of the audit, an Audit Report consisting of those elements described in the Agit Guide shall be simultaneously submitted to the Regional Inspector General for Audit (20 copies) and Public Housing Agency (1 copy for each Ciamussioner and required copies for the Executive Director) as joint addresses.. 5. The Audit Report shall be submitted within 120 days after_ the close of the Public Housing Agency's fiscal year unless a shorter period is required by State Law. 6. The Public Housing Agency may, before or during the conduct of the audit, request changes in the scope of the services of the Contractor to be performed under this contract. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Contractor's compensation and any change in the time limitation for submission of the Contractor's report, which are mutually agreed upon by - and between the Public Housing Agency and the Contractor,'shall be incorporated into written amendments to this contract and shall be subject to the Govern- ment's approval. 7. The Public Housing Agency agrees to pay the Contractor as compensation for the services and report mentioned herein, a lump -sum fee of inclusive of all costs and expenses. The fee is based on the following: a. Partner (Principal):$155 per hour; estimated man -days 1/4 $ 310 b. Senior (Manager):$82 per hour; estimated man -days 5/8 410 C. Senior $60 per hour; estimated man -days 1-1/4 600 d. Junior $33 per hour; estimated man -days 7-7/8 2,079 e. Other (describe) Discount (899) Total $2,500 It is estimated that 10 man -days will be required to perform the audit. *Such lump -sum fee shall be payable after submission of the Audit Report to the Public Housing Agency and after submission of copies of the report to the Government as provided in paragraph 4 above JAN 61902 ���� 48 Pw-446 E�O� 8 P* 447 JAN 61982 , and the Government's review and approval of the report. The PHA • may pay up to 50 percent of the fee upon submission of the Audit Report and copies thereof and the bill from the Contractor without the Government's authorization. 8. The Contractor must be either a Certified Public Accountant, or a licensed or registered public accountant licensed on or before December 31, 1970, by a regulatory authority of a state or other political subdivision of the United States and meet any legal requirements concerning registration in which the Public Housing Agency is located. In addition, those public accountants licensed after December 31, 1970, but prior to December 31, 1975, who performed a.PHA audit prior to December 31, 1975, will be eligible to continue to perform PHA audits. A statement by the state identifying such registration or license shall be attached to this Contract. 9. The Contractor certifies that its principal officer (s) or members) do not now.have and have not had during any period covered by this audit any interest, direct or indirect, in the PHA or any of its yrs or officials including the following: a. Family relationship with any PHA member or official; b. Employment by or service as a member or official of a PHA during the period covered by the audit. 10. The Contractor certifies that it has not provided accounting or bookkeeping services for the PHA during the period covered by the audit except as follows: None 11. No member, officer or employee of the Public Housing Agency, no member of the governing body of the locality in which any of the Public Housing Agency's projects are situated, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the Public Housing Agency was activated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any responsibilities or functions with respect to the Public Housing Agency's projects, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof. 12. No Member of or Delegate to Congress of the United States or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted"to any share or part of this contract or tQ any benefit that may arise therefrom. 13. The Contractor warrants that he/she has not employed any person to solicit or secure this contract upon any agreement for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. Breach of this warranty shall give the Public Housing Agency the right to terminate this contract, or, in its discretion, to deduct from•the Contractor's fee the amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. 14. The Contractor shall not assign or transfer any interest in this contract except that claims for monies due or to become due from the Public Housing Agency under the contract may be assigned to a bank, trust cempany, or other financial institution. If the Contractor is a partnership, this contract shall inure to the benefit of the surviving or remaining mect> ers of such partnership. 15. , The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. The Contractor shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship. 16. For a period of four years frau the date of the Audit Report, the Contractor shall make its workpapers, records, and other evidence of audit available to the Government and to the Ccmptroller General of the United States or his duly authorized representatives during normal working hours upon written request of the Government or of the Comptroller General or his representatives. The period will be reduced to three years for those Public Housing Agencies for which all projects have had Actual Development Cost Certificates issued. The Government and the Comptroller General shall be entitled to reproduce any or all of such documents at their expense for which provision shall be made at the time the need for reproduction arises. 17. Except for disclosure to the Government, the Comptroller General and - the Public Housing Agency, the Audit Report and the workpapers, records, and other evidence of audit, including information and data prepared or assembled by the Contractor under this contract, shall be held confidential by the Contractor and shall not be made available or otherwise disclosed to any person without the prior written approval of the Government. 18. The Government's approval of this contract shall be evidenced by the signature of the Field Office Director at the end thereof. IN WM4ESS WHERDOF, 01 the Public housing Agency and `the y:, ?ntract haysY c.. a ... •.; � i . � � r: ri executed this agreement the day and year first above written- lull ritten- BOAR';) 0F�:,CQ1jI3T)br,C0MMISSIdNERS �;%�;! Vis• INDIA,H:R1YER•:-.6W-NW-:;-Mn- IDA (N " bJic Account at) (Name of Public Housing Ag ) By ., �r /o2./c �/ By CHAIRMAN Concurred: Department of Housing and Urban Development By (Name of Field Office) (Name) (Date) Approved: (Field Office Director) (Date) wK, 8 PACE 448 JAN 61992 JAIL 61992 goon 48 PArF449 MODEL AIRPLANE CLUB Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the agreement with the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Bird, to adopt Resolution 82-3 authorizing execution of a license agreement between the County and the Indian River County Modelers Charter #1826, and to authorize the signature of the Chairman. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of a problem with the airport; it was determined that the Administrator would review the terms of the agreement periodically, and that the County would be furnished a key to the gate at the site. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 52-3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MODELERS CHARTER #1826 WHEREAS, the Indian River County Modelers Club is a duly organized charter Club and a Member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and and, WHEREAS, the Club is in need of an area to fly remote control model aircraft WHEREAS, Indian River County is the owner of a suitable site for such use by the Club,and WHEREAS, the attached agreement grants to the Club a license to use a County owned tract of land and further provides for the Club to provide adequate supervision and hold the County harmless from any and all liability arising from the use of the subject property. NMI THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County that; The.Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners are authorized to execute the attached license agreement in duplicate. The aforegoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Fletcher who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows Chairman Pat Lyons Aye Commissioner Bird Aye Vice Chairman William Wodtke Aye Commissioner Fletcher Aye Commissioner Scurlock Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution -duly passed and adopted this 6th day of January '1982 JAN 61982 torney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A BY ai=an (Seal) � 9 0 K PAGF_ 450 I LICENSE AGREEMENT aooK 48 FArF 451 This license agreement entered into this 6th day of January, 1982, by and between Indian River County, herein referred to as "County" and Indian River County Modelers Charter #1826, herein referred to as the "Club". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Indian River County Modelers is a duly organized charter club and a Member of The Academy of Model Aeronautics and and WHEREAS, the Club is in need of an area to fly remote control model aircraft WHEREAS, Indian River County is the owner of a suitable site for such use by the Club. In consideration of the mutual promises made herein, the parties agree as follows; 1. The County grants to the Club the license and right to use the property described in Exhibit A for the purpose of operating a Remote Control Model Aircraft and for no other purpose whatsoever, subject to the conditions set forth herein. The right to use said property is a non exclusive license and the parties understand that the County may permit other uses of said property during the term of this agreement. 2. The Club represents and warrants that it is a duly organized -Model Aero- nautics Club and a Recognized Charter Member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics. 3. The Club shall construct a gate at -the entrance to the property sufficient to secure the property from intrusion by non Club members when the property is in use. The Club may not make any other improvements to the property without the prior written approval of the County. Any improvements made on said property will become the property of the County upon expiration of this license. 4. The Club agrees to provide adequate supervision for all Club activities conducted on the premises and will conduct a thorough check of the property to assure no other individuals are located thereon prior to the commence- ment of any Remote Control Model Airplane flights. S. The Club agrees to limit the use of the property for flying model air- planes to individuals that are Club Members and Members of the Academy of Model Aeronautics and possess a current.valid FCC Type C license. 6. The Club agrees to hold and save the County harmless from any and all damages, liabilities or costs of any kind whatsoever, including the duty to defend, that may result from the Club's use or presence upon the property that is the subject of this agreement. 7. The Club agrees to maintain an insurance coverage,naming the County as an additional insured party on all activities of the Club that occur on the subject property, in the amount of $1,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage combined for each occurrence and $11,000,000 in the aggregate. The Club will provide the County at all times with a current copy of said insurance. (Note: Copy attached hereto expires 3/1/82 and must be renewed at that time). 8. The Club agrees to keep the areas around the runways and parking lot mowed and free of debris. 9. The Club agrees to obtain prior written approval from the County for any activities on the property not specifically allowed by this agreement including but not limited to; exhibitions where members of the public at large are invited. 10. Term of Agreement. This agreement will continue in full force in effect until terminated as provided herein. 11. Termination. This agreement may be terminated at any time by either party by giving the other party twenty days (20) prior written notice of the date of termination. IN WITNESS 1191EREOF,the parties hereto have set their hands and seals this 7th day of January, 1982. Indian River County Modelers Charter # 1826 BY dC.IT Appi l!ud a ' to form a;,J 10Sal firi���dd 5V Z,�` ss Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, F1. 32960 G_ Attest / +- I (Seal) JAN 61992 800� '48 PACE 1452 TR2 TRI JAN 6 lIU82 SEE 43 rd ST. 5 w t 42 nd PALM s ENLARGED 1/4 SEC. TRB 4 1 �.i S -T a GARDENS t 3 2 w � ROAD 41st ST. > iso• _ 36 _ 33� = io''_ 33�`= j �a'L ;ta 180 _ <> TRIO I------�----� TR9 ►� I IW � oogo, �o'oo I ���1 I I ,o.00 I lo.o0 1 to 00 I Lo: op I Io•SE3 IT, M1 _ _ A` A I NG I AC- A<- X14 N A_ N moo I oo (o Uo I ooi o �?.v I o06.O L� + J Q IL 1 - --- -� ! F CITY LIMITS TR15 TR 16 CITY OF ---VERO BEACH A� ado I VERO \ BEACH MUNICIFAL AIRPORT -'SU& INDEX II ASSESSED �'215�-3 -39 �r < AVE \ � `V Z gra „ CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY LETTER COMPANY COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGES Alexander and Alexander Inc. 2120 South 72nd Street A St. Paul Surplus Line Insurance Co. Delaware ware Omaha, Nebraska 68124 Wilmington,_ _— B NAME AND ADDRESS OF INSURED Academy of Model Aeronautics and the National C Association of Rocketry and/or Affiliated and/or Associated Chartered Clubs, Chapters, Sections and Members Thereof 815 15TH STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 E THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE AND ARE IN FORCE AT THIS TIME. COMPANY POLICY LIMITS OF LIABILITY LETTER TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER EACH EXPIRATION DATE OCCURRENCE - AGGREGATE GENERAL LIABILITY A nX COMPREHENSIVE FORM 966JA3659 3101/82 BODILY INJURY $ $ A PREMISES -OPERATIONS 966JA3659 3/01/82 PROPERTY DAMAGE- $ $ EXPLOSION AND COLLAPSE Q HAZARD _ UNDERGROUND HAZARD ❑ PRODUCTS, COMPLETED BODILY INJURY OPERATIONS HAZARD AND A QX CONTRACTUAL INSURANCE 966JA3659 3/01/82 PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BROAD FORM PROPERTY O COMBINED DAMAGE rl INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS 1 A QX PERSONAL INJURY 966JA3659 3/01/82 'APPLIES TO PRODUCTS/COMPLE- $ TED OPERATIONS HAZARD PERSONAL INJURY AUTOMOTIVE LIABILITY BODILY INJURYNT 1W5r"C COMPREHENSIVE FORM (EACH PERSON) $ r°,e"""fr�'w BODILY INJURY `�^� ❑ OWNED (EACH OCCURRENCE) $ ❑ HIRED PROPERTY DAMAGE $✓t� NON -OWNED BODILY INJURY AND` $?� s PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED EXCESS LIABILITY F-JUMBRELLA FORM BODILY INJURY AND $ $ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA PROPERTY DAMAGE FORM COMBINED WORKMENS' COMPENSATION STATUTORY ANDR"s`� EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 3' $ EACH ACCIDENT OTHER INDIAN RIVER CIDNITY MODELER�c 1#1326 111213141�� CANCELLATION: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIESBE CAN BEF��QQRE 2IE TION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTIC THE B@t®T�,A/,NAMED TIFICATE HOLDER. LO DATE TSa + 19 3 Z NAME AND ADDRESS OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER: ADDITIONAL INSURED .b C a 2: d a i i� o Taxi t tr+;; r�agl ;; 3 :� 1T c� T g _ "l/t9 , ander and Alexander Inc. 2145 14th Z v e Vero 11each aia 329.50 r Z �.S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE -t 690K 48 PAcE.454 J -I JAN 61992 48 FArF455 bec. 11,1981 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MODLERS ROSTER LIST 1,. Wade H. Russ AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone #.567-9738 2. Gordon Tokarzewski AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone -1 589-0131 3. Alan E. Weller AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 589-0760 4. dark White AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 589-4185 .Don White AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 589-4185 6. Chal ffiedling AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 589-2158 7. Tom Zayrda AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 569-2923 8. Melvin Hoppstein AMA ## FCC # Club Member Interest Phone #.567-7314 9.. Mark Charette AMA # FCC # - Club Member Interest Phone # 562-4151 10. Dick Tamm AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest. Phone # 562-2964 11. Cladette Elowitz AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 569-4585 12. Bernard Elowitz AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest 'f Phone # 569f-4585 13. Germ Augustine AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone ## 569-3455 14. Charles C. Evans AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 15. Howard Kendall SMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 262-8402- 16. Michael Dl Alnico AMA # FCC # Club Member Intereiat Phone # 569-4342 17. Win Owle AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 567-1050 18. Chuck Whiteside AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest- Phone # 567-6250 19. Tim Cardell AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 569-1882 20. lay Owle AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 562-0729 21. Scott Lesson AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 562-0325 22. Robert Evans AMA # FCC '# Club Member Interest Phone # 465-1292 23. LM H. Larson AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 562-0325 24. Jack Munn AMA # FCC # Club Member ® Interest Phone # 562-4558 25. George D. Van Schakk AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 567-7760 26. Myron Madson- JR. AMA # FCC # Club Member Interest Phone # 567-3847 JAN 61982 eO0K 8 PArF 456 JAN 61992 800K 4 8 PAs' 57 TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, IND. - OFFER TO PURCHASE Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the following letter from D. T. Salter: DONAm) TRAVIS SALTER AWORNE.YATLAW 1 1 S 131ZIGIITOti 11n.. N.I;. ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30:300 (404) :355-8181 December 28, 1981 Eric B. Meyars, Esq. Shutts & Bowen 10th Floor, Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 a Re: Treasure Coast Utilities,- Inc. and Salter v. Indian River - County, et al.; No: 81-8175 Civ. OFFER WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dear Mr Meyers: This to acknowledge our recent conversations with regard to settling the respective claims and differences of myself and your clients. I am prepared to convey title and claim of interest to all property owned and .the franchise held by Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc. and/or myself together with dismissing the above -styled -civil action with prejudice for the lump sum of $168,500.00. This.a no -cut, non-compromisable offer., which expires January 11,1982 unless I receive prior acknowledgment of acceptance. I recognize that the Board of County Commissioners will need to consider and approve the settlement. If acceptance of the instant offer is tentatively given, I will extend the offer for a reasonable time length. Your clients should appreciate first, that I have incurred and I expect to continue incurring additional expenses and capital improvements which is putting this offer amount jeopardy of rising; second,,by any normal standard of valuation used in eminent domain proceedings this offer is attractively low. I have continued this dollar offer as a showing of good faith, based upon our prior conversations. As to the matters of settlement language and the logistics of property transfer, I am amenable to any reasonable approach the County may desire. I am prepared to indemnify and present or future -claims of the Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc., property. hold the County harmless from any reciver in the case of Fla. D.E.R. v. case no.: 76-730, against the subject As for Company receivables, the Company claims them (for whatever worth) if only because the receiver has a colorable claim to a portionof them. I make no claim to those sums actually received by the County for service the month of May,1981. -.I would e::pect-the County and attorney Collins to remain neutral and silent on all matters involving the receiver. I plan to pursue and defend the D.E.R. case on appeal and, specifically, the receiver's invoice for services; however,I expect to transfer property without lien or enc9-imberence of title. I anticipate the receiver's claim will be settled frith the payment of some monies to him. The County is not to hold back or set-off any monies of whatsoever nature and amount from the settlement sum, whether from any department, taxing division, license and permitting division, etc;,,; nor shall any further future claim be made against the Company or myself. I cannot obtain at this time a voluntary dismissal of the D.E.R. actions inasmuch as they predicated said -dismissal upon the full tran- sfer of property to the County and the resolution of the receiver's claim. However, they have stated that such can take place and, that they have no intention of pursuing the $75,000 "trust fund" claim in the sewage treatment plant case. Their principal concern was to not have to start over and file anew_the notice of citation. If you have any questions concerning this -offer, or if I can be of further assistance,you may reach me in Miami through the offices of -J. Randolph Lipscomb, Esq. (I will be in Miami or Vero Beach the dates of December 30 -January 6) or in Atlanta. Respectful ,� onald Tra Salter The Attorney felt the County should obtain a list of the assets of Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc. to assure what the County would be purchasing. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board tentatively approve the acceptance of the offer made by Mr. Salter, subject to the conditions the Attorney has raised as to the assets situation; authorize the Administrator to pursue FmHA financing; and to transmit the action of the Board to Mr. Salter. The Board discussed the matter and it was determined that they were taking Mr. .Salter's offer seriously, but particular problems must first be solved. There was no formal acceptance but it should be indicated to Mr. Salter that the County was interested. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. NOK 8 mu458 40 J JAN 6 I BwK 48 PAv459 INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - FINAL PAYMENT The Administrator reviewed the' following memorandum: TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners FROM:Neil Nelson County Administrator DATE: December 30, 1981 F1 LE: SUBJECT: Final Payment for Indian River Blvd. REFERENCES: Attached is the project account ledger for Indian River Boulevard showing all bills that we have received -through December 16, 1981. In accordance with your direction we need to apply to the Department of Transportation in Tallahassee for $139,408.61 to be reimbursed to us from the 5th and 6th cent gas tax trust fund which is under their control. It is necessary to authorize the Chairman and the Clerk of the Circuit Court to sign this request. To the best of our knowledge, as of this date, there are no other outstanding bills on this project. M - 4- M 13'j��l_lilj:.•<�i\fnor.l_L.0}.•C���-1�.�fJ��l:b�.+i Ir i I i l f j 1511 17'�CL "� �.t �i � GJ : L�i.-a. ••, 1.�: r Tom.. _ �,.� 1_ LJ—___— _; 1 iY �!. 191 L,czN1t'��v 7-0 B/1-4 S z?Fli2ll/jo -(,i rr4 cl-1c-J�) :)-3 T 1 0• c 703`1.09 + 98.52 + 1135.08 + 104.00 + 210.00 + 2071 • 2.7 + 1 620 • 00 + 81 4.0'1 + 13090.03 7 JAN 61982 42 tooK I. dc�--- �-c=•:c, .� _II _Cts 4 flg.e�c�.cldr S_m_tl-h�.t1 ')36 ;;�eu I JL(�Qq 10 'Cyadi_:�nml�5. m. o l►11_� I� C I1 I�C3s�+_f0�_,' ► i.'rle._�_i2U-��_____��.Lfl��t'S�.'!__.�_� 13'j��l_lilj:.•<�i\fnor.l_L.0}.•C���-1�.�fJ��l:b�.+i Ir i I i l f j 1511 17'�CL "� �.t �i � GJ : L�i.-a. ••, 1.�: r Tom.. _ �,.� 1_ LJ—___— _; 1 iY �!. 191 L,czN1t'��v 7-0 B/1-4 S z?Fli2ll/jo -(,i rr4 cl-1c-J�) :)-3 T 1 0• c 703`1.09 + 98.52 + 1135.08 + 104.00 + 210.00 + 2071 • 2.7 + 1 620 • 00 + 81 4.0'1 + 13090.03 7 JAN 61982 42 tooK JAN 61992 WK 49 fA,,f. 46i Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve the final payment for Indian River Boulevard and that the Chairman and the Clerk be authorized to sign the Voucher for Transfer of Funds in the amount of $139,408.61 from the 5th and 6th cent gas tax trust fund. A brief discussion followed. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COADYISSIONERS XXX,X,XX)jX�XAY0,a.X Vero Beach, Florida 32960 1840 25th Street NEIL A. NELSON - County Administrator Lawyers Title Building 2345 141h Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 562-4166 Mr. Jim Murphy Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Secretary to Board Telephone: (305) 569-1940 January 7, 1982 RE: County Reference No. 100-3 - I. R. Blvd. Dear Mr. Murphy: Enclosed is Form x`121-05 in the amount of $139,408.61 from the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County approving the application of these funds in session on January 6,`,1982. If there is any additional information reouired, please do not hesitate to contact our office immediately at 305-567-8000. incerely yours, L. 5 To y" Thomas Intergovernmental Coordinator _ 41M - DEPARTMENT REFERENCE NO. (ASSIGNED BY DOT) FORM 121-05 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '-" VOUCHER FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS IA. Blvd. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Win Ri gerCOUNTY 100 " 3 COUNTY REFERENCE NO. (ASSIGNED BY COUNTY, at ary 6. 19 82 Listed below are the amounts requested to be transferred by the State Board of Administration to the above County in accordance with Section 339.08(4), Florida Statutes (77-165, Laws of Florida). 1. Amount requested to reimburse County Transportation Trust Fund for prior expenditures 2. Amount required to maintain sufficient funds to meet Trust Fund expenditures for next 60 days. DOT USE ONLY Co. * Current Assets (Per Financial Statement $ Less Funds Committed to Projects Underway Debt Service Maintenance Funds Available Status of Funds Date $ 139, a61 TOTAL $ 139'4 .61 Board of County Commissioners County of % ,CHAIRMAN I certify that the above signature its that of the Chairman of the Board of Coun�..-Commissloners of Indian River County. The voucher was authorized by the Board of County Commissioners in session on im1mry 61, 198. Attest. CLERK CIRCUIT COURT ,This ''voucher is forwarded to the State Board of Administration with a request for the transfer of $ to the county. DATE PAID BY STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION Check No ORIGINAL- STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION COPY 1 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COPY 2: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COPY 3 -COUNTY JAN 61982 L_ COMPTROLLER 19 44 nOK 48 PAGE 462 JAN 61992 48 PACF 463 BID RECO1414ENDATION - #106 The Administrator reviewed the. following memorandum: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil A. Nelson County Administrator DATE: December 21, 1981 FI LC: S U RJ EC T: Bid Recommendations - IRC 7#`106 REFERENCES: 1. A public meeting was held at 11:00 A.M., December 1, 1981 in the County Adminis- trator's Office, 2345 14th Ave., Vero Beach, F1. This meeting was advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on Oct. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, Nov. 1, 1981. The purpose of this meeting was to open and record the following bid: IRC 1106 - (1) Pneumatic Tire Roller 2. 9 Bid Proposals were sent out, 9 were received (2 bidders submitted 2 proposals and 3 were no bids). Linder'Industrial Machinery (Ingram) $26,956.00 Linder Industrial Machinery (Tampo) 33,563.00 F1 - Ga Tractor (Galion) from stock, subject to prior sale 27,750.00 F1 - Ga Tractor (Galion) 30,338.00 M. D. Moody (Bros) 27,834.00 H. F. Mason (Hyster) 30,720.00 All bidders met minimum specifications. 3. The Bid Committee recommends this b.jd be awarded to the low bidder, Linder Industrial Machinery for the Ingram. There is $35,000.00 budgeted for this piece of equipment from Account 1102-214-541-66-43. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously accepted the bid of Linder Industrial Machinery (Ingram) for one pneumatic tire roller, as being the lowest and. best bid meeting specifications, in the amount of $26,956.00. - 4= BID RECOMMENDATION - #107 The Administrator reviewed the following memorandum: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 21, 1981 FILE: SUBJECT: : Bid Recommendation - I0C X107 FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: County Administrator 1. A public meeting was held at 1.1:00 A.h1., December. 7, 1981 in the County Adminis- trator's Office, 2345 14th Ave.-, Vero Beach, Fl. This meeting was advertised in the Press Journal on November 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15, 1981. The purpose of this meeting was to open and record the following bid: IRC #107 - (1) One Ton Crew Cab Pickup Truck - 8 Cylinder 2. 15 Bid Proposals were sent out, 3 were received (2 were No Bids). Ft. Pierce Dodge Velde Ford Southside Ford $9325.90 NO BID NO BID All vendors who were mailed bid proposals were contacted after the bid opening to determine why they did not submit bids. Ford and International do not make a 1 Ton Crew Cab Pickup, 4 stated they overlooked bid, 2 said their dealership were not large enough to warrant bidding and 2 said they do not wish to bid as there is no profit for them. In February, 1981 the County purchased by bid, 1981 6 Cyl. 3/4 Ton Crew Cab Pickup Truck for $8464.32, approximately $900.00 less than the only bid received, which is a 1982 8 Cyl., l Ton Crew Cab Pickup. 3. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board award this bid to the only bidder, Ft. Pierce Dodge. There is $9500.00 budgeted for this vehicle from Account Number #102-214-541-66-42. Discussion ensued about 6 cylinders vs. 8 cylinders for the engine; the local Chevrolet dealer not being included on the bid list; and the possibility of checking the State list for vehicles that are available for purchase. It was determined that it would be best to have this item brought back at the next meeting. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to table this item. L_ 46 48 PAGE 464 `I toox 48 w,465 ANNEXATION OF THE DUCK POINTE PROPERTY - CONTINUED Mayor Flood commented on the remarks made earlier by the County Attorney regarding the road confusion and traffic that would be caused by the annexation. He spoke about the rights of people and�felt they should be able to do what they wanted to with their property. Mayor Flood commented about the police protection and zoning in Sebastian. He felt the Board and the Sebastian City Council could continue to work together regarding annexation. Commissioner Bird noted that there would be a workshop soon with the City Council of Sebastian and the County Commission regarding annexation. THIRTY DAY PROGRESS REPORT - REV. WILLIE JONES' PROPERTY Administrator Nelson discussed the following memorandum with the Board: TO: The Hon rable Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil Nelson County Administrator nRRCRTPTTnN & rnNnTTTnNS DATE: December 28, 1981 FILE: SUBJECT: 30 DAY PROGRESS REPORT REV. WILLIE JONES REFERENCES: -v On December 2, 1981, the Board of Commissioners granted Rev. Willie Jones a 30 day extension of time either'to repair or remove the hazardous struc- ture located at 2190 41st Street (US#1 and South Gifford Road) and report his progress to the Board. While the 30 day extension period has not ended, progress to date, does not indicate the possibility of meeting the deadline. There are residential and commercial buildings to the west, north and south; US #1•is to the east. The Board of County Commissioners has granted three (3) extensions of time, limited to 30 days each, beginning August 19, again October 21, and the last extension on December 2nd. The attached pictures show that Rev. Jones has made some effort to remove part of the termite -eaten structure. The building continues to be left in a dilapidated condition and presents a continual eye -sore to the community. � i r ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: (A) Initiate action which would result in the removal of this hazardous structure. This would help clean up the neighborhood and remove a potentially dangerous situation to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. (B) Grant another extension of time to allow for the removal of the struc- ture. If this alternative is selected, the building would continue to deteriorate and present an unsafe situation and will be a continual eye -sore to the community. RECO' IENDATION : The County Commissioners authorize staff to proceed with removal of the structure. The following procedures will be initiated after an affirmative vote by the Board of County Commissioners. ACTION BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: (A) This will require the -County Attorney to prepare all legal documentation to support the removal of said building. (B) This will require the County Attorney to notify the Countv Administrator's office that all legal action has been completed. ACTION.BY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: (A) County Administrator will, within seven (7) days after notice from County Attorney, instruct the Road and Bridge work crew to remove structure or items. (B) The County Administrator will determine the cost of removal and notify the owner in writing of the amount of cost. FOLLOW-UP ACTION BY ATTORNEY: (A) If payment from the owner or owners has not been received immediately from written notice by the Administrator, the County Attorney will cause a lien to be placed against the property. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board accept the recommendation of the Administrator and proceed with removal of the structure, giving due notice to Rev. Willie Jones to remove his possessions from the structure. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with O Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. JAN 6 1982 48 PACE466 I JAN 61982 tooK 8 PAS 467 CIVIL DEFENSE — REQUEST FOR SPACE AT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING The Board reviewed the following mdmorandum from the Administrator: 10 TO: The Honorable Board of Ccunty Commissioners FROM: 1411111�1 A. Nelson County Administrator 1. Description and Conditions DATE: December 1-0, 1981 F1 LE: SUSJE:C T : Remodeling of space at the Admi ni stratio. Building for use by the Civil Defense Department REFERENCES: As part of our continuing efforts to provide proper space for the expanded functions and responsibilities of the Civil Defense Department, discussion has centered around the locating of the Civil Defense Department to include an emergency operations center at the Administration Building. Ample space is available to accomplish this. We are in the process of preparing a grant application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is anticipated that once the application is complete, within approximately 90 - 120 day period, we would know whether or not we will be funded. Essentially we have the opportunity of receiving matching funds up to a maximum of $50,000 for alteration of EOC. ;2. Alternatives and Analysis w A. Continue with the location -of the Civil Defense Department in their present building which has only 809 square feet available for use and is in a deteriorating condition. B. Acquire a site, design and build a new Civil Defense Department head- quarters building to include an emergency operations center at substantial expense. C. Locate the Civil Defense Department at the Administration Building utilizing matching funds from the Federal Agency to assist with renovation of available space. This i%ould result in significant cost savings because we have the space available; we have matching funds potential for the -renovation and we also have a commitment of $40,000 from Village Green, which could be utilized for funding toward the renovation. Under separate memorandum, I advised of problems involving the jail and. need for space due to factoring by the State Department of Corrections. Until the near jail is built, we could utilize the present Civil Defense area for additional office space for the Sheriff's Office personnel, thus only utilizing a rented trailer for relatively short time. 3. Recommendations and Funding A. It is requested that the Commission approve of locating the Civil Defense Department and EOC at the Administration Building. B. That the Commission authorize Staff to continue pursuing grant application. C. Authorize the $40,000 funds in escrow from Village Green to be applied NM'Oject money toward the reno 49 Administrator Nelson strongly recommended that Civil Defense be moved into the Administration Building and that an adequate emergency center be established. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously authorized the Administrator to explore the cost and possible funding for Civil Defense to move to the Administration Building; and to review the matter with the Public Safety Committee and the i.. Emergency Operating Center. The Board briefly discussed the possibility of the Jaycees constructing a multi-purpose building to be used as a club house and meeting room, and the County could use it as Civil Defense headquarters. This matter had been discussed several years ago but nothing had ever materialized. COUNTY JAIL BUILDING Administrator Nelson discussed the following memorandum with the Board: JAN 61982 50 NoA 14.8 PAGE 468 J JAN 61982 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATEE: December 29, 1981 Indian River County EDOK 48 NA,F 469 FI LE: 5UBJE i : County Jail Building FROM: q a � 1,�, ERENCES: rEF Nei A.J-Ne son County Administrator Description and Conditions: On December 9, 1931 a team from the Occupational Safety Health Agency (OSHA) inspected the County Jail. Their inspection revealed a very serious asbestos condition. The asbestos analysis report is enclosed. Because of the type of asbestos and its condition, the only solution was immediate removal. Cross Construction, an authorized asbestos removal company, was in the area removing asbestos from the high school gymnasium and were able to respond to our problem immediately. They removed the asbestos Sunday, December 19th and we received a clear air report Monday, December 21, 1981. The cost of the asbestos removal was $5,920.00. We have received a list of Sheriffs' Department personnel who have worked in this space. A physical examination which includes a chest xray, must be given. LJe are in the process of determining the procedures to accomplish this. The Public Safety Advisorary Committee %:ras advised of our actions and they concurred with the asbestos removal. Recommendations: It is recommended that: 1. $5,920.00 be transferred from Federal Revenue Sharing Contingency Account $102-99.91 to account 10017906-523.34.61. 2. Retroactive approval of the payment of $5,920.00 for asbestos removal to Cross Construction Company. - 3. The Administrator be authorized to arra-rige for physical examinations of those Sheriffs Department personnel that have been exposed to the asbestos. 4. The cost of this be charged to account ;;001-99.91 On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved items 1 through 4 in the memorandum written by the Administrator dated December 29, 1981 concerning the County Jail Building. 5_ - JAIL FACTORING The Board then reviewed the following memorandum dated December 30, 1981 from the Administrator: .TO: T1hie Honorable Goard of Count;, Commissioners DAT c: December 30, 1951 SUBJECT: Jail Factoring FROM: _ EFERENCES: Nei I I° l son County dministrator DESCRIP-ICN r,r;D CONDITIOPd F1 LE: The Florida Department of Corrections has advised Sheriff -Dobeck of the results of the October 21, 1981 factoring of the Indian River County Jail. Their letter to the Sheriff is attached. As a result of this factoring the present factor capacity is 46. However, this could be increased to 74 by allowing out of cell time for the inmates not in a trustee status. This could be accomplished by providing an indoor recreation area for the inmates by moving the deputy's day room. Some modifications to the day room area would be required, however, the modifications would be minimal. In order to use the day room for the inmates indoor recreation, area, suitable quarters would be required for the deputies. This could be solved by placinq a 10 foot by 50 foot mobile office in front of the jail. The cost of the mobile office would be: RENT $270.00 Monthly Rent $100.00 Blocking and Leveling Charge $190.00 Tie Dorrn Charge $270.00 Round Trip Delivery and Pick-up Charge rQg4 PRTrF Standard $7,750.00 If the Board approves moving the Civil Defense Office into the Administration Building, then the Civil Defense Office could be renovated into a, day room. Please refer, to my report regarding relocation of the Civil Defense Building. If the Civil Defense Office remains at its present location, then we could purchase the trailer and use it as an office until the new jail is contracted. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. The deputy day room be converted into an indoor recreation room for the inmates. 2. The deputy day room be relocated to an office trailer• adjacent to the jail. 3. That we rent an office trailer, to serve as a temporary day room. Funds to be provided from account -OU1-220-519-34.42. 4. Staff be authorized to implement the aforementioned recommendations JAN 61982 52 69 -OK 48 PAGE 47a Q JAN 6 1992 tooK 48 pAu 471 A brief discussion followed regarding the cost estimate for such a renovation. The Board felt it would be helpful to have the Sheriff present to take part in this discussion. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously authorized the Administrator to look at the possibility of purchasing a used trailer for the purposes outlined in the Administrator's memorandum dated December 30, 1981. AUDUBON SOCIETY APPEAL - RIVER BEND YACHT CLUB The Board reviewed the following memorandum and attachment: TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: E: December 29, 1981 FILE: County Commissioners SUBJECT: AUDUBON SOCIETY APPEAL OE THE PLANNI1?G & ZONING CO. 4IISSION' S DECISION ON RIVER BEND YACHT CLT.:- SITE PLAN: RECO.�"IIENDATION FOR HEARING DATE FROM: Neil Nelson REFFRF--LACES: County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIO`1S: On December 17, 1981, the Planning -and Zoning Commission, by a 3 -to -2 vote, conditionally approved a site plan application for the River Bend*Yacht Club. In protest to this action, the Pelican Island Audubon Society filed an appeal to the Board of County Conmissio::ers on December 23, 1981 as prescribed in Section 23 of the Indian. River County Code of Ordinances., ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: A) Set the hearing date for February 3, 1982. The Ordinance states: "The Board of County Commissioners shall thereupon se= a date for a public hearing with regard to such appeal_, after giving public notice with in such manner as the Board of County Commissioners shall prescribe, at which time all interested parties shall have the right to appear before the Board of County Commissioners in regard thereto and the Board of County Commissioners shall thereupon render its decision therein." While Section 23 does not specify a time frame for advertising the public notice, Section 27, Zoning Amendments, however, speci- fies that: "The County Commission shall at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing for rezoning, excluding Sundays and legal holidays, publish notice of intent to consider the rezoning in+a newspaper of general circu- lation within the county." This established rezoning procedure has worked well to provide sufficient notice and time to all parties wishing to give testi- mony at a public hearing. The complexity of the issues presented in the Audubon Society's appeal make a minimum 15 day notice, prior to the public hearing an equitable and appropriate time frame for scheduling. B) Set a hearing date prior -to -February 3, 1982. Selection -of this alternative will schedule the appeal for January 20, 1982 and will provide for notice lest than the fifteen (15) days requirement established under the rezoning procedures. RECOlIZIENDATION : Staff recommends Alternative A, that the public hearing date be set for February 3, 1982 and that at least fifteen (15) days notice, of hearing be established as prescribed in Section 27 of the County Code of Ordinances. P " A"I'T ISLANID AUDUBON SOCIETY P. 0. Box 1833 VERO BEACH, FLOR11"A 32960 Mr. Patrick Lyons Chairman Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Indian River County Courthouse Vero Beach, Florida 32960 De-cembE-.r 23, 19-3)1 Re: An Appeal regarding the County Planning and Zoning Commiss:ion's decision of site plan approval for the River Bend Yacht Club, as rendered 17 December 1981. ' Dear Chairman Lyons and iiembers of the Commission,.: Whereas, the Planning Department, in determining that the CounEv Commission should review aspects of this site plan proposal and render a deci^ion prior to project consideration by the Planning and Zon i.ng, Commission, was not prepared to present its findings and rebuttal regarding the yacht club situ plan. In effect, the Planning and Zoning Commission rendered its opinion wi.thout hearing and .considerinh the Planniii Daparti;.c..nt's recommendations. And, whereas, 010 i7 iolog ic•al assess -.hent prepared by the Florida Game and Fresh water Fish Com:,?ission at the pers.)nal request of the Planning Department's Director was not circulated to the Planning and Zoning Commission before the meeting of: December 1.7. As a result, the Planning and Zoning Commtssion voted on an issue: Lhey admittedly did not understand, without sueking further pertinent information and technical advice which were readily available from local, State and Federal agencies and organizations. JAN 61982 tooK 8 PACE t 2 54 �y JAN 61982 UOK 48 ,. 473 And., whereas, I:'el is an Island Audubon Society and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission were advised by the Planning Department Director that, at t hu 1),�.celnber 17 meeting of the Planning ard Zoning Commission, the yacht club site plan was not going to be discussed, but simply referred to slur County Commission for review. Pelican ?:;land Audubon Society was rurt!ter aLivised that, since tt;ere would ire ro decision reachel, the Society si-iould reserve its comments for presentation to the County G)mmission. And, whereas;, '1rs. .',tin i:oMii�ton. Cori-;�!rvitimi chairman for Pelican Island Audubon Society, was not p ,r^tit-r-cd to pri-i.ait the Society's view regarding the .richt club site plan 0-,ir inti, d i szuE- ; icon of the motion to ap,.,rove the site plan. And, whereas, the applicant's representative at the December 17 mc!etit.� of the Planning and Zoning Commission implied that the Florida C•anie and Fresh Water Fish Commission was not qualified to assess the marina plan, and stated that their comments were inappropriate at that time. In fact, the letter from Mr. Barnett which was read into the m'nutes was specifically solicited by the County Planning Department I:irector for use in preparation of their recommendation. The present office staff of the South Florida Section, Office of Environmental Services, of the Florida Game and Fresh ?later Fish Commission has over 4; years cumulative experience in assessing ecological impacts of dredge and fill activities, including crater quality impacts of marina basins. And, whereas, other perttitml, information including resolutions of objection, and personal le'_terS fr.7m concerned citizens were not presented at the December 17 t.ieeting of the i'lanning and Zoning Commission. Therefore, the Board of. Dire.,: -tors of Pelican Island Audubon Society hereby .appeals to the Indian River CA)tinty Board of Commissioners to review the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the Fiver Bend Yacht Club Site Plan, as taken on 17 December 1931. We further petition the Board of County Commissioners to hold a public hearing on this site plan, or to remand the site plan to the-P-lanning and Zoning Commission for reconsic:eration. 1.981. Filed with the Indian River County Bu.itd.ing Department on 23 December - - Sincerely .ours, Ravmond 1-ernald, President Pelican '[sland Audubon Society _ 5- r Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Attorney for Florida Land Co., developers of the River Bend Yacht Club, objected to the Board entertaining the appeal from the Pelican Audubon Society. He added that concern was expressed that not everyone should have a right to file an appeal - it would have to be an aggrieved party. The Attorney felt this was a close question and hinged on what the Board's intent was in Ordinance 78-10 concerning Site L Plan Approval. Discussion followed on the matter. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board set up a hearing date for February 3, 1982 to hear the Audubon Society appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commission decision on the River Bend Yacht Club, and to discuss the draw bridge question at Jungle Trail. Commissioner Lyons interjected that there was a Board meeting of the State Association of County Commissioners in Daytona on February 3rd in the afternoon, which would present a conflict. Commissioner Fletcher amended his Motion to have the hearing at 9:00 o'clock A.M. on January 27, 1982. Commissioner Lyons amended his second. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board authorize staff to advertise for this public hearing. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that the advertising would be a County expenditure since the County was initiating this matter. He felt, in the future, a policy should be made to determine who would pay for public hearing advertising. JAN 6 1982 56 8 PnEIMr- "A 56 JAN 61992 8009 48 g-PA,u- 475 After a brief discussion, it was determined that the Administrator could proceed to formulatq a program for public hearing advertising. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, explained to the Board that she would like to set up a procedure where anything that must be approved by the County would be done prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission approving a site plan. Lengthy discussion followed and it was determined to check into whether the Planning & Zoning Commission should approve a site plan that would be contingent upon action taken by the Board. The Board felt that the matter regarding the draw bridge at Jungle Trail should be discussed first at the public hearing on January 27, 1982. APPROVAL OF REPLAT PROCEDURES - BENT PINES Administrator Nelson requested that this item be tabled until later in the meeting. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird,the Board unanimously agreed to table the item regarding Bent Pines until later in the day. SCHEDULE WORKSHOP FOR KELTON REPORT The Board discussed the scheduling of a workshop, for implementation of the Kelton Report, and it was determined that a mutd'ally acceptable time would be found by the Chairman. 5M - -I RESOLUTION 82-4 HONORING CHARLES R. PARKS On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-4 honoring Charles Parks. JAN 61982 UOK 4 wa 476 JAN 61992 RESOLUTION NO. 82-4 OF CHARLES R. PARKS em 48 PA477 WHEREAS, on April 15, 1958, CHARLES R. PARKS began his career as Director of Recreation for the City of Vero Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS, CHARLES R. PARKS has served in such capacity in an exemplary fashion until January 15, 1982; and WHEREAS, CHARLES R. PARKS has worked closely with County officials in making recreational programs available to both County and City residents; and WHEREAS, during his tenure CHARLES R. PARKS was instrumental- in instituting special activities including the Junior Orange Bowl Contest, Halloween Parade, Easter Frolics and the Labor Day Olympics; and WHEREAS, he is responsible for organizing the first Girls' Gymnastics; Girls', Women's and Men's Softball Leagues; Boys' Baseball and the Day Camp Program; and WHEREAS, CHARLES R. PARKS has helped to develop the city-wide park system including shuffleboard, tennis, racketball courts, playground equipment, lighted softball fields, beach parks and surfing areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, sitting in regular session this 6th day of January, 1982, that the Board' -commends CHARLES R. PARKS for his excellent service to the community; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board expresses and extends to CHARLES R. PARKS the County's sincere appreciation and best wishes in all future endeavors. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IVDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLO.RIDA f Chairman Don C. 44 Scurloc] , _7 r. rman A. -Grover Fletcher PC:ommissioner POKI. ick B. Ly o s Commissioner William C.Wod0kEke,Jr. Commissioner Dick Bird ATTEST; jk-.O-L, �At_t� Freda Wright, C1 k -I _ M M ONE-HALF CENT LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX BILL Commissioner Lyons reviewed the following letter with the Board: 110 CCUS1*1 GERALD F. THOMPSON, COMMISSIONER BOARD Or COUNTY COMMISSIONERS December 17, 1981 Honorable Patrick B. Lyons Chairman, Indian River County Commission 2145 14th Avenue, County Courthouse Vero Beach, Florida Dear Pat: 765-5127 At the annual SACC convention this past September in St. Petersburg Beach, Frank "Bubba" Smith was elected our President, myself the Vice President and Lee Vause our new Secretary/Treasurer. At that time, our new President, Bubba Smith from Polk County, eloquently laid out the needs of the counties of Florida for addi- tional flexible growth revenues that would allow for property tax relief, crime prevention and transporta- tion, as well as other needs of county government. The Association in convention and in subsequent Board meetings, has adopted a policy supporting a Z local option sales tax and now has a bill drafted, which has the support of many leaders in the legislature. President Smith laid out a charge to me as Vice Presi- dent, to assure that we would have a strong voice in Tallahassee throughout the entire session. He indi- cated that our goal as an Association was to see that a minimum of 3 county commissioners and 2 local staff peop e were in the halls of the Capitol at all times. R In order to accomplish this goal, and it is a minimum goal, will require cooperation and effort of every county in the State. I am writing to you as Chairman of your County Commission, to request that you respond as soon as possible indicating what days or weeks of the session that your members could be present in Tallahassee. Assisting me in this effort will be my Aide, Eileen Bono and my Assistant County Administrator, Eugenie Suter. If we can assist you in any way, such as housing or other matters, we will be happy to do so. I am anti- cipating your favorable response. S.n-EZz,rely, Gerald F Thompson'' Vice President SACC /. JAN 61982 aou 48 PAGE 78 -I JAN 61992 8 PaSE79 . Commissioner Lyons felt the Board members should volunteer some time to attend the hearings, and indicate what the Board's position was to Mr. Thompson. He felt that it was important for the Board members to be present at the hearings and volunteer to be heard on appropriate matters. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize the Commissioners to follow the request of the Association of County Commissioners and attend the hearings in connection with legislation involving this County. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the cost of the airline tickets and per diem might be a problem with the auditors. He wanted to be sure the Board would be acting in the framework of what they could legally do. William Koolage, interested citizen, approached the Board and felt a roll call vote should be taken on this matter as he had a problem with increasing the taxes. He did not think the Board had the justification to lobby on this matter. Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion, and Commissioner Wodtke withdrew his second. After some discussion, it was determined that the Administrator would contact Tallahassee for a copy of the draft of the 1/2 cent local option sales tax bill dor the Board to review and reconsider at a later date. UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE Commissioner Lyons expressed concern about having the unemployment office remain in Vero Beach. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board adopt Resolution 82-5 urging the Governor of Florida to maintain the Vero Beach Branch of the State Employment Service. A brief discussion ensued. 61 - M M The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. EM JAN 6 1992 48 PacF 0 L- 62 RESOLUTION NO. 82-5 -I HOK 48 P4481 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY URGING THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO MAINTAIN THE VERO BEACH BRANCH OFFICE OF THE FLORIDA STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has been advised that due to Federal budget cuts the Vero Beach branch of the State of Florida Unemployment Service office will close on February 28, 1932, and WHEREAS, the closing of this office will place an additional hardship on those unemployed individuals who are genuinely looking for work by having to travel at least twenty (20) miles to the nearest employment service office, and WHEREAS, the Vero Beach office served six thousand (6,000) individuals in fiscal year 1981, comprising 23% of the total labor force in Vero Beach/Indian River County, and WHEREAS, the service provided some assistance to five thousand five hundred (5,500) individuals and found employment for two thousand four hundred (2,400) individuals, and WHEREAS, the business community of Indian River County supports the branch office through the payment of unemployment compensation tax, and WHEREAS, it is not in the best interest of the citizens of Indian River County to close the office during this time of unusually high unemployment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY sitting in public session this 6th day of January , 7982, that; the County Commission urges the Honorable Robert Graham to reconsider the decision to close the Vero Beach branch of the State of Florida Unemployment Service, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Commission considers the closing of said office a costly error that will cause the loss of a necessary and important service to the business community and labor force of Indian River County, Florida. -1- The foregoing Resolution is offered by Commissioner Lyons by Commissioner Wodtke vote was as follows: who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded and upon being put to a vote, the DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. aye A. GROVER FLETCHER nay PATRICK B. LYONS aye WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. aye DICK BIRD aye The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 6th day of January APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By If. '//'Z, y Brandenburg &uWlty Attorney -2- 1 I •: , 1982. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER: By : Don C. cu'r*17oc Jr. Chairman; Attest: Y'4� Freda Wright.; , Clerk y )v J 1020K 48 PAPH482 I JAN 61982 @AOK 48 PAPr 483 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - COUNTRY WALK SUBDIVISION Dennis Ragsdale, Planning Department, read the following memorandum: TO: The Honorable Board of County Ccmmissioners FROM: Neil Nelson, County Administrator DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: DATE: December 17, 1981 FILE: REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT: OF COUNTRY 14ALK SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHSIDE OF 12TH STREET AT 30TH AVENUE REFERE N CES: Dean F. Luethj e to Jim Davi s ; Public Works Director, dated December 2, 1981 The o:v-ner is requesting Final Flat Approval of the approximately 16.3 acre, 26 lot Country Walk Subdivision. Preliminary Plat Approval was granted .under the name of Sylvan Estates Subdivision. The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential (6 units/acre). The engineer -of - record has certified that all construction has been done in accordance with approved plans and specifications. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The Final Plat documents have been reviewed by the County staff and a final inspection has been made by the Director of Public Works. All staff comment ;have received appropriate attention and all legal documents are correct. Preliminary Plat Approval was.granted based on the following conditions: 1) A planting/non-access easemi-ent on the east property line. '2) Extention of the dead -end -road to tie into the radio tower parcel. These conditions were met and included on the final plat drawings. RECO? MIE:+DATION : The staff r.ecanmends that Final -,Plat Approval be granted for the Country Walk Subdivision. o `I' ,-- Ij -a ^� I c. Cr- rn -'dlwo I j f j1 i-�I-rI_ I_ RrSEDAL �— � wIN _io{:�loty a'G, Iw;N{ •Its :� -+ '- I ,,, ( �iG --_ N lt+t a c s G7 `J I© itD 1E i— 1N Iw l J Cx I:11 t~Ni 'tD ;i N N IN N 1 t 1pot , N N.• l UNIT N I t�J (n p `i — --I— _ 1Ft I W r�lC•+iNININitJi^J!f]iNIN�Ni—{��il....i... —:_ I '� 1 "1 lNt—.QitD lo _I �J IT i:.11•.-Iw �N—O,CD Ip` 111 tJ �Gl iCn W 'N :.�_i0 'S.I !+J p �1 i011Cr .? W Ni—� tJ IC �� 35TH.. AYE. - ti• N'Cr rl d ;q — —'— .._.— — _ ] 1N i•'] ^J.^] •_� (fJ N IN 'N ira W iC� :d ILL r !,� I•.J ,C. .G� ' ; IUi� T I- Nlr_v;A`tTlvnl1i 1 { I Ic. , :'D s m -4 a)tmlo ��- ` S. V. l l A C D'1%] I` c, I 0I I w NL > !, ROAD SUN FF -11 F 2., -4 C-1 LID- "XII 0 •7 1 — 1N10 N : r• 1 :i 1 a, ;I :•,i;. i t I 1— I < iQ : Ir W �' NiW1•J� -7 v. A, P L E' .�. YVA'>• - I O W p!r Z BRASC.H SG �CRES ! N w d `= i, q '' N I w a to m N m --- - - - - - - EMERSON AVE. 27TH AVE. _ - i6 It 17 4 .x+, +.i�.`r,*r,:w<• r.^tea:. '. - s- ._•�.... Y 19 I •� ,. _ _ . 19 14 20 IS }wSUN GRAS 1 t I CD 25TH AVE. _ ••"' N W A U 01 �J CD !til p — TRRACE UNIT 1,0 I I �'I t JAN 61982 1 L.E:,,' D ALE P^(! A8 l%nr 484 .MfM.- r l . • 1 t�: �N (— • I N' LD* N ;�o -q 0 N u N 1N 'N �N l— ;— �— LGJ IN �.— Q q p '-4 l! 25TH AVE. N Its A Cn IM V Q ;.O p S u �: H;AI , a — I p "XII 0 •7 1 — 1N10 N : r• 1 :i 1 a, ;I :•,i;. i t I 1— I < iQ : Ir W �' NiW1•J� -7 v. A, P L E' .�. YVA'>• - I O W p!r Z BRASC.H SG �CRES ! N w d `= i, q '' N I w a to m N m --- - - - - - - EMERSON AVE. 27TH AVE. _ - i6 It 17 4 .x+, +.i�.`r,*r,:w<• r.^tea:. '. - s- ._•�.... Y 19 I •� ,. _ _ . 19 14 20 IS }wSUN GRAS 1 t I CD 25TH AVE. _ ••"' N W A U 01 �J CD !til p — TRRACE UNIT 1,0 I I �'I t JAN 61982 1 L.E:,,' D ALE P^(! A8 l%nr 484 7 I to Q i fN UI ru 0 ZO 141; --E.— � tJ \BC;, J �, I{{f � n Ul Ul -A I" Oc Z, -Z fl , rl ro 4: Lk tz Il 11 ic r, y, -i �; t� a ._ - - ... •— (• _. 'D'p N� (r h— . -- --- `=- ----- -_ _' - '-- }_1. LP tj r3 rl 'i rl fil r r I ' � .. _ � ..... n' 1. _.'1 -k>T ,_i •/1:1.1 \_]r'_._ l P•t-,vf.-a.c. ,.�fariJ_L✓ �\L/ �—__._.. \'?.l .:.'\' I 1 =.� J_-__..,._�. __ I -10 .- I to l J � 'S r� _ 6 ` A 'J tv r ". 1 to P ov LP Ln J L tn a If, I 516R I cc rn Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke that the Board give Final Plat Approval of Country Walk Subdivision, based on staff's recommendation and that all of the conditions have been met. Commissioner Fletcher interjected that he would like to see subdivisions having a minimum of one acre and his vote will reflect that desire in the future. The Chairman called for the question. It was 1_ voted on and carried unanimously. SIX MONTH EXTENSION - GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN Mary Jane Goetzfried, Planner, reviewed'.the following memorandum -with the Board: JAN 61982 ua 48 PACE486- L- 486L- 6 8 I JAN 61982 TO: The Honorable Board of County Co.- nissioners FROM: Neil Nelson County Administrator DATE: December 9, 1981 tOOK 4,8 PAGE FILE: r, u' Ll.1T: Six month extension Gagliardi site plan REFERENCES: It is recommended that the data herein preserrted be given fore►al consideration 'Cly the t'oard of County Cor-missioners. DESCiPTIOIN & COINDITIONS On September_ 11, 1930, Gene Gagliardi su',-iteed a site plan application to construct a 7,5130 square foot light manufactur,ng facility. Tha propcsed development is plann:Z' for a 1.06 acre site located LI. S. -:'_ and Old Dixie ki gh::ny south of 61st.* Street, in the M-1, Restricted Industrial District. The site plan application received approval (which is for an effective period of one year) from the Planning and Zoning Cemmission on October 9, 1920. Due to the rise in comUnercial interest rates, construction ;;as not started and than site plan approval expired. - On Septelrber 16, 1981 the applicant the Board of County Commissioners to extend the period of site plan apL'rova rainich r,:ay be granter: only at their discretio::. The Planning and Zoning DeDartmenc revie-..;zJ the request and recomimended to the County Cornnri ssi on that the extension be granted ;or an adu i ti oval 6 months. During tine course of review, a _n -:•r ar'di nur., z ;vas -adop-cea wil—I ch r-equires all ne,,,I constructed off-street parking areas to be pa':e.d. Tire original site plan provided for a crushed rock drive, and this 1,Ot -be perrri tted unser the nevi paving ordinance. ALTER'IrNTIVE & NIALYSIS A. Approve the request to cxtel:cit :a ;;ericd c; site plan a -roval for ah addi ticr,al 6 cronths, providing the applicant areas to pave tha off-street parking area. B. Deny the 1'CgUeSt. Thi S aC 1 :: ii i ii ^r'ce iIG applicant Cv.rlt t� re -apply / i ^r' S1 L _ tan approval. The �nY?1�.::�'._'l 'r... .. �., :I +" 1 1.1.- P ► I i 1, e ion ; no ord i RECO. UMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request ars r cc:: nci; ;h<tt the site Mar; :extension be granted for an additional six mo;;i.hs, ��;'�;';'�ei ;.hat ti -,e a;;pliCallt r,eets the cri r -i - specified in the Paving Ordinance (Cr'ir,_rr:�e ; Mr. Gagliardi approached the Board and explained that his property adjoins a sand blasting plant on U.S. #1 and in a week's time there would be sand on the road. He was hoping not to have to pave the parking lot in order to keep the costs down. A brief discussion followed on the matter.. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve a six-month 2 - extension from today's date of the site plan for Mr. Gagliardi. Mr. Gagliardi, stated that he would pave the parking lot if that- would be the only way he could get an extension. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 14EADOWS SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL Dennis Ragsdale, Planner, reviewed the following memorandum dated December 17, 1981: TO: The Honorable Board of ®ATE: December 17, 1981 FILE: IRC -8I -SD -14 County Commissioners #223 SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOP, THE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION FROM: Neil Nelson REFERENCES: Paul F. Rosskamp to Neil County Administrator Nelson, dated November 19, 1981. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The applicant has filed an application to subdivide an approximately 10 acre parcel of land into 16 single family lots. The site is located at the northeast corner of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street, S.W. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential (6 units/acre) with the exception of a portion -of lots 9-16 which is zoned C-1, Commercial. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the com- mercial portion of the property as LD -2 (up to 6 units/acre). JAN 61992 70 eov 48 PA,F488 J JAN 61982 -I WK 48 FA,F489 Site plan approval for office/townhouse complex was recently granted for the property immediately west of the subject property and an office/warehouse facility is proposed to the south. Mobile homes and scattered commercial development is located to the west, across 43rd Avenue. Several single family subdivisions are located in the vicinity of this proposed subdivision. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The Technical Review Committee requested the following additions to the subdivision plan: 1) Cross drainage must be provided in any block which exceeds 600 feet. Side lot easements are needed to route some of the drainage through the side lots. 2) A ten foot right-of-way along 1st Street, S.W. was desig- nated to be dedicated to the County. This was not sufficient as 20 feet was needed in order to establish a-50 foot right- of-way. The developer agreed to both of these requests and amended the sub- division plan to reflect these changes. The proposed thoroughfare plan, which was developed after the TRC meeting, designates 1st Street, S.W. as a secondary collector which requires a minimum of 80 feet of right-of-way. The County staff requested that the applicant establish a 40 foot building setback line on the two lots which front on lst Street, S.W. The applicant did not agree to this request. The additional setback would allow for future right-of-way needs and provide for a 10 foot building setback if the right-of-way is required. - The procedure as outlined in the County's Subdivision Ordinance for preliminary plat approval does not require review by the County's legal staff. Generally, planning and engineering items are addressed at this point in the subdivision process. The request for final plat approval will include: a certificate -of -completion from the engineer of record; a waiver of liens; and any performance bonds and deed restrictions, which -may be required. RECOMMENDATION: Although the proposed subdivision is compatible with the nearby existing land uses and the -County's Subdivision Ordinance has been complied with, the staff recommends Preliminary Plat Approval be denied. The reason for this recommendation is that the preliminary plat does not conform to the proposed thoroughfare plan which recommends 80 feet of right-of-way on_lst Street, S.W. If future expansion of 1st Street, S.W. occurs it. is probable that the County would have to acquire two single family homes which may be located in the required right-of-way. 7= IN ;u► 47TH AVE, o IN N = Ch g 46TH CT. C- Z 1 cn i 46TH AVE. ® D �7 45LH AVE. i� C.) Z 44TH CT. N 1 4:4TH AVE. I G7 Z 43RD CT. 4 -3RD AVF • � o 11 c I fn M 72 FACF 90 - . ►, r.• � . ofa g � 9 •� 1 ITo�� , ��6r•s _ `n 1 m is • 1 . a ft1 ,. .® 1 • � o 11 c I fn M 72 FACF 90 wx 48 PAGF 91 Air. Ragsdale commented that the applicant would not agree to the conditions, and staff's recommendation would be to deny the Preliminary Plat Approval. Chairman Scurlock questioned the Attorney as to the basis on which this application could be denied. Attorney Brandenburg stated that this matter was based on the anticipated needs of the County for road right-of-way and the possibility that if the County would build a road at that location, it would have to condemn two houses that would be situated in the right-of-way. He continued that staff recommended that the applicant establish a 40 foot building setback line on the two lots in question in order to save the County the possibility of condemnation later. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the County thoroughfare plan has not been adopted; therefore, the County does not have the legal authority to demand that of the applicant. plan. Lengthy discussion followed about the thoroughfare Jerome Quinn, Attorney representing the applicant, George R. Frederick, came before the Board. He stated that the developer believed that in complying with staff's request, the lots would be shrunk to such a size that they would not be useable as they had envisioned. Attorney Quinn stressed that planning was essential to orderly growth, and the traffic needs of the future must be taken into account. He stressed that. the developers must know the rules and regulations they have to work with, and he questioned when and where was it first noticed that development along 1st Street SW would be subject to an 80' road right-of-way; when and where was it stated or published or made known to anybody that this street was going to be a secondary collector? _ 7_ Attorney Quinn pointed out that the County does not know today that the road is ultimately going to be a secondary collector. He felt an inequity would occur with the right-of-way being requested only from the south side of the thoroughfare - this burden was normally shared by the owners on each side of the road. Also, he did not think it was the function of the Planning Department to advise the County about eminent domain procedures. Attorney Quinn felt it was just a matter of fairness to operate under the rules as they are today, and not under the rules as the Planning Department believes they may be at a later date. He then requested that the County -proceed under the present rules and cooperate with the applicant, as he is a developer of fine homes. Lengthy discussion followed about the existing rights-of-way and setbacks. It was determined that there was an existing 30' right-of-way, and the developer would be dedicating an additional 20' right-of-way, and a 20' setback. Commissioner Bird saw the merits on both sides of the question, but until the thoroughfare plan was adopted, he did not like to change the rules in the middle of the game. On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Preliminary Plat for the Meadows Subdivision, accepting the agreements the developers have already made. PROCEDURE FOR SUBDIVISION REPLATS - BENT PINES The Administrator reviewed the following memorandum with the Board: JAN 6 1982 74 MOK 48 PAU 492. JAN 61982 -I TO: The Honorable Board of DINE: December 30, 1981 County Commissioners 48 PA'F 493 Fi LE: SUBJECT: Procedure for subdivision replats FROMCt � -4=�ERENCES: e -�son County Administrator DESCRIPTION; AND CONDITION Florida Land Company Pias requested replat of Units 3 & 4 of the Bent Pines Subdivision. The County to date does not have an established procedure or fee schedule for replatt- ing a subdivision. There have been very few replats. In the past, the requestor appeared before the Board, explained the reason for replatting and the Board would either approve or disapprove the replat. Jim Beindorf, representing Florida Land Company has requested to appear before the Board, to request replat approval. Since we have no policy for replatting, I have placed this issue on the agenda for some consideration. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that a replatting policy be established. This policy would include the following: 1. The applicant must petition the County Commission to vacate the existing plat. 2. The public be notified by public notice of the proposed vacation. 3. The County Commission adopt a resolution vacating the existing plat. 4. The replat must receive final approval from Board of County Commissioners. 5. Fee for replat be established the same as we currently charge for plat approval. Jim Beindorf, representing Florida Land Co., approached the Board and stated that he had a replatting request to make but there was no procedure yet established for this type of request. He proceeded to explain that they were requesting a replat of a part of Bent Pines, Units III and IV, and the plan has been put on record and has a performance bond. The developers wish to relocate the roadway and make a larger cul de sac in order to salvage some of the large trees; they did not use all of the golf course land. Mr. Beindorf requested the Board to approve 7M r the replat, subject to the proper procedure of abandoning roads. He also advised that Florida Land Co. has not sold any of the land - the roads are all private and not dedicated to the public. Mr. Beindorf stated that in Unit IV, there would now be 5 lots instead of 6. His next request was for the abandonment of certain easements and the creation of a new 50' easement. After some discussion_, it was decided to defer this matter to the Attorney and have him work out the proper procedure. Steve Henderson, Attorney representing Florida Land Co., came before the Board and stated that he did not know if a public hearing was required but if the Board would give him a date, he would see to it that the proper notices would be published. Discussion followed and it was determined that a public hearing would be held on January 27th to discuss this matter concerning Bent Pines. Attorney Brandenburg stated this could be handled by a resolution for vacating an existing plat and suggested the Board authorize his office to work with Attorney Henderson to get this particular vacation, and that they work on an administrative order to control this type of situation in the future, which would include the determination of public notice requirements and the determination of a fee for replatting. JAN 61982 76 Y JAN 619'92 tOOK 48 PnF 495 On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney's office to proceed with the necessary steps to vacate and replat Bent Pines, Units III and IV, and place it on the Board's agenda as soon as possible. PELICAN AUDUBON SOCIETY APPEAL - RIVER BEND YACHT CLUB - Attorney Steve Henderson approached the Board and was dismayed that he was not present earlier when the matter came up for discussion. He objected to the Pelican Audubon Society appealing and wondered, in fact, if they could appeal. Commissioner Bird explained that the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval was contingent on working out final approvals of the draw bridge. Attorney Henderson stated that the developers felt they should have a right to appeal the organization that is appealing - and questioned the organization's right to appeal. A brief discussion followed concerning this matter. On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to have the Minutes reflect a letter from Attorney Henderson to Attorney Brandenburg dated January 4, 1982 reflecting the objections of the developers to the Pelican Audubon Society appeal. 7_ r LARRY B ALEXANDER GEORGE H. BAILEY ROBIN A. OLANTON W. CHESTER BREWER. JR. DAVID A. CAIRNS JAMES R. COLE MARGARET L. COOPER 8. JEANE CFIPPEN CHARLES H. DAMSEL, JR. BRUCE A. EPPLE JEFFREY H. FISHER L. MARTIN iLANAGAN WILLIAM A. FOSTER MARJORIE D GAUARIAN THADDEUS D HARTMAN HAVWARD D. GAY STEVE L.HENGF"SON THORNTON M. HENRY THEODORE W. HERZOG PETER S. HOLTON R. BRUCE JONES THOMAS A. KCVAL CLINTON W. LANIER ROBIN A. LLOYD STEVEN A. LONG JOHN SLAW McCRACKEN S CAROL M -LEAN GEORGE H M055 MCM.ULRS OF JONES b I01,1EL,, P A ATTORNEYS AND COUN'--CLORti 817 DEA.:HLAND VOUL[-.'Ar.D P. G. BOX 3006 VERG DEACH, FLORIDA 32'.160 (305) 231-1900 PATRICK M. O' -ARA RICHARD J OLACK ARTHUR P. PUMPIAN C. BROOKS RICCA, JR. CHRISTOPHER J SCHILLING ROBERT L. SELLARS SIDNEY A. STUBBS. JR, GEORGE P. SUPRAN ALLEN R. TOMLINSON EVERETT J. VAN GAA Srt:K PAUL C. WOLF -7 Gary Brandenburg, Esquire County Attorney Vero Beach, Florida RE: Audubon Society Appeal Dear. Gary: WEST PALM BEACH Ov FICE JONES 6 FOSTER, P. A. 601 FLAGLER DRIVE COURT P. 0. DRAWER E WEST PALM BEACH, FLORITjA 33402 (3051 659-3000 January 4, 1982 By Hand Although we haven't been officially notified, we have been advised by the Planning Department that the Audubon Society has filed an 11lppeal of the decision of the Zoning Board re approval of the Site Plan of the River Bend Yacht Club. As I understand it, the County CoIimission has placed this matter on the agenda of their January 6, 1982 meeting with a view to scheduling a public hearing on the Appeal pursuant to the applicable provisions of the ordinance. It is Florida Land Company's position that the Audubon Society totally lacks standing to appeal this matter and I would call your attention to the following authorities: (A.) See Boucher v Novotny, 102 So. 2d 132 (Sup. Ct. 1958) for a basic statement of the standing requirements in Florida, i.e. to be an "aggrieved party" (or a "party with an aggrieved interest") there must be a showing of special damages peculiar to the appellant differing in kind, as distinguished from damages differing in degree, suffered by the community as a whole (a copy of case enclosed). (B.) See Chabeau v Dade County and Ke�Biscayne Property Taxpayer's Associat`� io 85 So. 2d-1-2-9- (3DCA, 1980) for the proposition that the standards required under the case law with respect to standing to sue are not relaxed with respect JAN 6 1982 78 �o% '48 PAGE 496 I -I JAN 61982 9000 48 pvir,497 Gary Brandenburg, Esquire January 4, 1982 PAGE TWO to appeals: to higher administrative agencies. That was a case involving an Appeal from the Zoning Board to the Dade County Commission where the appellant contended even if it were not "aggrieved" sufficiently to have State Court standing it nevertheless is "aggrieved" for purposes of review by the Board of County Commissioners (case enclosed). (C.) See also United States Steel Corporation v Save Sand Key, Inc. 303 So. 2d 9 (Sup. Ct. 1974). (D.) Renard v Dade County 269 So. 2d 832 (Sup. Ct. 1972) for an example of a case where "standing" was found. In that case the appealing party was an adjoining property owner. (case enclosed) If you read over the cases on standing, you will reach the conclusion that about the only person who has standing to appeal a zoning change or site plan decision is the owner of the property affected or. an adjoining property owner. " In the Chabau case, some of the members of the Association did own property adjacent to the property involved but the Court still held that the Association, being the appealing party, did not have standing. I'd appreciate your calling me upon reviewing this letter and the enclosed cases and letting me know what your position will be. I feel that the proper place for this to be raised is at the meeting on January 6th, since, if the appellant has no standing the County Commission should properly refuse to set a public hearing. Kindest regards, JONES, FOSTER & 1'-1OSS cc:Neil Nelson James Clark By Andy Pugh Steve L. Henderson SLH:pm Enclosures JONES, FOSTER & MOSS PUBLIC HEARING - CO14PREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT - ORDINANCE 82-1 The hour of 3:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: _ 70 91 "' 1CPCSr„C US=— Nl._n,sm L N ; -------------•—_-------°---- RR2C�yj AG �' • - :'•: (:}'' v ; Atm II t?� i i. 11-02 go 0 • ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS EAST OF 1.95 = RR -2 • ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS I Ata WEST OF 1.95 = AG I i THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP The Future land Use Map is an intregral part of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Indian River County. Its purpose is to designate existing and future land use patterns for the'next twenty years. These activi- ty patterns include residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, in- stitutional uses, open space -preservation areas, agricultural uses, and areas with a mixture of uses. Urban residential land use districts are shown on the map by four popula- tion density classifications. These are designated as: Low Density 1 - to 3 units -acre Low Density 2 - to 6 units -acre Medium Density 1 - 8 units -acre -Medium Density 2 - to 10 units -acre Rural and Agricultural districts are shown on the map by three population 3ensity classifications. These are designated as: Agricultural - 5 Acres - 1 unit Rural - Residential 1 - 2.5 acres - 1 unit Rural - Residential 2 --1 ocre/unit Three areas within the County hove developed a historical mixture of esidential, commercial and industrial land uses. These areas have been .lassified as mixed-use districts. Within the boundaries of these districts, the •xisting variety of uses would be accommodated to develop in the future. MXD - to 14 units/acre Future commercial and industrial land uses are designated at strategic cations or nodes to accommodate anticipated demands. Each node aecifies a general activity or activities that may be expected to develop Within the next twenty years. The proposed Future Land Use Map also esignates the general locations of environmentally sensitive lands. ecember 17, 1981 ? L02 L N ; G 6 U AG 1� i. C C q qq -MO u >' • t O M i o THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP The Future land Use Map is an intregral part of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Indian River County. Its purpose is to designate existing and future land use patterns for the'next twenty years. These activi- ty patterns include residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, in- stitutional uses, open space -preservation areas, agricultural uses, and areas with a mixture of uses. Urban residential land use districts are shown on the map by four popula- tion density classifications. These are designated as: Low Density 1 - to 3 units -acre Low Density 2 - to 6 units -acre Medium Density 1 - 8 units -acre -Medium Density 2 - to 10 units -acre Rural and Agricultural districts are shown on the map by three population 3ensity classifications. These are designated as: Agricultural - 5 Acres - 1 unit Rural - Residential 1 - 2.5 acres - 1 unit Rural - Residential 2 --1 ocre/unit Three areas within the County hove developed a historical mixture of esidential, commercial and industrial land uses. These areas have been .lassified as mixed-use districts. Within the boundaries of these districts, the •xisting variety of uses would be accommodated to develop in the future. MXD - to 14 units/acre Future commercial and industrial land uses are designated at strategic cations or nodes to accommodate anticipated demands. Each node aecifies a general activity or activities that may be expected to develop Within the next twenty years. The proposed Future Land Use Map also esignates the general locations of environmentally sensitive lands. ecember 17, 1981 ? Q J U 0 7 FJ t'1 rt2hT. �•C"..-1 SEf-5.'JE .-REAS,RR < " .�. N!,<EO USE .r LfL �L E!q i RI LL': • � � _� 11 6f3aP.. M yEaa �� 1 LG'1: L2 NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER COUNTY ORDANANC> NOTICE OF REGULATION! OF LAND USE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will hol public hearing and consider the following ordinance on January 6, 1982. 3:00 P.M. at the County Administration Building, County Commiss Chambers, 1840 25th Street; an ordinance of the Board of County Comr: sioners of Indian River County, Florida, adopting a Comprehensive Plan the unincorporated areas of Indian River County in accordance with "Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975," as oriiended, S tions 163.3161, Et. Seq., Florida Statutes, providing for a Comprehen<_ Plan, purpose, vested rights, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severabil and effective date. The Land Use Element of the proposed Comprehensive Plan will discussed at the hearing. Copies of the full text of the ordinance and the p posed Comprehensive Plan will be available at the Indian River County+Plc ning and Zoning Department located at 2121 14th Avenue, Vero Bea Florida, on December 21, 1981, at a cost of $15.00. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, will need a record of the proceedings, aril for such purposes, he may need insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record cludes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIQA C l / By: /s/ Patrick.B. Lyons, Chairman c 4 c cc LL U y it l C v "\ v iu VVV U S 7 1 L U U U E U s D u L J V 4 PA t_F' ,. C JID 80 3 N ; G 6 U > u E 'nN C C q -CUO -MO u >' • t O M i o u D C 7 O 2 zo� c a LU W 3 U >O 4. U Cc o g Q m 13 G O' �� w tO a .C.. z LL s OjW q mal LU u C13 tu > o u > �c� GC C Z ann u- P ZJ nM yr S LLLL r ..3 aLL mL0] JAN 6 192 ro ~ L° D Q J U 0 7 FJ t'1 rt2hT. �•C"..-1 SEf-5.'JE .-REAS,RR < " .�. N!,<EO USE .r LfL �L E!q i RI LL': • � � _� 11 6f3aP.. M yEaa �� 1 LG'1: L2 NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER COUNTY ORDANANC> NOTICE OF REGULATION! OF LAND USE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will hol public hearing and consider the following ordinance on January 6, 1982. 3:00 P.M. at the County Administration Building, County Commiss Chambers, 1840 25th Street; an ordinance of the Board of County Comr: sioners of Indian River County, Florida, adopting a Comprehensive Plan the unincorporated areas of Indian River County in accordance with "Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975," as oriiended, S tions 163.3161, Et. Seq., Florida Statutes, providing for a Comprehen<_ Plan, purpose, vested rights, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severabil and effective date. The Land Use Element of the proposed Comprehensive Plan will discussed at the hearing. Copies of the full text of the ordinance and the p posed Comprehensive Plan will be available at the Indian River County+Plc ning and Zoning Department located at 2121 14th Avenue, Vero Bea Florida, on December 21, 1981, at a cost of $15.00. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, will need a record of the proceedings, aril for such purposes, he may need insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record cludes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIQA C l / By: /s/ Patrick.B. Lyons, Chairman c 4 c cc LL U y it l C v "\ v iu VVV U S 7 1 L U U U E U s D u L J V 4 PA t_F' ,. C JID 80 3 ordinance. em 48 PA,F499 Attorney Brandenburg read the title of the Chairman Scurlock explained what the procedure would be for the public hearing: First there would be the presentation by the staff of the Land Use Element; then questions will be asked by the Board, and then the public will have an opportunity to be heard. Art Challacombe, Senior Planner, presented the past history of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and advised that as a result of the numerous meetings conducted over the past few months, the Planning Department had developed policies for all the specific uses and the classifications. He then stated that staff recommended approval and that the Board adopt the draft of the Land Use Element and the Land Use Map. The Board then proceeded to review the Land Use Element, page by page, and after careful study, refined it by making appropriate changes on pages 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 15. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. - Evelyn Neville, Drawer -3327, Vero Beach, came forward and reviewed the following information with the Board: 8= — -I JAN Mr. Patrick Lyons Chairman of the County Commission 1245 - 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Drawer 3327 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 October 28, 1981 RE: Land Use Plan Tract 10, Section 10, Township 33, Range 38 And that part of Tract 9, Section 10, Township 33, Range 38 lying West of I-95 R/W, less the South 330 ft. thereof. Dear Mr. Lyons: Until today I have been under the impression that the above captioned property was planned for rezoning to MD1, together with the property adjacent to the East and North. The land to the West is planted in citrus and the land to the South is suitable for agricultural zoning, while mine is not for the following reasons: 1. The soil is not suitable for agricultural purposes, (white ridge sand in Northeast corner and cypress swamp in Southwest corner). 2. Approximately 15 acres of the land is a borrow - pit created at the time of the construction of I-95. 3. The Houston Gas Line easement runs through the West portion of the property; diagonally from North to South, taking up approximately 22 to 3 acres on which trees can not be planted even if the soil were suitable for agriculture. I would like to reclaim the property and -perhaps try to work out some mutual plan with the owner to the North which would also give me access to a road without having to travel two to three miles in a "round- about" way to get to the property. Its former access on Rosedale was cut off by the construction of I-95. My impression that it was included in the MD1 area is because it appeared that way on the map which came out in the Press Journal January 7, 1981, and which is enclosed herewith. It was brought to my attention by a Realtor with whom I listed the property for sale, that it was not included in the MDI area in the plan for rezoning. Your kind and courteous attention will be appreciated. Thank you. 61982 Ma Sincerely, N 1 `Evelyn F. Neville t I JAN 6 198 900K8 pArr F 501 8_ " r z n �f. �:x Mrs. Neville then requested the Board grant her the same density and zoning as the land to the north of her 43 acres. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the Board authorize this piece of property be included in the MD -1 category, from Agricultural. Discussion followed. It was determined that a legal description will be needed for this property. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried,.with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. Attorney George Ord, representing Mr. Rogers of Marsh Island, asked the Board to allow maximum density zoning for his client's property. Attorney Brandenburg was satisfied that the Board could limit the density to 4 units an acre. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, that the Board authorize changing Marsh Island from LD -1 to LD -2. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. Mr. Ely, representing Overseas Development Co., approached the Board to discuss the zoning status in the Granada Gardens Subdivision, plus other lots on Riverside Drive, located approximately one-tenth mile south of Oslo Road on the east side of U.S. #1. Senior Planner Challacqmbe explained that the subdivision has an extreme mixture of uses, but most are heavy commercial. He estimated that the node could accommodate that particular area and would recommend that it be looked at as a commercial use - it is not suitable for residential. L v • WK 8 PACF 5®2 JAIL 6 1982 WK 48 PA F503 Discussion followed along those lines, and the Board noted that there was a commercial node in that area and advised Mr. Ely to keep close to the situation. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to continue the meeting until 5:30 o'clock P.M. Mayor Ed Nolan, of Indian River Shores, came before the Board representing Indian River Shores and also a group that lives contiguous to the Walters property. He advised that it was zoned R-lA but now is LD -2 and the residents are now opposed to increasing the density to 6 units per acre, as it would result in increased waste water, water utilization, and traffic. Mayor Nolan commented that no one had approached Indian River Shores about this matter. He then stated that the new owners of the Walters property had requested their density be increased to 6 units an acre a year ago but the City Council had refused to do this. Mayor Nolan asked the Board to consider all the points he had brought up and not change the zoning to LD -2. David Cairnes, 256 10th Avenue, approached the Board representing- the Beachcomber Lane Homeowners Association. He felt the zoning should remain as the people would lose their buffer zone that they expected when they bought their land. Mr. Cairnes added that it would serve to their detriment to go to LD -2 and would decrease their property values. He then asked the Board to consider the items that the Mayor mentioned as the Homeowners support what he has said. William J. Stewart, Attorney representing Mr. Korman, approached the Board and felt that they should have more information before changing the zoning. He then discussed multi -family as opposed to single family, suggesting that in the event the owner of this property decided to seek rezoning to 5 or 6 units per acre, that 8_ would be the appropriate time for the opposing sides to express their views. Commissioner Lyons commented that this property is contiguous to two kinds of zoning, and he thought it was possible to leave it in LD -2. Discussion followed. Chairman Scurlock stated that it was the concurrence of the Board to leave it at LD -2. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board redesignate the zoning from LD -2 to LD -1, because of the impact the designation would have on the surrounding homeowners. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would -oppose the Motion but wanted to make a comment. He continued that LD -1 can be multi -family as well as LD -2 - the single family vs. multi -family question needs to be specifically addressed and considered. Mayor Nolan asked the Board to let the Town of Indian River Shores have what they want in order for them to promote their own destiny. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on with a vote of 1 to 4, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in favor. The Motion failed. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to extend the meeting until 6:00 o'clock P.M. Morris Blumberg, 3554 Ocean Drive, came before the Board representing the Taxpayers Association of Indian River County, and mentioned that there was considerable discussion of viable agricultural land. He continued that emphasis is being placed on density numbers by maximums and warned that the maximums could become the actualities. Mr. Blumberg also felt the projection figure of 130,000 was misleading and represented a cap. JAN 61982 He stated that the Taxpayers BOOR ';8 PSG£ 504 JAN 61992 48 Pr -505 Association did not like the increased number of industrial areas as they see no need in this County for the people to want to have more industries of any nature. He then urged the Board not to open the door for more industry, which would reduce the agricultural land. Terry Goff, interested citizen, approached the Board, on behalf of Ann Robinson who had to leave the meeting, and read the following letter from Ray Fernald of the Pelican Island Audubon Society: 0 6 PELYCAN ISLAND ATJDTJBON SOCIETY P. 0. Box 1833 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32900 AIt 5 October 1981 A STATEMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSION REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND -USE PLAN Pelican Island Audubon Society joins with other residents of Indian River County who believe that planned or allowable increases in this County's population should fit within a framework of services, currently available, or which may readily be made available at affordable tax rates. We agree that such services, and the estimated tax increases entailed, should be predetermined through studies conducted by experts in the fields of environmental resources management; potable water supply; waste water management; transportation; disaster planning; demographics; and fire, police, and health services. We believe that in-depth planning is required to maintain the life style of this county, one that is unique on this coast of Florida. Pelican Island Audubon Society is not opposed to a well-planned and orderly growth pattern which can be readily assimilated into this life style. We are, however, unalterably opposed to growth via haphazard planning and the setting of unrealistic and uncontrolled goals, with no regard for availability or affordability of required services. Therefore, we endorse the reduction of maximum dwelling unit densities, as proposed by the Vero Beach Civic Association, as an interim measure until the Future Land Use Plan is revised to reflect the desires of the N`' residents of Indian River County as expressed in a referendum on future population, and further adjusted to accommodate the findings and recommendations of public service -related studies as outlined above. Regarding preservation of the natural resources of Indian River County including surface and ground waters, wetlands, unique or endangered uplands, and fish and wildlife populations, we offer the following comments. � � r The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value of these resources and adopts an attitude of conservation, but we fear it falls short of implementing that committment. The Plan is essentially dependent on regional,State, and Federal agencies for resource inventory, land acquisition, and regulatory functions. We believe it is the County's responsibility to take this lead role in protecting our environment. (An essential first step is for Indian River County to employ a' professional environmental planner who is trained in the ecology and management of natural systems. It would be fruitless to assign the task of resource management to the Planning Department, without also providing the technical expertise to design, evaluate, and implement such a program The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; Florida Departments of Agriculture, Environmental Regulation, and.Natural Resources; Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and U.S. Soil Conservation Service can be relied on to provide input to resource inventory and management, but none of these agencies have the capability to supervise a program specifically for Indian River County. That is the responsibility of our local government. - d • The list of needed studies.and regulations presented in the Comprehensive Plan is a good start. We wish to suggest additional topics, however, which should be considered. 1. Indian River County possesses coastal strand, tropical coastal hammocks, sand pine scrub, and other unique upland habitats which are not protected by regional, State, or Federal statutes. In addition to their educational and aesthetic values, these habitats are extremely important for stabilization of unconsolidated sediments and recharge of the shallow aquifer along the sand ridge. Because development pressure is greatest in upland areas, the County would be wise to acquire, or limit ditstruction of these unique habitats now, while they are relatively plentiful, rather than to wait until they are nearly depleted and prohibitively expensive. 2. Restrictions on fill placement, drainage, and vegetative destruction within wetlands are vital to effective management of these resources. These development actions are partially regulated by State or Federal agencies, but local government must not depend on these "big brothers" to do the job for us. An excellent example of effective environmental control over wetland resources, albeit 30 years late, is Dade County's Department of Environmental Resources Management. 3. We must reduce unit densities and development within the 100 year floodplain, particularly along the Sebastian and Indian Rivers. Encouraging development in the floodplain not only increases the public costs of stormwater drainage, transportation, and civil emergency planning, but courts natural disaster) - Accordingly, the County should re-evaluate its position of support for the Federal Flood Insurance Program. This program, originally intended to discourage Federal participation in or support of floodplain development, has been perverted into an incredibly expensive bureaucracy which encourages and financially subsidizes wetland and floodplain development. JAN 61982 88 48 r4�.506 800K 48 PnF 5® 0 if 4. We enthusiastically support the establishment of Special Treatment Districts as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan J The transfer of residential densities to adjacent lands under unified ownership is a progressive and equitable solution. These rights, however, should not be assessed on a one-to-one ratio based on acreage and density districts. Rather, the transfer ratio should be based on the realistic potential developabilty of the Special Treatment Lands. For example, intertidal red mangrove swamp has a negligable potential for development because of State and Federal statutes. Any transfer of development rights should be appropriately minimal, regardless of the surrounding area's density district status. Also, the current proposal does not provide for those landowners who do not possess lands outside of, but adjacent to, their Special Treatment District Holdings. In summary, Pelican Island Audubon Society believes the County Planning Department has done an exemplary job of preparing the FLUP under the circumstances. Unfortunately, the lack of baseline data, insufficient funding for future studies, and technical expertise of the present staff with regard to natural resources management render the proposed plan dangerously vulnerable to exploitation. Indian River County has a statewide reputation for being a progressive, - responsible caretaker of its environment. We urge you to provide the mechanism and capability to preserve our bountiful natural resources which are so essential to the quality of life we now enjoy. 4 Thank you for your consideration and attention. Ray Fernald President Pelican Island Audubon Society John Kominsky, South _Indian River Drive, Sebastian, came before the Board 'and requested the Board not change the zoning of his property as the density would then be changed from 15 units to 3 units an acre. Commissioner Wodtke commented that without some investigation, it would be difficult to make alterations on something that the staff has been working on for seven years. Chairman Scurlock concurred that he did not favor redesignating this area. Commissioner Lyons felt Mr. Kominsky would have an opportunity again when this area came up for rezoning. Attorney Tom Palmer, Indian River Drive, came before the Board and asked Attorney Brandenburg to clarify several items concerning site plan approval and agricultural fringe areas. Frank Zorc, 20th Avenue, approached the Board and also asked clarification of the items concerning site plan approval. Attorney Brandenburg explained that a site plan that had been approved, as of today, could continue and be developed fully. Discussion followed about mobile/manufactured homes. Mr. Zorc felt there were two different density factors regarding the Mixed Use Classification. Discussion followed. On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to extend the meeting for 15 minutes. Chairman Scurlock noted that the Board had a very thorough discussion and he was not willing to change the Land Use Element any further. The Board agreed. On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously agreed to close the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the Attorney felt comfortable that the Board would be adopting the Land Use Element dated 1-5-82 and the hearing is 1-6-82. Attorney Brandenburg explained that this document has been subject to numerous public hearings and the purpose of the latest draft, dated 1-5-82, was to correct some typing errors. He affirmed that he did feel comfortable with the Land Use Element. He suggested the Chairman's name be corrected to reflect the new Chairman's name. E�OK 8 PAGE 50 0 JAN 61992 L- 90 A 48 PA,,F JAN 6 1982 9 Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board adopt Ordinance 82-1 adopting the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the County, as read earlier, as amended, and incorporating the Land Use Map. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he would vote against the Motion as he believed the Board could do a lot better regarding LD -1. Commissioner Lyons expressed his appreciation to Carolyn Eggert, and the Planning Staff, who worked on this project. Commissioner Wodtke noted that he had a procedural problem, They are adopting one element in the Land Use Plan and he felt the other elements in the plan - which are transportation, housing, sewer and water, are the most important. Commissioner Wodtke inquired if the other elements will be reviewed. Attorney Brandenburg explained that some time in March the Board will have an opportunity to consider all of the elements and any changes can be made at that time. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would support the Motion but that it was not to -be an indication that he would support the Motion in March - he wanted to see the goals and objectives first. The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on and carried, with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. 9= r ORDINANCE NO. 82-1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ADOPTING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ACT OF 1975", AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 163.3161, ET. SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES, PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PURPOSE, VESTED RIGHTS, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, "The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975" as amended, Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes requires each local government in the State of Florida to adopt a Comprehensive Plan to guide and control future development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to said act, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County appointed the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Com- mission as the local planning -agency -for the County; and WHEREAS, the local planning agency has held public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan and recommends adoption of the plan by the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the County Commission has held numerous public hearings and work- shops on the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, all requirements of the Florida Statutes with regard to public input and review by the local planning agency have been met, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that; SECTION I, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Pursuant to the provisions of the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975", as amended, Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby declares its intent to exercise its authority to plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of Indian River County and hereby adopts the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION II, PURPOSE: The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County is adopted to direct and achieve coordinated and harmonious development and land use in a manner which will permit planning for adequate L n% 8 PAGE 510 JAN 6 IS82 egoK 4 8 F ;F511 community facilities, protect the ecological balance of the environment, and promote the public health, safety, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of Indian River County's citizens and visitors. In furtherence hereof, the Board of County Commissioners hereby declares its policy and intent to evaluate all actions involving or affecting land use for consistency with the Land Use Element. In recognition that zoning has been and shall continue to be a major tool for the implementation of the land use and development policies; all applicants for zoning, site plan or subdivision approval, shall affirmatively establish the manner in which the development proposal and requested change in land use conforms to and is consistent with the Land Use Element. SECTION III, VESTED RIGHTS: Nothing contained herein shall be construed as affecting validly existing vested rights. It shall be the duty and responsi- bility of the applicant alleging vested rights to affirmatively demonstrate the legal requisites of vested rights. Rights shall vest upon a demonstration, to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, that the applicant; 1. Has reasonably relied in good faith, 2. Upon some act or omission of the County, 3. Has made a substantial change in position or incurred extensive obligations and expenses to their detriment. The mere existence of zoning or other development order, as defined in Florida Statute 163.3161, et. seq., contrary to the Comprehensive Plan shall not be determined in and of itself to vest rights.... SECTION IV, REPEAL. OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION V, SEVERABILITY: Should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof, any paragraph, sentence or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof. I _ M M SECTION IV, EFFECTIVE DATE: The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt of acknowledgement of the Department of State, State of Florida. . APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, the 6th day of January 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY C014MISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,' FLORIDA j - By a'AIZZ de Don C. Scurlock, Jr. 11 Chairman ATTEST: Freda Wright, Clerk Acknowledgement by the Department of State, State of Florida, on this day of , 1982, at and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. A a B- y Attorney JAIL 61982 690K 48 FA,F512 JAN 61992 LAND USE ELEMENT INTRODUCTION am 48 pArF 513 1-8-82 The Land Use Element of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan sets forth the County's policies for its long-range physical development. The Land Use Element consists of statements of development objectives, standards and principles with respect to the most desirable use of land within the county for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural purposes. LAND USE OBJECTIVES Urban development shall be encouraged to fill in available land closest to service areas of the county so as to avoid "spot development." Lower density development shall take place in areas having environmental sensitivity and in areas outside planned service. Incompatible land uses should be separated from one another. Where they do abut, appropriate physical or natural buffers should be establi-shed. GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES COM-SERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL All areas of corEunercial/industrial development shall be located in a compact manner to discourage strip development patterns which negatively affect the aesthetic quality, safety, land use patterns and traffic handling capacity of the transportation system. _ 2 r I AGRICULTU-RE The County shall not permit encroachment, by other land uses, of agricultural lands except where demonstrated that those lands are no longer viable for agricultural purposes. The County shall permit urban development on agricultural fringe* areas based on planned growth patterns as t,%ell as existing conditions in the immediate area of the proposed development. ENVIRONMENT, RECREA^l ION, AESTHETICS The County encourages the perpetuation of existing and future recreational and open space areas. Land development activities will highlight and maximize scenic amenities and cultural facilities whenever possible. RESIDENTIAL Proposals for residential development shall complement existing residential patterns and provide adequate neighborhood facilities. The County will initiate community development programs in existing neighborhoods which are defined through building and housing standards as "deteriorating". Residential development shall be encouraged to locate in areas easily accessible to employment and service centers. In areas characterized as flood prone, within the 100 -year flood map boundary, development must conform with the National Flood .Insurance Rate Maps (FIR14) elevation standards and/or performance standards of locally adopted drainage plans where no elevation is indicated on the FIRIN maps. a The County shall permit permanent mobile/manufactured home subdivisions to be located within MD -1 and 11i..ed-Use Districts. Where mobile/manufactured homes are locates: within Mixed -Use Districts, densities shall not exceed eight (8) units per acre. JAN 6 1992 a irW & PArF 514 -I JAN 61992 8o 48 FA;F515 RELATIONSHIP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO EXISTING USES GENERAL POLICIES It is not the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to create non -conforming uses by the adoption of the Plan. All lawful, conforming uses in existence at the date of Plan adoption shall be considered consistent with the Plan. Where appropriate, these uses will be assigned zoning classifications consistent with the existing use. Projects that have received site plan or subdivision approval at the date of adoption of this Plan shall be considered in conformity with the Plan. Projects which have been developed in phases by a single developer on contiguous property which have received subdivision or site plan approval at the date of adoption of this plan shall be considered in conformity with the Plan. TRANSITION POLICY Applications for rezonings, site plan or subdivision approval which have been submitted to the Planning Department prior to the adoption of this Plan, and which have been certified as complete, shall remain active for a period of sixty days from the date of adoption. If the application has not been acted upon within this 60 day transition period, the applicant may request the Board of County Commissioners to extend the transition period of the project for a period of 60 days. These transition petitions shall be evaluated separately under the 1975 and 1982 Comprehensive Plans and may be approved if adjudged compatible with either. Such approval shall be considered to be in conformance with this Plan. 3 M TIIE LAND USE PLAN - DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY - MANAGING GROWTII THROUGH DENSITY Managing growth through density is a concept by which future development patterns are planned, based on the carrying capacity of land and available resources. Development of land for urban uses is limited by the availability of existing and proposed services necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of a growing community. The rate and location of future development in Indian River County cannot be -permitted -to exceed the pace by which government can provide community facilities and services. To insure proper allocation of land to be set aside for urban eXpansion, the County will develop capital improvement programs for all essential services. These programs establish the County's responsibilities and fiscal ability to accommodate future growth proposals. The Land Use Plan assigns specific density capacities .to various land districts. Each district is given its particular residential density according to the following criteria: 1) historical development patterns 2) proximity to urban centers 3) physical characteristics All commercial and industrial uses permitted within a district are regulated by zoning, location, and performance standards which must be met before a project is approved. JAN 61982 L- 4 NOK 48 PAGE 516 LAND USE *k!AP BOOK 48 PASF 5.1.7 The Land Use Piap delineates district locations and their relationship to each other. The map is not a zoning map nor does it reflect existing zoning. The Pap shows the future land use pattern for the County. The land uses displayed are sufficient to accommodate the estimated population growth to 130,000. These activities include single and multi -family residential uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, open space areas, environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural areas, and areas of milted uses. Existing zoning, at the time of adoption, shall be regulated by the density districts and boundaries specified on the Land Use Map.- All rezonings mandated by the Plan, to insure conformity, shall take place within a three year _ period commencing with final adoption. Specific zoning designations and boundaries shall be shown on the official Indian River County Zoning Atlas. URBAN SERVICE AREAS Indian River County through its Land Use Element, delineates areas where the County expects to provide urban services. The Urban Development Perimeter outlined on the map, consists of those areas designated as Low Density Districts, Medium Density Districts, and Mixed -Use Districts. will: areas Within the "Urban Development Perimeter" the County 1) Consider the,reclassification of flood prone areas, whenever possible,. to non -urban uses. Provision of urban'services to these areas will be a low priority. 2) Only permit development in primary water recharge that cover 25% or less of the ground area with impervious surface. = 5 3) Insure that major thoroughfares are maintained at levels of service having stable flow characteristics and shall only approach unstable flow conditions during peak traffic periods. Minimum thoroughfare level shall be level of service "D", as in the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. URBAN SERVICE AREA PRIORITIES 1980-1990 PRIORITY #1: SOUTH COUNTY: I - The south county area, which includes the U.S.#1 corridor to Oslo Road and the south barrier island will continue to have the rapid growth. This growth, combined with extensive service planning by the county, necessitates the establishment of this area as a high priority for service expansion. PRIORITY #2: GIFFORD The proximity of the Gifford area to the city of Vero Beach enables this area to be provided with services at reasonable cost. A portion of Gifford is currently receiving water service from the county. Projected growth, combined with extensive service planning by the county, necessitates the establishment of this area as a high priority for service expansion. PRIORITY #3: WABASSO, SEBASTIAN AND ROSELAND These areas are experiencing rapid growth, despite'the current lack of services. Growth is centered in the Sebastian Highlands Subdivision, and along the Indian River. URBAN SERVICE AREA PRIORITIES - 1990-2000 PRIORITY #1: STATE ROAD 60 CORRIDOR TO I-95 State Road 60 is the major transportation link connecting western portions of the county with the more urbanized areas along the Indian River and Atlantic Ocean. As planned growth expands westward, this area is established as a high priority for services. ,ROOK 8 PACF, 518 JAN 61982 6 JAN 61982 BOOK 48 Fa,c 519 PRIORITY T2: OSLO RO'1D TO SOUTH COUNTY LIME Nero Beach Highlands is a large subdivision in this area; there is a large scale development program ongoing. In anticipation of future population growth the County will expand services to this area. PRIORITY 117'3: NORTH BEACH Because of the planned low density residential character of this area, provision of services to the north beach will receive a lower priority than mainland areas. Development proposals in the north beach should consider individual wells and septic tanks, community franchised facilities, or a similar means of providing services. LAND USE PLAN MAP DISTRICTS The future development of the County will be determined through the designation of specific maximum residential densities. The type of use and density allocation will be controlled by the Zoning Code. This approach allows future growth in those areas where the carrying capacity of the land can accommodate development and where service can be provided in a cost effective manner. The density districts described in this element represent the maximums permitted; they do not represent entitlements. Actual residential densities may be less than maximums displayed on the Larid Use Map. When projects abut density district boundaries, zoning will be applied which promotes a smooth transition between the districts. These transition's areas should contain land uses that do not generate drastic changes in intensity. These areas should be assigned zoning categories that serve as intermediate steps between areas of differing land use intensities. The categories described in the Land Use Element are shown on the Land Use I-.Iap. The text of this element shall be considered equal to the map insofar as density restrictions an6 regulating policies are concerned. 7 AGRICULTURAL DTSTRICT (AG) One of the most serious problems facing the Countv is scattered housing subdivisions that deplete the best agricultural lands and require extension of expensive community facilities and services to meet resident needs. This district furthers viability of the County's agricultural economy. Prime agricultural lands must be preserved whenever possible. Residential densities in this district are a maximum of 1 unit per five (5) acres. j_ Commercial and industrial uses may be permitted outside of nodal designations as a special exception. Industrial development should be oriented toward agri-business. RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS This district provides transition between agricultural or environmentally sensitive areas and urban development areas. They are designed to provide areas where very low density residential neighborhoods are established and maintained. RURAL -RESIDENTIAL - lU (RP. -1) This district provides limited residential uses, but at the same time protects agricultural lands from growth pressures. Densities in this district shall not exceed one unit per two and one half (2.5) acres. RUP.AL RESIDENTIAL - 2 (RR -2) This district provides limited residential uses, but at the same time protects environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands which are under development pressure. The density in this district shall not exceed 1 unit per acre. JAN 61992 L 8 690K 48 PAGE 520 J JAN 61992 WK .48 PA F 521 LOW DENS?TY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS These Districts achieve a development which includes large amounts of open space and related facilities and also achieves a low overall residential density. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Development/Location Criteria: Within these districts, development shall be located: - in areas having attractive natural surroundings; - in areas having convenient access to transportation systems; - in areas that are separated or buffered by physical - or natural means from major streets, commercial and/or industrial areas; - in areas where governmental services can be economically provided with minimal environmental impact; - where terrain and soil conditions provide a good foundation for buildings and streets; - in areas adequately drained and where provisions of the County Flood Protection Ordinance can be met. Design Considerations: The County Code shall incorporate performance standards for: - adequate off-street parking to meet area needs; - an overall development layout that protects important natural environmental functions and features of the site and the surrounding area; - achieving ma�timum efficiency and economy in providing government services. LOVI DENISITY 1 (LD -1) : This district is characterized by densities of a suburban nature. Densities within this district shall not exceed three (3) units per acre in single or cluster residences. Cluster residences may include multi -family housing provided the density limitations are not exceeded. LOW DE;:SITY 2 (LD -2): This district shall provide for residential densities of a suburban nature not exceeding six (6) units per acre in single or cluster residences which may include multi -family residences. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS These districts provide for residential development generally located where particular advantages are offered by virtue of close proxi-mitt' to shopping and work centers or principal thoroughfares leading to them. PERF ORI,IANCE STANDARDS Development/Location Criteria: Medium density residential development shall be located: - near major shopping or employment centers; - where governmental services can be provided in a cost effective manner; - in areas having soil conditions suitable for building, or areas where provisions of the County Flood Protection Ordinance can be met. Design Considerations: The Zoning Code shall incorporate performance standards for: JAN 6 1982 - arrangement and design of structures that permits light, air flow, privacy and emergency access for all dwellings; - off-street parking spaces that meet needs of the development; - buffering living units and outdoor recreation areas 10 nv -48 P�f,F 522 JAN 61992 E80K Fa;F 523 from commercial uses, industrial activities, utility plants and principal streets near the site; protection of important natural functions and features of the site and the surrounding area. MEDIUM DENSITY 1 (MID -1): This district is characterized by densities of an urban nature. Densities in this district shall not exceed eight (8) units per acre. MEDIUM DENSITY 2 (MD -2): This district is similar to the MD -1 district, being characterized as urban in nature. Densities shall not exceed ten (10) units per acre. MIXED USE DISTRICT (MXD) Past development has produced several areas possessing a broad mixture of land uses, many of which are incompatible with good land -use patterns and effective transition buffers. The Affixed Use District designation, as shown on the Land Use Map, represents the maximum permitted extent of a mixed use land pattern. Within the designated areas, the County shall encourage, where appropriate, redevelopment in accordance with the dominant land uses and the health, safety and welfare of area residents. Permitted uses include residential development up to fourteen (14) units per acre, commercial and industrial uses. All future non-residential development in this District shall be regulated using performance standards as addressed in the Zoning Code and criteria described in this Plan. im ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE DESIGNATION The environmentally sensitive designation recognizes that certain areas of the county are particularly sensitive to developmental impacts. Areas within this designation include marsh lands, wet lands and areas with extensive mangrove growth, constituting a sensitive ecosystem. Areas designated environmentally sensitive west of I-95 shall have the same maxii-aum residential density limitation as the agricultural district. _ 11 Areas designated as environmentally sensitive east of I-95 shall have the same maximum residential density limitation as the Rural/ Residential - 2 land use district. In addition to density requirements, these lands will be subject to regulations to assure that development does not interfere with the natural ecosystem. These additional requirements shall be implemented through the Zoning Code. An alternate development approach is available for lands designated as environmentally sensitive. Residential densities assigned to environmentally sensitive areas may be shifted to adjacent properties not located within the environmentally sensitive designations. Shifting may occur with property under unified ownership as part of a planned development that otherwise meets the requirements of this plan and the County's Code. In situations where a potential environmentally sensitive area exists, a developer shall contact the Corps of Engineers, Department of Environmental Regulation, St. Johns Water Management District and/or other applicable regulatory agencies concurrent with his application to the County. Where a regulatory agency indicates probable environmental sensitivity, a developer may be required to provide reports or studies to, address the environmental problems. This section recognizes that environmentally sensitive areas exist within the county that are not shown on the map either through oversight or size and can not be graphically displayed on the Land Use Map. INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Institutional facilities are developments by which private organizations and various levels of go,,,•ernment provide services to meet human requirements. Performance standards for public and institutional uses are described in the following table. 8 PAcF 524 JAN 6 1982 12 JAN 61982 PERFOFVLAtiCE SPE OF FACILITY STA`1-CARDS FOR PUBLIC AND INSTITUTICNAL LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Boa 49 LuU525 USES DESIGN CON - SIDERATIONS EDUCATION Location and design standards for public education facilities are set by the Florida Department of Education. These vary with the intended use and student load. Generally, sites for schools to serve younger children should not be located on arterial streets, and all school sites should be separated or well -buffered from major commercial, industrial, public utility and railroad facilities. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Located central to popu- Site must have lation served and readily sufficient space accessible from all parts for off-street of the area they are de- parking and signed to serve. building expan- sion to meet long-range needs PUBLIC Public safety facilities Fire stations SAFETY should be located in areas serving indus- which_can provide short re- trial areas must sponse time to high value have appropriate areas such as commercial fire fighting centers, industrial parks equipment. and medium density residen- tial areas served. Direct access to all sectors of the service area should be by mayor streets. 13 - MEDICAL Access via major thorough- Separation a^d fares is desirable for buffering must hospitals providing emer- provide a clean gency medical services. and quiet envi- ronment. Adja- cent areas must have suitable space for sup- port offices and businesses. PUBLIC Places for public ve- Buffering and WORKS hicle.storage, materials screening from storage and equipment re- residential and _ pair should be located in business areas industrial or heavy com- are needed. mercial areas. Whenever practi- cal, jointly de- veloped or con- solidated facil- ities for city, county and school activi- ties are desira- ble. STRATEGIES FOR COIN1ERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT Commercial and industrial growth has historically occurred along the U.S.rl corridor. This trend has resulted in commercial/industrial uses being located along continuous strips. This arrangement is inefficient use of land and causes the following problems: 1) traffic and safety; 2) inadequate parking facililties; 3) proliferation of signs, overhead wires, and aesthetically unappealing design. 48 ��^F �?6 JAN 6192 1� JAN 61992 A�n� Future sites shall locate in specified nodal areas. The nodal pattern for development concentrates land uses around a central location. Specific location and design criteria are stated in this element in order to evaluate an area's suitability for commercial and/or industrial uses. The standards for commercial and industrial uses -shall be as follows: (SEE TABLE ON PAGE 21) TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES Tourist commercial nodal areas are designated on the Land Use Map. However, future demands may justify designation of additional areas. PERFOR1ANCE STANDARDS FOR TOURIST COMMERCIAL USES _ 1) When resort areas are adjacent to a shoreline, a buffer of parkland shall be provided to prevent these areas from being visually dominated by commercial development. 2) Convenient public rights-of-way to shorelines shall be provided,_maintained and publicized through signs. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES The County continues to encourage light, non-polluting industry. This policy should continue. Industrial uses shall be located in nodal units -such as industrial parks. Characteristics and needs of different industrial activities vary depending on the type and scale of use, location, and design of sites. The following factors shall be considered in determining suitable locations and design of industrial areas: 1) Areas of industrial development shall offer direct access to available modes of transportation. 2) Adequate utilities shall be provided in design of the development. 3) Physical separation or buffering shall be provided between cost industrial and other uses. _ _ 25 COM1,ERCIAL AND I°:DUSTIZIAL LCC,' -,--ION; AND SPECIAL LA`,D USE POLICIES RELATED TO COM1IERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODAL A-T':FAS The nodal acreage designations represent anticipated commercial -industrial needs for the 20 year life of the Plan. This element establishes special types and densities of housing which may be accommodated within a node acting as a buffer and providing for transition from one use to another adjacent district. The nodal area policies establish the maximum limits of development expansion for every node. All nodes shall be a - recognized as being within two types: 1) unspecified (neighborhood) 2) specified (all others) SPECIAL POLICIES REGULATING NODAL AREAS 1) Neighborhood nodes shall be a minimum of two (2) acres and shall not exceed eight (8) acres. 2) Neighborhood nodes are not designated on the map, but are established through the Zoning Code. Neighborhood nodes shall be permitted to develop on a basis of service needs. An applicant shall provide information regarding the immediate market before a neighborhood node may be established through the Zoning Code. 3) Neighborhood nodes shall be limited to providing public convenience businesses and professional offices as defined in the Zoning Code. 4) Specified nodes may include: a) neighborhood commercial centers not to exceed eight (8) acres per center; b) highway comimercial centers not to exceed three hundred (300) feet in depth along any roadway. JAN \ S 1982 16 48 F"k1.528 L poor ..8 PAF 529 c) community commercial centers with acreage in excess of eight (8) and not exceeding twenty (20) acres per center. d) industrial parks with acreage of two hundred fifty (250) acres. 5) Nodes described as being at an intersection shall have its maximum size in terms of acreage. The shape of these nodes will be an equal distribution of the acreage around the intersection, with the possibility of a 250 deviation in any direction provided the maximum acreage is not exceeded. 6) Commercial centers within all nodes shall have 4.5 square feet of land area to every one (1)square _ foot of building space whenever possible. PERMITTED COMI4ERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LOCATIONS I-95/S.R. 512 INTERCHANGE This is a commercial node containing one hundred fifty (150) acres. I-95/S.R. 60 INTERCHANGE This is a commercial -industrial node containing two hundred thirty (230) acres. A maximum of eighty (80) acres shall be utilized for commercial uses and a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) acres shall be utilized for industrial uses. S.R. 510 AND S.R. 512.INTERSECTION This intersection contains a commercial node of fifty (50) acres. SEBASTIAN/ROSELAND AREA A fifty (50) acre hospital cor.Lmercial node is located at the intersection of Roseland Road and U.S. it adjacent to the existing hospital. On the north county boundary at U.S. 1 is a twenty five (25) acre tourist commercial node. There are two, forty (40) acre cor-amercial nodes located on U.S, rrl at the north and south Sehastian City limits. - 17 - WABASSO AREA A one hundred fifty (150) acre ccr-i-ercial/industrial node is located at the intersection of S.R. 510 and U.S. 41. Fiffty (50) acres is allocated for industrial uses while eighty (80) acres is allocated for commercial uses. Residential development may be permitted in this node. WINTER BEACH/GIFFORD AREA Four industrial nodes are located in the Winter Beach/ Gifford area. A fifty (50) acre node is located at the intersection of U.S.#1 and Hobart Road. A hundred (100) acre node is located on South Winter Beach Road, west of the Florida East Coast -Railroad right-of-way. A hundred (100) acre node- in the Gifford area is located west of U.S.#1 to H, south of the North Relief Canal to Lindsey Road. A fifty (50) acre node is located east of U.S.#1 between North Gifford Road and South Gifford Road. An eighty (80) acre general commercial node is located on the east side of U.S.#1 at the proposed intersection of Storm Grove Road. Residential uses may be permitted within this node. A one hundred thirty (130) acre hospital commercial node is located north of the present Indian River Hospital along 37th Street (Barber Avenue). Commercial uses related to the needs of the hospital shall be the primary use permitted as well as residential uses. S.R.60 AND KINGS HGHWAY TO 43RD AVENUE A ninety (90) acre commercial node is located at the S.R.60 and Kings Highway intersection and extends eastward to 43rd Avenue between S.R.60 and the main relief canal. Residential use may be permitted within this node. 44 48 PAGE 530 JAN 61982 18 OSI.O ROAD AREAS 48 PAGE531 A two hundred thirty, (230) acre commercial/industrial node is located at the southwest corner of the 74th Avenue (Range Line Road) and Oslo Road intersection. There is an eighty (80) acre commercial node located at the U.S.11r1 and Oslo Road intersection. S.R.510 AND A -1-A IN`t`'ERSECTION This twenty five (25) acre node will permit resort commercial uses as well as neighborhood commercial uses. A -1-A BETWEEN WINDWARD WAY AND MOORING LINE DRIVE A ten (10) acre commercial node is located within The Moorings Development project to serve the residents in the south beach area. U.S.#1 SOUTH TO 4TH STREET The U.S.#1 corridor from the Vero Beach City limits to 4th (Citrus) Street for a depth of six hundred (600)feet is a major commercial service area for the County. This area will continue to be utilized by commercial service activities and allowed to infill where vacant lands exist within the area boundaries described. RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL POLICIES IN THE b1IXED USE DISTRICTS U. S.'41 MIXED USE CORRIDOR. This corridor, located on the west side of U.S.rl to a point three hundred (300) feet west of the FEC railroad or Old Dixie Highway, whichever is most westerly, extends south from the Sebastian City limits to the northern limits of Vero Beach continuing again from the southern Cite limits of Vero Beach to the Indian River - St. Lucie County line. A small portion of this corridor is located east of U.S.=1 fcr a depth of three hundred (300) feet bet,.ceen Irb17 Lane south to the Wabasso commercial•/industrial node. - = 19 - Ceruercial and industrial uses are antici--ated to utilize the majority of the land area within the corridor. :here future residential development occurs within this mixed-use area, densities shall be limited to six (6) units per acre, including mobile home residential uses. GIFFORD MIXED USE DISTRICT While the predominate land use in the Gifford area is currently residential, there are significant portions of land that are used for commercial or industrial activities located within and adjacent to the residential uses. Future expansion of commercial or industrial as well as residential uses shall be regulated by the.County as prescribed in the County Code to insure that these uses will not be in conflict with each other. OSLO ROAD MIXED USE DIS`T'RICT Oslo Road is the major east -west thoroughfare serving the southern part of the County. The greatest amount of new residential development will occur within the South County area; therefore, a Mixed Use District along Oslo Road has been established to accommodate the anticipated growth. The Mixed Use District on Oslo Road consists of two separate areas. One area, six hundred (600) feet deep north of Oslo Road, extends from Lateral"J"Canal westward to 22nd Avenue. This area also includes a portion three hundred (300) feet deep on the south side of Oslo Road between 22nd Avenue and 19th Avenue and between 12th Avenue to 10th Avenue. Where future residential development occurs within the two mixed use areas of this district, densities shall not exceed those maximum densities of the surrounding and adjacent land use categories as described in the text and sown on the Land Use Map. JAN s 1982 L. 20 I JAN 61992 wx 48 PAf,E53 PERFORMANCE STAP.TIARDS FOR COP IrPCIA1, USES Compatible with most Can locate in major multi- RETAIL •& SERVICE CONVENIENCE GOODS & SERVICES HIGHWAY -ORIENTED COMMERCIAL OFFICES GENERAL Activities that offer Stores offering frequently Establishments that primarily Activities that gen- DESCRIPTION: infrequently needed needed goods and services depend upon, provide for, and erally do not entail goods and services for for which people do not are designed to serve vehicular sale or display of comparison shoppers. comparatively shop. traffic that moves along main goods and do not re - Apparel, furniture, Typical activities include thoroughfares. Typical activ- quire high visibility appliances and specialty grocery stores, druggists, ities are motels, auto service, from through highways. stores are typical of cleaners and beauty parlors. sales and repair and restau- Typical among these this group. near industrial areas. rants. are legal, financial, between residential USES: Limited use in neigh- realty, technical and area. designated sector of and commercial uses. some medical service borhood serving com- egress. a planned industrial establishments. LOCATION: Central to and/or Conveniently accessible to Located with good access and Locational needs are readily accessible residential sub -areas of high visibility from inter- often determined by from all residential the community. city thoroughfares. type of service (law - areas of the community. building and parking yer near courthouse, Can be located in conjunc- Accessible from outlying ser- doctor near hospital, Preferably grouped tion with groups of retail vice areas and near primary etc.). with other stores of or highway commercial uses routes for shipping and re - fere with movement on the this category to to achieve greater consum- ceiving goods (highway, rail). Shall be located in achieve combined mar- er volume and multi- neighborhood/office ket draw of people on purpose trips. landscaping is desir- nodes or as specified multi-purpose trips, Public or private water Public or private water and in Zoning Ordinance. Where not located in a group facility in and sewer. sewer. conjunction with highly developed area. centers shall not be Public or private located closer than water and sewer. 1 mile radius to another commercial and sewer. node. TRAFFIC Served by an arterial Serviced by collector RELATIONSHIP Near medium density. Near residential but buf- Physically separated or well- Small complexes with TO RESIDENTIAL fered from by fence, hedge, buffered from residential low-rise building USES: Physically separated etc. neighborhoods. and good landscaping or well buffered from can serve as a buffer all residential areas. Truck traffic should not pass between residential through residential areas. and commercial uses. Traffic generated should not pass through Open storage areas shall be residential neighbor- screened. hoods. RELATIONSHIP Compatible with most Can locate in major multi- Shall not consume limited Can be a primary use TO OTHER other commercial uses, purpose retail centers such space in retail centers unless in the CBD because COMMERCIAL but shall not be near as Central'Business District closely related and supportive it generates'shopping USES: activities that gener- or shopping center. Best of other uses. access and architect- by employees. ate heavy truck use for neighborhood scale ural style. traffic. commercial centers. Limited Shall not cause congestion of Serve as a buffer T.0 INDUSTRIAL near industrial areas. use in office complex or a primarily community retail between residential USES: Limited use in neigh- highway -oriented center. area. designated sector of and commercial uses. borhood serving com- egress. a planned industrial mercial centers. area. DEVELOPMENT Nearly level and well Nearly level and well Shall achieve overall group design of park- ing facilities, pedes - train movement, access and architect- ural style. RELATIONSHIP Not suitable located Limited need near large Shall not be located where Related offices can T.0 INDUSTRIAL near industrial areas. industrial areas for con- industrial traffic would be be located in a USES: venience of workers. disruptive to ingress and. designated sector of egress. a planned industrial area. DEVELOPMENT Nearly level and well Nearly level and well Nearly level and well drained. No steep grades in SITE: drained. drained. building and parking Sufficient depth from roadway areas. Adequate space to accom- Space for building, off- so that traffic will not inter- modate building, parking street parking and land fere with movement on the Natural vegetation and landscaped areas. scaping'. thoroughfare, that can be used in Parking needs can some- landscaping is desir- times be met off-site in Public or private water Public or private water and able. a group facility in and sewer. sewer. highly developed area. Public or private " water and sewer. Public, private water and sewer. TRAFFIC Served by an arterial Serviced by collector On inter -city highways. Served by arterial SYSTEM: street, preferably at a streets leading from nearby and/or collector point where it inter- residential areas. Limited points of access to streets. sects with other anter- the thoroughfare. Frontage ials or collector Safe pedestrian access from road is desirable. Off-street parking. streets. residential areas is de- sired. Off-street parking. Traffic ingress. and egress should not dis- When located with general rupt through traffic. retail or highway uses, traffic needs of those uses tlinimize auto/pedes- should apply. trian conflict. Off-street parking according to zoning schedule for types of uses. LAND USE MAP UNMAN RIVER COUNTY RRZ 4 `2 Y L 01— AG AG D2 ... MERE LL - — - — - — - - 'TAT READ Bl, . . . . . . L V D1 D Vv TA; �71�5177 xc_ jwld sub . �a AG N, lUl-*. - - - - - - . . . . . IN ----------7 ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS EAST OF 1 95 ARE RR -2 -ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS WEST OF 1 1 95 ARE AG a LD1 T MA A-- -! l_* 001" olll �D2 R .AL _! R n.RrA,y A S. RILU G Z MO ROAD AG LA Z, 01 LDI kit A-s.W4 is*,Zt, 'A' ly, -- — - — - — - — - — - — - tl—OTE: !HIS KAP IS Pftkt*�PCALE D c—D L-r N. WINTER � Qfl, D 00 L 2-t NODE LOCATICDNSqtli C4)TOUF:tST COMMERCIAL 01-10SIMITAL C0MM]E8_-!AL D ®INDUSTRIAL I QNDLJSTRIAL/ COMMERCIAL MCOMMERCIAL ORC1 j10 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS MIXED USE r//0-/7///7// u.s.1 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT A-- -! l_* 001" olll �D2 R .AL _! R n.RrA,y A S. RILU G Z MO ROAD AG LA Z, 01 LDI kit A-s.W4 is*,Zt, 'A' ly, -- — - — - — - — - — - — - D CZ N. WINTER BEACH RM INDIA L D2 L Q SHORES LD2 D 1!fl DSEY ROAD qvi Di WALKER AYE Rd ERO BEACH 1 STAT( ROAD fi0 A-- -! l_* 001" olll �D2 R .AL _! R n.RrA,y A S. RILU G Z MO ROAD AG LA Z, 01 LDI kit A-s.W4 is*,Zt, 'A' ly, -- — - — - — - — - — - — - D CZ D mg 48 PArF 5'35 The several bills and accounts against the County having been audited, were examined and found to be correct were approved and warrants issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 78313 - 78566 inclusive. Such bills and accounts being on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the warrants so.issued from the respective bonds being listed in the Supplemental Minute Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor, reference to such record and list so recorded being made a part of these Minutes. There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:10 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk �� l