Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/17/1982
Wednesday, November 17, 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, November 17, 1982, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred Grover Fletcher, Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, .Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Community Services Director; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey R. Barton, Finance Director; Sam Mitchell, Bailiff; and Virginia Hargreaves and Janice Caldwell, Deputy Clerks. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Dr. J. Chalmes Holmes, First Baptist Church, gave the invocation, and Attorney Brandenburg led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the Agenda. Administrator Wright requested adding an item regarding a time extension regarding the South County Water Plant. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously. agreed to add the emergency item to the Agenda as requested by the Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 1982. N 0 V 17 1982 NOV 17 1992 BOOK Commissioner Bird requested that on page 105, line 12, the number "4" should be corrected to "3." Commissioner Lyons referred to page 19, line 5, and requested that the word "Feasibility" be corrected to read "Liaison." ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED . by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 1982, as corrected. CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Budget Amendment - South County Water Plant The Board reviewed the following memorandum: October 28, 1982 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director ~ Re: South County Water Plant Construction The following Budget amendment is necessary to reestablish the budget for the South County Water Plant Construction. 1 recommend that the funds be adopted as part of the additional funds approved. Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease B.C.C. Contingencies 421-230-513-99.91 280,632 Gulf Constructors 421-230-533-66.53 113,774 Water Services 421-230-533-66.54 46,948 Scarborough Constructors 421-230-533-66.55 65,565 Legal Services 421-230-533-33.11 5,000 Engineering Services 421-230-533-33.13 48,066 FMHA Grant 421-000-331-30.00 204,000 Construction in Progress 421-230-533-66.51 355,985 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Budget Amendment regarding the South County Water Plant Construction, as recommended by Finance Director Barton. B. Budget Amendment - DOT Disadvantaged Services Grant The Board reviewed the following memorandum: October 28, 1982 (y�To: Board of County Commissioners �GFrom: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director --.--.Re: - DOT Disadvantaged Services Grant _ The following Budget amendment is necessary to admend the Planning Department budget for the Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Services -.Grant. recommend that the funds be adopted as part of the additional funds approved. Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease Disadvantaged Services 004-000-334-41.00 5,685 Other Professional Services 004-205-515-33.19 5,685 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board with a vote of 4 to 1, Commissioner Fletcher voting inn opposition, approved the Budget Amendment regarding DOT Disadvantaged Services Grant, as recommended by Finance Director Barton. C. Budget Amendment - Capital Project Fund The Board discussed the following memorandum: NOV 17 192 3 ��K ®V 17 1982 October 28,"•1982 04 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Re: Capital Project. Fund The following Budget amendment is necessary to establish budget for the Capital Project Fund for the Courthouse and Administration Building Renovation. 1 recommend 'that the funds be adopted as part of the additional funds approved. Account Title Cash Forward - Oct. 1st B.C.C. Contingencies Legal Services Engineering Services Lawsuit Costs Legal Services Engineering Services Lawsuit Costs Account Number Increase 301-000-389-40.00 59,000 301-130-519-99.91 5,000 301-130-519-33.11 10,000 301-130-519-33.13 6,000 301-130-519-33.16 20,000 301-131-519-33.11 5,000 301-131-519-33.13 3,000 301-131-519-33.16 10,000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Budget Amendment regarding the Capital Project Fund, as recommended by Finance Director Barton. D. Budget Amendment — 16th Street Construction The Board next reviewed the following memorandum: November 2, 1982 ��Torr: Board of County Commissioners ���� ��f"'�From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Subject: 16th Street Construction The following Budget amendment is to establish a budget for 16th Street improvements: Decrease Account Title Accotl,.c Number Increase Decrease Other Prof. Services 307-214-541-33.19 25,000. Engineering Services 307-214-541-33.13 125,000. Second Gas Tax 307-000-335-42.00 150,000. 1 3 W W ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Budget Amendment regarding 16th Street Construction, as recommended by Finance Director Barton. E. Budget Amendment - Library Youth Services Grant The Board discussed the following memorandum: November 3, 1982 To: Board of County Commissioners rom: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Subject: Library Youth Services Grant --The fbIl-owing Budget amendment Is necessary to record Library Service to Youth Grant funds received from State. Account Title 'Account Number Increase Decrease State Aid to Libraries 001-000-334-71.00 8,600. Indian River County Library 001-109-571-88.36 8,600. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board with a vote of 4 to 1, Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, approved the Budget Amendment regarding the Library Youth Services Grant, as recommended by Finance Director Barton. F. Budget Amendment - Unemployment Compensation The Board next considered the following memorandum: N 0 V 17 1982 5 NOV 17 1982 BOOK? �r November 4, 1982 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Jeffrey K. -Barton Finance Director Subject: Unemployment Compensation The following Budget amendments are necessary to allocate funds to Pay unemployment compensation for the quarter ending September 30., 1982, as there were no funds budgeted for this expense. I recommend that these funds be adopted as part of the additional funds approved:' Account Title Unemployment Compensation Unemployment Compensation Unemployment Compensation B.C.C. Contingencies Unemployment Compensation B.C.C. Contingencies Account Number 001-300-513-12.15 001-210-572-12.15 001-220-519-12.15 001-199-513-99.91 004-214-541-12.15 oo4-199-513-99 91 Increase Decrease 517. 428. 5. 838, 950. 838. ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Budget Amendment regarding Unemployment Compensation, as recommended by Finance Director Barton. G. -Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds - $5,825,000 The Board discussed the following information dated October 15, 1982: a DIVISIONS STATE OF FLORIDA • ADMINISTRATION ..• M.ECTRONIC DF. DEPARTMENT OF � � "`se • BOND FINANCE PROCESSINU C BUILDING CONSTRUCTION • MOTOR POOL, GENERAL S E R V I C G S _' AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • PURCHASING `� • COMMUNICATIONS • SECURITY Larson Building. Tallahassee 3=1 `�...•�'0. • SURPLUS PROPERTY Thomas R. Brown. Execubw Director P adores re�h ra R!t. 453 Larson Budilding October 15, 1982 Phone No.: (904) 4.88=-7481 Indian River .County Attn : Ms .. Freda Wright _ Clerk of the Circuit Court Post Office Box 1028 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: $5,825,000 Indian River County Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds Dear Ms. Wright:. . Our research indicates that the shove -referenced bona issue was recently sold by your government'o.7. xm t. rectic;xi 218.38, Florida Statutes, places seve"al bepoz-1-Ing equi.re meats on local units of government issuiSy municipa?, bonds Enclosed. are forms BF 2003 (bond information fo a) and BF 2004 (disclosure form) along with a copy of Seed€{a 218.3 i • Florida Statutes. Please complete these forms and s,e-turn them to the Division of Bond Finance at the above ade ess along with a copy of the Final Official Statement, LE avail- able, as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any - questions concerning these forms or the requirements of this law. Sincerely, Jane Berry Bond Securities Sneciala st Division of Bond Finance � BOK Puy . NOV 17 41982 _ _ 0 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the bond information form regarding the $5,825,000 Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds, and authorized the signature of the Chairman. CONSENT AGENDA A. Reports Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Report of Juveniles in Jail - September, 1982 B. Release of Easement - Stephen Foote - Resolution 82-119 The Board discussed the following information: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: October 28, 1982 FILE: ER -82-10-01 Board of County Commissioners #01 THROUGH: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE BY STEPHEN FOOTE SUBJEBLOCKCE,PUNITR3+:OSLOTPARKS 1 AS/D Patrick Bruce King_ FROM: Betty REFERENCES: Zoning Department Inspector _ This is in response to a Release of Easement request by Stephen Foote, owner of the subject property. It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Mr. Stephen Foote to release the common side lot 5 foot easement., of lots 1 and 2, Block E, Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision. The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power and Light, Florida Cablevision Corporation, and the Utility and Right -OF -Way Departments. The Zoning staff analysis, which includes.a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled by the existing front, rear and side swales. I ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: L71 After site inspection by Zoning Inspector Betty Davis, it is the Zoning Department's opinion that to release the common side lot 5 foot easements o lots 1 and 2, Block F, Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision, would have no adverse effect and would allow the petitioner to utilize these 2 lots as one larger, single family residential, lot. However, if the easements are not released, the petitioner will be denied his request to utilize these 2 lots :s one larger parcel. This department re4.1izes Mat after review and due consideration, that ti,F Honorable Boar! of Cnunty Commissioners has the authori*ty to grand; an alternate decision. REC"ENW I ON : Staff recommends the release of the common si.de lot 5 foot easements of lots l and 2, Block E, Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-119 releasing the common side lot 5 foot easements of Lots 1 & 2, Block E, Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision, as requested by Stephen Foote. NOV 17 1982 9 E tf?K PAGE ��9 F, C 7 1982 BOOK � [ Jo f `� RESOLUTION NO. 82-119 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been req.uetted to release the common side lot 5 foot easements of_lots 1 and 2, Block E, Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 19 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3 for public utility and drainage purposes; and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements has been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements;in Oslo Park Subdivision, Unit 3, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: The common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 1 and 2, Block E, Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision, according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 19 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This I7tb day of November 1982. — — - Attest: Freda Wright, Jerk` BOARD OF COUNTY.COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: G Don C. Scurlock, Jr. ,4-a ,,t _ Approved a5 to fornj and legal Cie �i lyUl�.lttV IittUil:i'"� L RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 17th day of November 1982, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; Mr. Stephen Foote, whose mailing address is 745 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960, second party; WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the said second party, does hereby remrse, release,'abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easements, lying on land situated in the County -of Indian River, State of Florida, to -wit: The common side lot 5 foot easements of lots 1 and 2, Block E Unit 3, Oslo Park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 19, public records of Indian River County, Florida TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said.second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law and the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of:. -SOV 17 1982 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Don C. Scurlock, Jr., ChaitAn ATTEST: Freda Wrigh , Clerk Aprr,aved as ,o f ant! legaj/0?tICV, r J jj V 17 1992 BOOK _ 1 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this -day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements • personally appeared, Don C. Scurlock, Jr., as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WITNESS by hand and seal in the County and State last foresaid this day of , -1982. Notary Pu c, State bf Floriddlat Large My Commis on Expires: NOTARY PITBL'IC STXfE OF FLORIDA - L; -L) THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UND ,(Notar i Seal) M COMM15SION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986 , tl • C. Release of Easement - Cosgrove & Braue - Resolution 82-120 The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated October 28, 1982 from Betty Davis, Zoning Department Inspector: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: October 28, 1982 FILE: IRC -82 -ER -14 Board of County Commissioners #13 THROUGH: Michael Wright County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY JAMES COSGROVE & THOMAS BRAVE, LOTS 10 & 11, BLOCK B, OSLO PARK Patrick Bruce King SUBDIVISION FROM: Betty DavisREFERENCES: Y --Zoning-Department Inspector - This is in response to a Release of Easement request by Mr. James Cosgrove and Mr. Thomas Braue, owners of the subject property. It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Mr. James Cosgrove and Mr. Thomas Braue to release the common side lot 2.5 foot easements of lots 10 & 11, Block B. Oslo Park Subdivision. The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power and Light, Florida Cablevision Corporation, and the Utility and Right -Of -Way Departments. The Zoning staff analysis, which includes'a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled by the existing front and rear swales. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: After site inspection by Zoning Inspector Betty Davis. -It is the Zoning Department's opinion that to release the common side lot 2.5 root easements of lots 10 & 11, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision, would have no adverse df-birt and would allow the petitioner to build a storage building fox his business: if his site plan is approved, after being submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, if the easements are not released, the petitioner vrlil be denied his request to utilize these 2 lots as one parcel. This department real i zcs that after, review and dor, cons dcrat i on, I r..) � the Honorable Board of County Commissioners. has the authority .;o tlrant 7-:1+ alterante deci s i ori . RECOI:A IENDATION : St;Ff recommends the release of the common side lot 2.5 foot easements of 'lots It & 11, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision contingent upon the approval of Mr. Cosgrove and Mr. Braue's site plan to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1 >c U� N O V 7 1992 l N OV 1 7 1982 89 OK ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-120 releasing the common side lot 2.5 foot easements of Lots 10 & 11, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision, as requested by James Cosgrove & Thomas Braue. RESOLUTION NO. 82-120 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot 2.5 foot easements of lots 10 & 11, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 96 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Oslo Park Subdivision for public utility and drainage purposes; and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easement has been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Oslo Park Subdivision shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: The common side lot 2.5 foot easements of lots 10 & 11, Oslo Park Subdivision according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 3, Page 96 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of -the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This . 17th day of November 1982. Attest: �1 Freda Wright, Clerl� N 0 V 17 1982 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: �. Don cu rl oc J r. , Cha n �,pproVcd a �o 'orm and legal ` ici50Y. Brandenburg Atto ne'L�.— I, N 0 V 17 1992 RELEASE OF EASEMENT This Release of Easement, executed this 17th 660K 5?t, - .i x4 rhJ% day of November 1982, by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, first party; Mr. James Cosgrove and Mr. Thomas Braue, whose mailing address is 1610 21st Avenue, S. W., Vero Beach, Florida, 32960, second party; WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by the sand second party, does hereby remise, release, abandon, and quit claim unto the said second party forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said first party has in and to the following described easements, lying_on land situated in the County of Indian River, State of Florida, to -wit: The common side lot 2.5 foot easements of lots 10 & 11, Block B, Oslo Park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 96, public records of Indian River County, Florida TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same with all singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all estate, right, title, interest, equity to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said second party forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said party has signed and sealed these presents by the parties so authorized by the law and the day and year first above written. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF Signed, sealed and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA delivered in the presence of: BY: C Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Ch r n ATTEST: \ZlFredga Wright, C1k Approvedas�to corm and legal ficienro h u� n`�. , anden5urg ,y o nt Aticrney Ll 1�- M STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgements personally appeared, Don C. Scurlock, Jr., as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and FREDA WRIGHT, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, to me known to be the persons duly authorized by said County to execute the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same for and on behalf of the said political subdivision. WIT�NESSS— by hand and seal in the County and State last foresaid this day of 1982. Notary u tate of Floridtot Large Nay Commi ss n Expi res : �K NOV 17 1982 NOKE 17 F- N OV 17 1982 COMMISSIONER WODTKE - BOND APPROVAL ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyon., SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Commission Bond for Commissioner Wodtke. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS BOND BE EXECUTED AND QUALIFICATION PAPERS COMPLETED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER ELECTION STA'I'D. OF FIA)HIDA comityof .............. Indian .....Relv.e.r...... _................... .......................... KNONV ALL h1EN BY THESE PHESEXI'S, That \V( .. .................. Wi.11iam C. ti�1o..0.tke........,� ............. as principal, and.............UNITED ,STATES .FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY ............................................................................................................................................................... ..... .................................. ........ .......... ............ ........... _...... _..................................................... s ..................................................................................................................... as slln•til• are held and fir1111y hound unto the Governor of the State of Florida, and his successors in office, $2 000.00 i11 the s1I111 of. ........ ... _........... ...... .......... ..................... ..........................._................................... lan•ful money, for the payment whereof, well and truly to be made, we do hind ourselves, o►Ir and each (if our heirs, eXec►Itors and administrators, jointly ,Ind st.verally, firmly by these prt.st.nts. Scaled with our seals, and dated this.........9.th..... day (If ..............Nov..ember..„._, It 1.82 •flu• c•oudition of the above obligation is such, That where,~, the above hounden ............................. ............................. William...C .......... W -o tke........Jr........_......................................................................................... Was, ()It tilt. ....... 24d day (if Novcn►her, A. D. 11)...$.2...... elected .............. Cc3u21y.....Comms.5-i.Drier....................................................... _............................................................ ...... ..... ......... to hold his office for the terns of four years beginning on the Tuesday two weeks following the day of the general etrction held November 2-nd.... A.D., 19..8.2......., and until his successor is qualified according to the Constitution and laws of this State. Now, therefore, if the said ....._._......_........... W 11. m..C.......Wo.d� c .,...,J.,�,....._........................... shall faithfully perform till- dillies of his said office, as provided by law• thel► this obligatiol► to he Will, else to be and n main in fill force and virtue. S41ned, scaled and delivered in presence of its: WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR. ................................ (l..S.l ............................».......................I..........Principal ”'...................................................................................................................................... ....._............................. Licensed Resident Agent BUCK — E NCY . BY: James A. Th mpson, Jr. The above bond is approval this _.....17 t f1.. day of The above hood is approved this ..._...................... (lily of elec-21 A 10.25.72 N ON 17 1982 ................ ..................... ..... ....... ... ............... ..........................: . UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY .........................._......................... . BUCKINGHAM—WHEELE�"AIbENCY, INC. James A s ., Attorney in Fact ...........................».........................................................R...................... . ......I .......... November 82 ..............y.. `� " .................... Cuun .nnuu�+i�m,•I,. .................... ...................... 19.... ...... ........................................................................ Conyltrolll•r, f6 K PACE . NOV 17 1962 OATH OF OFFICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Indian River I DO SOLENI\LY SWEAR that I will support. protect and defend the Constitution and Go\ernment of the United States and of the State of Florida: that I am dui} yc•alifled to hold office under the Consti- tution of the State. and that I will well and faithfull\ perform the 4uties of Rnarrl of ('rn_int�of Tnrli gn Ritzerr0int District 4 :�,--Fl ;oda on which 1 am now abort to a -ter, so help me God. Swarn to and subscribed before me this dad of — - . CL -N -3 G . (J 11C1A1 . .'rotary Public or other indi: idual auto :,,ri _ed to ach, inister oaths C (Sign as you desire com.,js .ion issued) William C. Wodtke, Jr. Cor -mission e.xpires - NQTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LAR:: MY COMMISSION EXPIRE A -U— i3 -MIS SLCRET.IR1' OF ST1TE i<ONDED THRU GENERAL INS, UNDERWRITER: "'M G-'.IITJL, TALI UHISSEE, FIARIIIA 33304 I accept the office of Board O County COIItQIi �Gi nnar� of the County of Indian Rivar . The above is the oath of office taken by me. 1-7 the a")VP Office I also holr; the office- �t - Nnna (Named office or None? 1h postoffice address is P.O. Box 8, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 FLCRIDA t�v C, � iq-i as ou desire co.:ynissi iSzuell 61 CERTIFIED COPY GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY Na3T500 ......................................... ' Know all Men by these Presents. - That UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, and having its principal office at the City of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, does hereby constitute and appoint James A. Thompson, Jr. of the City of Vero Beach , State of Florida its true and lawful attorney in and for the State of Florida for the following purposes, to wit; To sign its name as surety to, and to execute, seal and acknowledge any and all bonds, and to respectively do and perform any and all acts and things set forth in the resolution of the Board of Directors of the said UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a certified copy of which is hereto annexed and mads a part of this power o{ Attorney; and the said UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, through us, its Board: of Directors, hereby ratifies and confirms all and whatsoever the said James A. Thompson, Jr. mal lawfully do in the premises by virtue of these preeenta In Wilms Wheroo/, the said UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY has causedthis instrument to be sealed with its corporate seal, duly att"ted by the signatures of its Vice-president and Assistant Secretary, thio l s day of January ,AA D. T9 TT UNITE13 STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY. (Signed) gr„ Bertram .W Seal J .. :..........Y �Jr. .... ........ ( SEAL) Yice-President (Signed) William.J. Phelan ..................................................... STATE OF MARYLAND, taut= Secretary. BALTIMORE CITY. On this 14th day of January . A. D. 197 T. before me personal1y came Bertram 7. Sealy, J r . , Vice•President of the UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY and William J. Phelan , Assistant Secretary of said Com whom I am personally acquainted, who being by me severally duly sworn. said that Pas Y, with both of that they, the said Bertram W. Sealy,Jr.and �Y resided in City of Baltimore. Maryland ; W illiam J. h e l a n were respectively the Vice -President and the Assistant Secretary of the add UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, the cor- poration described in and which executed the foregoing Power of Attorney; that they each knew the seal of said corporation; that the seal affixed to said Power of Attorney was such corporate seal, that it was so fixed by order of the Board of Directors of said corpora. tion. and ccoommmission expires the first day in Julyed their names thereto , A. D. 19y like rdZ as Vita -President and Assistant Secretary, respective) , of the Company, (SEAL) (Signed) Herbert J. STATE OF MARYLAND ......................... Z' ........ .�G . .... Sct. N�7 0 BALTIMORE CITY, } PUBLIC L Robert H. B o u s e , Clerk of the Superior Court of Ba ��~� Court of Record, and has a seal, do hereby certify that Herbert J. Au 11 CJ T cls is a whom 'he annexed affidavits were made, and who has thereto subscribed his name, was at the time ofso doing a , E ublic ofthe before State of Maryland, in and for the City of Baltimore, duly commissioned and sworn and authorized by law to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, or proof of deeds to be recorded therein. I further certify that I am acquainted with the handwriting of the said Notary, and verily believe the signature to be his genuine signature. In Testimony Whereol, I hereto set my hand and affix the seal of the Superior Court of Balt� of Record, this 14imore City, the same being a Court th day of January , A. re. (SEAL) (Signed) Robert H. B e � ?AGE ...................... F8 3 49-v)�, NO V 17 1982 Clerk of the Saperior Court o.f.Baltimore City. . N O V 17 1982op E�tiK F,yc ; COPY OF RESOLUTION That Whereas, it is necessary for the effectual transaction of business that this Company appoint agents and attorneys with power and authority to act for it and in its name in States other than Maryland, and in the Territories of the United States and in the Provinces of the Dominion of Canada and in the Colony of Newfoundland. Therefore, be it Resolved, that this Company do, and it hereby does, authorize and empower its President or either of its Vice - Presidents in conjunction with its Secretary or one of its Assistant Secretaries, under its corporate seal, to appoint any person or persons as attorney or attorneys -in -fact, or agent or agents of said Company, in its name and as its act, to execute and deliver any and all con• tracts guaranteeing the fidelity of persons holding positions of public or private trust, guaranteeing the performances of contracts other than insurance policies and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings, required or permitted in all actions or proceedings, or by law allowed, and h Alsof in its name and as its attorney or attorneys -in -fact, or agent or agents to execute and guarantee the conditions of any and all bonds, recognizances, obligations, stipulations, undertakings or anything in the nature of either of the same, which are or may by law, municipal or otherwise, or by any -Statute of the United States or of any State or Territory of the United States or of the Provinces of the Dominion of Canada or of the Colony of Newfoundland, or by the rules, regulations, orders, customs, practice or discretion of any board, body, organization, office or officer, local, municipal or otherwise, he allowed, required or permitted to be executed, made, taken, given. tendered, accepted, filed or recorded for the security or protection of, by or for any person or persons, corporation, body, office, interest, municipality or other association or organisation whatsoever, in any and all capacities whatsoever, conditioned for the doing or not doing of anything or any conditions which may he provided for in any such bond, recognizance, obligation, stipulation, or undertaking, or anything in the nature of either of the same. I, George W . Lennon, J r . , an Assistant Secretary of the UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, do -hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original power of attorney given by said Company to . James A. Thompson, Jr. of Vero Beach, Florida him authorizing and empowering to sign bonds as therein set forth, which power of attorney has never been revoked and is still in full force and effect. And I do further certify that said Power of Attorney was given in pursuance of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of. Directors of said Company, duly called and held at the office of the Company in the City of Baltimore, on the 11th day of July, 1910, at which meeting a quorum of the Board of Directors was present, and that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of said resolution, and the whole thereof as recorded in the minutes of said meeting. In Tadmony Whereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY on (Date) Assistant Secretary. EXTENSION OVERALL ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS The Board reviewed the following memorandum from the County Extension Director, Judith A. Wakefield: FLORIDA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES 0 FAB 4 - DISTRIBUTION LIST t CC�]] COMMissinnsrc ; C00►ERA7j" ffrSTfF.H4•A 6? BERvIC AORICUk.TtJRAL. EI)t►ERlMENT STAStCtP70 „ 1 SCHOOL.OF FORESTC�IRRRttUU fERfO�JRGE>s'^hN?-Ca(rBERVATION COLL[OE OF AORICULTURi 0 Personnel County Administration Bldg. Public Works REPf_tl To 1840-25 St., S-328 Community Dev. Vero Beach, FL 32960 Utilities Pittance 567-8000 X328 011*r t,. s'}H..)November 8, 1982 J•; Board of County Commissioners _ Judith A. Wakefield,County Extension Director Commissioners' involvement in Overall Advisory Committee _ Y TO: _ FROM: SUBJECT: In the very near future I will be organizing an Extension Overall Advisory Committee. The functions of such a committee are: 1. Provide lay involvement in assessing the general situation in the county to determine Extension Service educational program needs. ' 2. Provide long-range program direction for the total County Extension program. 3. Legitimize Extension program plans. 4. Help in public relations. Our next plan of work will be for a 4 -year perioc!. For thi: feason it is important that we have help in planning programs relevant,to the needs of the county. An Overall Advisory Committee is made up of representatives from the following groups: I. Local leaders with broad-based interests. 2. County Extension Citrus, Home Economics, and 4-H advisory committees. 3. Groups and organizations relevant and meaningful' to the overall Extension Program - agriculture organizations, government bodies, etc. 4. Representatives of the population of the county for demo- graph'c variables,such as age, sex, race, ethnic group, incop,e, and geographic locations. I would like for you to determine how you wish to be involved in this committee. In some counties a Commissioner serves on the s committee, and in some others each Commissioner assigns someone from hjrs district to serve on the Advisory Committee. We will appreciate your participation in the development of this committee. NOV 17 19182, N OV 17 1982 Uc 4 .: The Board discussed the various representatives, and it was determined they should be individuals with a general interest in citrus or some form of agriculture. s Ms. Wakefield pointed out that this committee would be meeting two times a year. The Chairman stated that each Commissioner would furnish Ms. Wakefield with a name from their district. UTILITY'RATE STUDY BY ACCOUNTING FIRM The Board reviewed the following memorandum from the Utilities Director, Terrance G. Pinto: TO: Honorable Members of the Board of Commission Michael Wright County Adminis a or FROM: Terrance G. Pinto Utilities Director DATE: November 12, 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: Bid and Quotations REFERENCES: Quotations were received November 10, 1982, at 10:00 a.m. in the Administration Office. The bids and the quotations were as follows: 1. May Zima & Company ----------------------$24,500 2. Ernst & Whinney= ------------------------No Bid 3. Arthur Young & Company ------------------$20,000 4. Peat, Martwick, Mitchell & Company ------No Bid 5. Darby, Sheahen & Weissman ---------------$30,000 Whereas the low bidder, Arthur Young & Company, meets all the requir- ments set forth with the proposal request. I recommend that they be retained by the County Commission to proceed with the Study as proposed immediately. Funding The Study shall be paid from Utility Department funds. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board accept the recommendation of Arthur Young and Company. 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. TIME EXTENSION - SOUTH COUNTY WATER PLANT Administrator Wright explained that Change Order 2 involving Water Services of America was necessary, which would increase the construction period by 42 days - no money would be involved, just the time. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved Change Order 2 increasing the time of completion. by 42 days, as defined in their, contract for Water Services of America, with no money involved. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINTING BID #147 The Board reviewed the following memorandum from Art Challacombe, Planning Department Manager: 25 K �I.QV..1- 71982 PSE NOV 17 1982 TO. The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Patrick Bruce Ka.ng,' AI FROM: Art Challacombe Planning Dept. Mgr. DATE: November 3 19 8 2 FILE: SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINTING BIDS REFERENCES: It is requested that the information pF-:ovided herein be given formal consideration by the County Commission at their regular meeting of November 17, 1982. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On November 2, 1982, all bids on specifications requested in IRC Bid #147 (printing Comprehensive Plan books) were opened. The purpose of sending out -this bid was -to produce a final document in graphic form. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Examination of the bids revealed that the Planning Department's budget of $3,625..00 available for outs=ide -printing is not sufficient to cover the costs of both the plan book and the map. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon insufficient funds for outside printing, the Community Development Division will continue to produc=e plan documents for the public by developing copies•from the exist- ing master file. The Division will again explore the possi- bility of final printing of --the plan a.fter'Jinnuary 1:;83. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board accept the recommendation of staff, as indicated in the memorandum dated November 3, 1982. Commissioner Lyons stressed that a date should appear on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan book. Attorney Brandenburg referred to the Land Development Code and suggested it be included as one package with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. M' Commissioner Lyons felt the Attorney and Administrator should get together and discuss suggestion before the material was printed. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. the this STREET LIGHTING AGREEMENT - GIFFORD & CITY The Board next discussed the Governmental Street Lighting Agreement between Indian River County, Gifford Area Municipal Taxing Unit, and the City of Vero Beach. The Attorney advised that he had reviewed the Agreement for legal sufficiency. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the Governmental Street Lighting Agreement between Indian River County, Gifford Area Municipal Taxing Unit and the City of Vero Beach, and authorize the signature of the Chairman. A brief discussion ensued. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. A copy of the Governmental Street Lighting Agreement will be made a part of the Minutes when received. CLEAN INDOOR AIR ORDINANCE - DISCUSSION The Board next discussed the following letter dated October 29, 1982: 0 V 1 `7 1982L- 11 27 5 W -C 9' 9 F . rNOV 17 1992 AMERI Serving.- Palm erving.Palm Beach Martin St. Lucie Indian River Okeechobee pN O G 0.1 ASSOCIATION e "Christmas Seal" PeopleIVII17Nor fn Oy October 29, 1982 counties Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 -s 25th St., Suite N 158 Vero Beach, FL 32960 To Whom It May Concern: BOOK ` rW Personnel Public Works Community Dev. ✓ Mot No 3798 / 2701 N. Australian Ave. Fincttt Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Other (305) 659-7644 The American Lung Association of Southeast Florida, on behalf of concerned citizens of Indian River County, hereby requests that the Board of County Commissioners in Indian River County formally begin the process to enact a proposed county -wide Clean Indoor Air Ordinance by placing the matter on, its agenda for discussion at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning, November 17. At such time, the Lung Association, and local clean indoor air supporters will be prepared to address the topic in detail, so that -the Board will have sufficient information and reason to direct its legal counsel to prepare a draft for additional study. Enclosed find supportive documents including a background report on the proposed Clean Indoor Air Ordinance explaining the rationale, feasibility, legal precedent and public support factors; and outline of a Clean Indoor Air Ordinance already enacted in Palm Beach County, Florida, and a copy of the actual Palm Beach County Florida Clean Indoor Air Ordinance. - In addition, we (the Lung Association and our support)— _ have in our possession the signatures of over 2,000 Indian Diver County residents and guests who favor the passage of a Clean Indoor Air Ordinance, and the direct endorsement of four county health concerns (the Indian River County Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, -the Indian 'Uvcr L'oun-t.� Unit of the American Cancer. Soniety, , t -he Indian Couoi y Dental Assn. c/o Dr. Richard K Skripa.k, D.D S_, and the Visiting Nurse Association of Indian River County.) There are also many local church and service organizations that support the ordinance, and they •-- along with Lung Association volunteers -- will continue to collect petition signatures and endorsements throughout the coming proceedings. Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. The American Lung Association of Southeast Florida, and the clean indoor air supporters of Indian River County, anxiously await word that the proposed Clean Indoor Air Ordinance in Indian River County has been placed on Your November 17 agenda. Please call me by asking the operator for WX-1753 with confirmation of our appointment. Respectfully, Terry/R. Lehman Managing Director Terry R. Lehman, Managing Director of the American Lung Association, approached the Board and gave a presentation about the devastating effect that smoking had on people. He then read the proposed ordinance as follows: yy.•^ ;,t,.!ry(.} - . ,ya, y,,:Y':. :+"d i. ",:7'J t ;rw^ ,>;n P,'•.'$F �% ...,r ,:}"r aid vixiY fit, b. : tib.t x��in ;"y� V^J': he Purposeof a- lean Indoor Air Ordinance is toaprotect• ea-Uh and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places ublic meetings except in*areas that may be designated an r re as f 1..3Flh.. 't '}�;; }�_> ,, j . Why .(The `Rationale the"public and smoking .s.: t'li_r_.' . ;g •:lad•... ,. , .._. �,...�"1. -. protect the 'health of people with •respiratory ;Ya N-1 ,a,1,, !(, i.sease or breathing problems whose pe. ? .e�xc'istin" co n aS ravated by exposure xrj `'�cond-fiancmoke.. includes {'ar_c;•s.r, Emphysema; Chronic Bronchitlis , Asthma,* or a.ljcrgic :ensl;:ivity t*o Y t tr'a s4' Ke t t i'( i D ' 4=Cr Involuntary Smokin " Yti t,Pt.a•,F i, 1>'4 ir..m , Int s G r f,3"� Y E , �Hedlth Co�lseguenseA of Smoking, 1975 s 'p. 107 •a. r a,'�al' j Er yr •z f jai .—) < ' t �+�'S .af � gYS! ltd f . :.c. a•lq 'drys. `t K.,,, it.::% f %t+•ga i t ti .. �+7 t' ,�� ,�sr (Wy� B) To protect~athe heal F, t th of the.'elderly Whose lung ♦ �; � :' ,k capacity is gradually decreasing as p.a,rt of ,zhe normal aging process. _-This "is often the reason that this• group is more affected by timoke filled r �1 FSR�hTi7 environment i• y , t ! 5 t+'•a`'A4'f , a iY J -` 4a .< 1!y A.9 DEQ Hi x - af.-k-'* 'r 3 }' �R"t `4�a.,4 k ! - ..,< -. / `. ..•7 1 i , .. ;.t] ?, "3'+� �Q V f.) To protect they health of the Vyoung lwhose lungs % r .F?i f A GPtttc } are.developing and are more easily impacted by s� , �� smoke filled .environments (Ira Tager, Ph • 1) • , s , >a Harvard University) >� G U) To protect the health of the agenera l aopulaYion , Even the most healthy, find second-hand smoke '.a nuisance and experience eye and tDlroat•irritatioR' "NV., 3g.. l ! i• - b i{� 1' The Mirch 27, 1980 issue of the New EnlanJ "} Journal of Medicine reportc:ci decreased- Zuni; i"unct among non-smo�kirs chronically exposed to cibarettQ ' smoke in their work environment } :In his introduction to the 1982 Sur eon Genz•rala Report Dr. Edward Brandt, Jr...Assistant ietar 'Y Health and Human ServiC ated,.!'Prudt.n� >, i-ctates that `nonsmokers 'avoid exposure `to:A h And toba.c0.smok�etohe extent' •ssible" Oil NOV 17 1982 2929 ' # ER`YCAN LUNG ASSOCIATION o � sow f heist FIoPPda, I»e. The "Christmas Seal" People 1 p.. ! • 1 Palm Beach ) .. t p,� t r .. - ' _. tK '', 4 --_ ' ` �4,•,� s P O Box 3798 / 2701 N. Australlen Ave a l h St.Lucas ,t$ ..' Y , 1 i _ - vaY�� `• �_ 'p �'' West Parts pp,,,,,,,,V11 Florida 3#02 ' •. 11 ism Ravel - - Wear tr .. , + A >• 1305) 859-7844 .�ya�� ��, {� >a � V , T' , ,.,�� � t , ,a• % '•l. �..A ..1 1 f` y I 6t��b �"4 ai keBC%dobSe _o�g^S �� � �' f A t \ ?� 'JL4 AN �y+> 2.�( �k• ,�a!'' i s _" - �f1 t},c ,3.r , 'r .' k�W r. '` d�4.... .>r;'�' w�. - ,r .Ji 4 .,,• .t. , - '`.. • ' - i• �': .. ..,, _.. :✓� count counties A CLEAN INDOOR AIR ORDINA NCE 4 ,t+a;a Sebastian and/or Indian River County Ljl �. { -.,'# Ni yy.•^ ;,t,.!ry(.} - . ,ya, y,,:Y':. :+"d i. ",:7'J t ;rw^ ,>;n P,'•.'$F �% ...,r ,:}"r aid vixiY fit, b. : tib.t x��in ;"y� V^J': he Purposeof a- lean Indoor Air Ordinance is toaprotect• ea-Uh and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places ublic meetings except in*areas that may be designated an r re as f 1..3Flh.. 't '}�;; }�_> ,, j . Why .(The `Rationale the"public and smoking .s.: t'li_r_.' . ;g •:lad•... ,. , .._. �,...�"1. -. protect the 'health of people with •respiratory ;Ya N-1 ,a,1,, !(, i.sease or breathing problems whose pe. ? .e�xc'istin" co n aS ravated by exposure xrj `'�cond-fiancmoke.. includes {'ar_c;•s.r, Emphysema; Chronic Bronchitlis , Asthma,* or a.ljcrgic :ensl;:ivity t*o Y t tr'a s4' Ke t t i'( i D ' 4=Cr Involuntary Smokin " Yti t,Pt.a•,F i, 1>'4 ir..m , Int s G r f,3"� Y E , �Hedlth Co�lseguenseA of Smoking, 1975 s 'p. 107 •a. r a,'�al' j Er yr •z f jai .—) < ' t �+�'S .af � gYS! ltd f . :.c. a•lq 'drys. `t K.,,, it.::% f %t+•ga i t ti .. �+7 t' ,�� ,�sr (Wy� B) To protect~athe heal F, t th of the.'elderly Whose lung ♦ �; � :' ,k capacity is gradually decreasing as p.a,rt of ,zhe normal aging process. _-This "is often the reason that this• group is more affected by timoke filled r �1 FSR�hTi7 environment i• y , t ! 5 t+'•a`'A4'f , a iY J -` 4a .< 1!y A.9 DEQ Hi x - af.-k-'* 'r 3 }' �R"t `4�a.,4 k ! - ..,< -. / `. ..•7 1 i , .. ;.t] ?, "3'+� �Q V f.) To protect they health of the Vyoung lwhose lungs % r .F?i f A GPtttc } are.developing and are more easily impacted by s� , �� smoke filled .environments (Ira Tager, Ph • 1) • , s , >a Harvard University) >� G U) To protect the health of the agenera l aopulaYion , Even the most healthy, find second-hand smoke '.a nuisance and experience eye and tDlroat•irritatioR' "NV., 3g.. l ! i• - b i{� 1' The Mirch 27, 1980 issue of the New EnlanJ "} Journal of Medicine reportc:ci decreased- Zuni; i"unct among non-smo�kirs chronically exposed to cibarettQ ' smoke in their work environment } :In his introduction to the 1982 Sur eon Genz•rala Report Dr. Edward Brandt, Jr...Assistant ietar 'Y Health and Human ServiC ated,.!'Prudt.n� >, i-ctates that `nonsmokers 'avoid exposure `to:A h And toba.c0.smok�etohe extent' •ssible" Oil NOV 17 1982 2929 WK 59 r 11� 0 To protect the rights of the..majority ,, 67% of the adult population does not smoke, If we include everyone, and we should, more than 75%'of the entire population are nonsmokers. F) To promote a good health mentality in the population. Many smokers today are stopping smoking because they are concerned not only rith what they are doing to themselves but also athers. -Smoking today is becoming increasingly sociLily-unacceptable. G) Any effort that discourages smoking -encouraees o ine or smokers to suit will nay handsome dividends as far as the eood health of the community is concerned. rn sneakine iust about cancer deaths caused by smokin X 'he Anril 1982 issue of the Harvard -Medical School Health Letter stated that,. "A vigorous campaign to and -cigarette smoking -would !save morn lives vi --.I virtually anything elte we could do." 2 -Is It Possible? As one California Court has said: "LegiTlation designed to free from Vollution the ve-i,;- fir' t people breathe clearly falls vi thin the . ......... 0 t of what J - f even the most traditinnal c-oncep compediously known as pdYice power", "Cleq.n 1--io-oor Air Legislation can be validated as. -an 42-rstrume-71t which regulates and protects public -health, A'Drope -s pulice power. Phis - w g um t subject of a state' its foundation in cases which upheld s t a t. eL h e a atc ne a such as those mandating small pox vaccinations for citizens and the fluoridation of public drinking w tev to control cavities"i "Sufficient medical evidence --iksts to indicate a probable correlation between impaired health and the inhalation of tobacco smoke. Though the harm to be avoided is not contagious as smallpox Is nor as obvious as dental cavities the burden olaced on the smoker is light compared to, for examnle submission to innoculation. In essence, it is VLOt .4;: too much to ask that smokers not smoke in public places where their smoke endangers the health and'comfort around them not to mention themselves'.' W 4,4N 4.1, B Numerous s i ordinances already exist on the stat your and local level for example: lw� -JIThe Minnesota Clean Indoor Act was the first major comprehensive State wide Act passed in 1975.The Act prohibits smoking in public places and public meetings, execpt i n designated.smoking areas., 0 th =States .with legislation restricting smoking in pub " "places- include: Alaska Connecticut, - -Hawaii"' Iowaowa'- !Kansas'Nebraska; Michigan, New Jersey,'.N..Dakota; ' regan:1-Texas),,`9'Uta'h (State Legislation-cin:-'sMo'king, . . . . . . . . . . . .... ..... 'arid Health, 1980) The Palm Beach County Clean Indoor Air Ordinance passed in August -1980 prohibits smoking in all Public places exzcept for designated areas. Other Flarida Counties have Aiso Pp-rsed'ordinancesrelat- dlig to smoking. e s `0'n - Florida -1.1 additivil Keis y ;it.& r-rdinance! Liinitinf,-, smoking. ("Citt Limiting or Prohibiting Smoking i Fl__ — VLA—Mo) n ori &a have passed Ordinances t -he* Ttate of . r Must we apologize when +� resort to legal measures? �r f P!! . article in the. December 1 A t ' f 9 76 A�ary i � �, r F_ 'Journal ,,o Public tiz�alti:i;.st4te� �,he:t =`,i�;ce.•�he f { fat ;. the Ropaatfls: r. ,+ 4nary 'source -books el nubl'-C education, legislation has been an educational •tool of the first or (..r. 'mak k A legislative statue as essential y a p K o;Pouricement 'a proclamation, a statement of a position on ;matter of public concern.by the Inw- a A; giv. ng body e� :ta v i it res pons i ba 1 i ty for tate corramoat's�b?1 -irsfit arLly intended to iinfn,rm t 1the p 1e on t �n �a►�lcr 11 s eo,) what,. is. 8000 at�u rOiat can be•- ba i ned by -public orytea• And pc ac :in ' + theint•erest of the. ssafetya wVlfrareg. heap the 3;�d ' uwrals of t'he commtmi•ty.f Pun i shmeri°t , oa• other � ,,• Lr�l'or�'eurenE ntethus s are always secondary ,.o t he educaiiunal content. Nearly all law must be self + executinb of*have the cooperaitiort of the governed, ` a ' .:1'here arc -jilt enough police event in the most tightly cuntrolled states to y t enforce all law merely with the threat of person punishment for deviation".. I'he are i c l e concludes with the words "we need not fur resort to the 7 < <•. tt t - law in public ; health". max. h a IS trtert ltubl tl sul)I)ur j t Al National surveys e.unsisteentIy show what the to ,ra ' j o r i t y o 1 'peo1)1 a feel smokiltg in public*places i 1 aces 4�t at wor•1, should be more restricted. Ema or" a a e,rve y rand riealth found the following by the National Clearing House four Smokin 6 ge of peo'x�recenta l - p1E= favor d regulation lation a b' .. g a 1 n S t smoking. 70% of all surveyed 82% of non-smokers r' Sit of the ° smokers greed In add tion ne ar1 y two-thirds of the general pub ioc'ludiitg one f the x* 't -third o.. � srirokers find it t; r �innoy t nb 'to be near a person ' who s smoking c i ga"� av�ftiv'.S sj6 Ji e: t t e: ,J r "'3�g r�.,*•e..4 • t,..y.•: . � Yh. H) People Magazine in 1980 asked its readers "Should there be separate smoking and Itonsmoking sections in restaurants?" y�+r, Yes, fumed 8S -percent, with heavy support from teenagers. C) During the fall of 1980 the Division of Preventive Medicine of the Massachusetts Department ofPublic Health surveyed attitudes of 3313 people on the regulation of smoking in restaurants and health care facilities. Overall 85% favored some form of smoking restrictions. Separate areas was the most popular choice. New England Journal of Medicine April.l, 1982. D) Local surveys run by newspapers in Palm Beach County. y` 7 The Sun. Setitinel on April 8;11960 t•eport:edt In one of the largest outpourings of opinion lince • th'e Tuesday .'Poll began; 801 of the Sun -Sentinel readers responding to last weeks question favor laws to,i protect nonsmokers y from the pollution of smokers in places of employment ' and other.public locations. Itc} On September 25, 1980,.the Laike Worth H 'r A.lrl• r�;aorted. :hat it's public opinion '912% F F poll fL�,ttd an ove-i- whelwink of its respondents :favored fiche Pa?.m Beach County Cle��a j Indoor :Ur Ordinance". , In summary I believe we can ray that for the good health of the people .:.of Sebastian and Incian River County it would be worthwhile E.r work- for the passage of a Clean Indo=)r Air Ordinance. It!s certaLinly possible, there is legal justification and there is legal precedence. Furthrmore, we never need to apologize to work for a better situation as far .-as our -health is concerne-:. As an extra bonus we have many indications that the majority of the public favor such a situation. A Clean Indoor Air Ordinance -that limits smoking n public places is reasonable, .workable and acceptable. There is no good reason why i,t can, t a become a reality. 31 f UOK PdGc ;: - N O V 17 1982 BOOK Mr. Lehman requested that the Board direct the Attorney to draft a Clean Indoor Air Ordinance. Wilson Wright, representing the Tobacco Institute, believed that proprietors of restaurants would like to have the freedom of choice to accommodate smokers and non-smokers. He spoke about law enforcement if such an ordinance were adopted, and he cited several cases. Mr. Wright pointed out that litigation would be irritating and time-consuming. He referred to various studies that had been made concerning smoking, and second-hand smoke, and felt that 860 of the carbon monoxide was caused by natural sources. Mr. Wright concluded that every time a referendum had been held to restrict smoking, it had failed; therefore, he asked the Board to put this matter aside. Ellis Pender, owner of Sabal Palm Bowl, approached the Board and indicated that there was no way a bowling center could enforce an ordinance of this type; it would put the bowling industry out of business. He commented to the Board that he was against any type of ordinance. Bob Marshbanks, resident of Vero Beach, came before the Boa -rd and commented that this was like a prohibition . — He felt it should be a voter's issue. Mr. Marshbanks added that there was such a thing as common courtesy and respect, and he would honor a "no smoking" sign. Attorney Brandenburg advised that the purpose was to establish a standard concerning this issue, and not to create a situation where law enforcement officers would have to go through proprietors' places. Commissioner Bird reported that he spoke with Mr. Norton of the Chamber of Commerce, and he would like to take this matter up with the leaders of his organization. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher that the Board grant a public hearing for an ordinance on this subject. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher that the Board grant a public hearing on a proposed Clean Indoor Air Ordinance. Commissioner Wodtke SECONDED THE MOTION for purposes of discussion only. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that any ordinance would be effective in the unincorporated area only. The Attorney noted that the municipalities could decide if they wanted to get involved in this regard. Commissioner Wodtke added that if we do have a public hearing, he would like to have it with the concurrence of the municipalities and receive their input. Commissioner Lyons commented that personally, he would like to see restaurant owners set up non-smoking areas. He stated he had some difficulty with an ordinance because if it is passed, it should be passed with the idea that it will require enforcement, and he did not think the County had the time or the money to do so. Commissioner Lyons was not sure it was the Board's place to enforce such an ordinance. Commissioner Fletcher interjected that a public hearing might enlighten a great many people, and he thought it would be worthwhile. Commissioner Bird suggested an alternative to the Board which would be to go on record to encourage, Within the County offices, to establish smoking and non-smoking areas, rather than having an ordinance. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird,. SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board adopt an Alternate Motion considering a resolution endorsing the concept to adopt policies and set aside special smoking areas in the County offices. 33 BOOK` � Prof i r NOV 17 1982 5-.�� . The Board discussed the amendment to the Motion briefly. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED. It was voted on and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition. Mr. Lehman felt having a resolution that would be well developed would be a very good compromise. He commended the Board for its action. Samuel E. Ledger, resident of Vero Beach, approached the Board and informed them of his wife's serious lung problems; he commented that sometimes politeness does not work where smokers are involved. He stated that a restaurant owner once told him that having a non-smoking section was the best thing he ever did. Mr. Ledger noted that the tobacco industry made it all sound so bad. He thought the resolution just passed was a great idea, and that Indian River County would be setting an example for the state. _ ,.,,_ — PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE The hour of 9:30 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 Daily 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 daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a T/ in the matter of�iLe2 in the 7 , Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of C.L� C��l�L�' w AX27-1.7 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuou*-published -in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; 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 advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. �1 Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 19 si:ess Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the c. rcljit�CourQl6dian River County, Florida) NOV 17 1992 NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 71-3, KNOWN AS THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will conduct a public hearing on November 17, 1982 at 9:30 a.m. in the Commission Chambers at the County Administration Building, 18402Sth Street, Vero Beach, Florida to consider the adoption of an ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN, RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 71.3, KNOWN AS THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE;; PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS TO SECTION 2; PERTAINING TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE TOI EXCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; DRIVEWAY UNDER CERTAIN PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he -she will need a! record of the proceedings, and for such pur poses, he -she may need to insure that a ver batim record of the proceedings is made,', which record includes the testimony Im evidence on which the appeal is based. Oct. 29, Nov. 10, 1982. The Board next discussed the following memorandum dated November 9, 1982 from Art Challacombe, Planning Department Manager: 35 WK 2 Pk�E p NOV 17 1992 BOOK 599 fpa : a TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: -Pdt� ywa, K"` / U Patrick Bruce King, A P FROM: Art Challacombe Planning Dept. Mgr. DATE: November 9, 19 8 2 SUBJECT: FILE: DRIVEWAY EXEMPTION FROM DEFINITION OF "STRUCTURE" REFERENCES: It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the County Commission at their regular meeting of November 17, 1982. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: For your consideration is the proposed amendment t(; the definition of "structure" as currently defined or. Page 1437, Appendix A, zoninq' under Section*2, Definitions. This proposed change nas been initiated by the Community Development Division after discussion with several builders and developers. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: This existing definition of "structure" includes single family residential driveways. Under Section 25 (g)(2) of the Cod. of -Ordinances:.. "No accessory building or structure shall -;.)e, located in any required yard area." All residential zon?x;*.), districts contain specific side yard setbacks, thus undo; `:he existing definition all driveways (including the driveway apron) must be set back a specific distance from the side property lines. Currently, requests to place driveways c.1 -)ser to the property line than allowed in the district are s.eq•itired to obtain a variance from the Board of Adjus- •.►tens., The intent of the proposed definition change is to strecato +.ne the existing procedure so that simplc driveway requests op.--, be processed without obtaining a variance. -J"he proposed definition is worded such that certain criteria must be msfi•. to protect the welfare of adjacent properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the propoaed change in the defi- nition of "structure'-. r � r After a brief discussion, it was determined that the document under discussion was not in final form. Commissioner Bird commented he saw no reason to conduct a public hearing today. Bruce King, Community Development Director, noted that the problem was in the definition of side yards; they could come back at the next meeting with more information. The Chairman felt there should be a mechanism for administrative action on minor elements such as these. He felt Mr. King and members of Planning & Zoning could review the minor site plan changes. Peter Robinson, developer, commented that the City of Vero Beach puts the decision of driveways into the hands of the City Manager. He suggested submitting the minor site plan changes to Public Works Director Davis, and if there was no problem with drainage, etc., he could approve it. Jack Jackson, general contractor in Vero Beach, referred to the special rules that The Moorings had regarding garage doors, driveways, and drainage. He felt an ordinance should be written so the builders and architects could understand the drainage problem and prepare a workable plan. Brief discussion followed along those lines. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimqusly agreed to continue this public hearing until the first meeting in December to enable staff additional preparation time. NOV 1 � 1982 3� x NUE ,T r P NOV 17 1992 F'A'cE PUBLIC HEARING - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FLOOD HAZARD ORDINANCE 82-28 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: Sworn to and (SEAL) �L A.D. 19 eF�alj NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING VERB BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL ORDINANCE I 71-3, KNOWN AS THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, AND Published Daily ORDINANCE 78-25, KNOWN AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY FLOOD INSURANCE ORDINANCE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will conduct a public COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA hearing on November 17, 1982, at 10 a.m. in the j Commission Chambers at the county Ad. Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath ministration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida to consider the adoption of an says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper ordinance entitled: published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY SIONERS OF INDIAN a /� < RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 71-3, KNOWN AS THE INDIAN in the Aoloe -z I `"3 F RIVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE: PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS TO SECTION matter of tuc: 23k; ' PERTAINING TO STORMWATER _ �j RUNOFF CONTROL CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES AND AMENDING OR- DINANCE 78-25, KNOWN AS AN AMEND- MENT TO THE. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLOOD INSURANCE ORDINANCE: in the Court, was pub I PROVIDING REVISIONS TO ERTAINING TO FLOOD PROTECTION.FOR lished in said newspaper in �n If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above the issues of matter, he -site will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur- poses, he -she may -need to insure that a ver- batim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Oct. 29, Nov. 10, 198.2 Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore --" been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; 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 advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and (SEAL) �L A.D. 19 eF�alj The Board reviewed the following memorandum from Art Challacombe, Planning Department Manager: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 15, 1982 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: atrick Bruce King, AI FROM: Art Challacombe Planning Dept. Mgr. SUBJECT: FLOODWATER PRO ECTIONEMENT ORDINAND ANCE REFERENCES: It is requested that the data herein presented be given --formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on November 17, 1982. DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS: Attached for your consideration is the proposed Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance. This ordinance will amend Ordinance 71-3, pertaining to stormwater runoff control criteria; and Ordinance 78-25 pertaining to flood protection requirements. On November 10, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a. public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Several local engineers and architects participated in the discussion relating to the ordinance. The majority of comments focused on the technical aspects of stormwater management and flood protection and were received by the Commission and County staff. The hearing concluded with a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the County Commission approve the proposed ordinance. . On November 15, 1982, a mee ting was corrl ucbad , to allow County : staff and 'embers of the engineering/architectural community to review and evaluate the proposed ordinance with•the revisions discussed at the November 10, 1982, hearing. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Features of this Ordinarcr ate summarized as follows: 1) The Ordinance will combine requirements that are listed in two existing ordinances. Many of the problems associated with stormwater runoff and flooding can be addressed under a comprehensive and single source; 2) Stormwater management and flood protection criteria are incorporated with standards obtained from D.E.R., St. Johns River Water Management District, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and the.Federal Emergency Management Agency. These standards reflect• existing or proposed legislation in stormwater management and flood riotetti.on; NOV 17 19 39 K 732 FA. ;E P r NOV 17 1992 1 . FAP 3) The Ordinance sets forth specific review procedures and information submission. This Ordinance has been prepared with input from the County kttorney's office, the Public Works Division and the Community Development Division. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. Public Works Director Davis advised that the Department of Environmental Regulation gave their input, which caused a change to be made in the proposed ordinance in Section 3. In line 9, after the word "agencies," a phrase should be added as follows: "including specifically, but not limited to, observance of DER permitting requirements for use of the 'landward extent of waters of the state,' as that term is defined by Fla. Admin. Code, Section 17-4.02 (17)." Mr. Davis also suggested several deletions and additions on pages 7, 10, 11 and 12 of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Bird inquired if the adoption of the proposed ordinance would make it easier on staff for reviewing plans. Mr. Davis affirmed that the process would indeed be made simpler and easier. R. F. Lloyd, Engineer, agreed with Mr. Davis. Lengthy discussion followed about the differences between a Type A and a Type B permit, as indicated on pages 19 through 21. Mr. Davis advised that the Community Development Department was studying the fee structure that was mentioned on page 23. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. R. F. Lloyd approached the Board and referred to page 16 and discussed the various elements that an engineer must take into account, such as hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces. Glenn Dunn, of the Mosquito Control District, came before the Board, and suggested having wording in the ordinance regarding duration of flooding. He pointed out that if water stands more than 42 to 5 days, it breeds mosquitos. Mr. Dunn commented that they would like to have rights of access in order to get into those flooded areas and apply approved chemicals. Tom Culler, Architect, approached the Board, and referred to page 19 concerning the Type A permits. He expressed concern regarding small developments, and since architects have had formal training and are qualified, perhaps the engineers would not have any objection if architects were allowed to do this work. Lengthy debate took place whether or not an architect should be permitted to do some of the engineer's work. Ed Schmucker, Engineer, commented that if there was anything that was engineering, the Type A permit was; but did not feel as though all the criteria regarding permits was engineering work. Mr. Culler pointed out that _an architect could do engineering that is incidental to his practice, even on the State level. He would like for the County ordinance to allow the same latitude as the State allows. Discussion ensued. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED.by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to close the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 82-28 for Stormwater Management and Flood Protection, as well as adoption of the appropriate maps. 'WK N O V 17 1982 41 nr �> b*PAGE 1 NOV 17 1982 BOOK ,,yrN:Ut �� w INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 82- 28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE KNOWN AS THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR SHORT TITLE; PURPOSE; RULES OF CONSTRUCTION; DEFINITIONS; PROHIBITED ACTIVITY; EXEMPTIONS; REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS; REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS; REQUIRED INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY TYPE B PERMIT APPLICANTS AFTER ISSUANCE OF PERMIT; PERMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES; ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES; APPEAL PROCEDURE; NOTICE; ENFORCEMENT; VESTED RIGHTS; CONFLICT WITH OTHER ORDINANCES; SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIFER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known as the Indian River County Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance. SECTION 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of'the citizens of Indian River County; to implement those policies and objectives found in the drainage element of the County's Comprehensive Plan; to ensure protection of land and improvements together with natural resources through the use of responsible stormwater management and flood protection practices; and to ensure replenishment of the County's aquifer systems to provide a continuing usable water supply. SECTION 3. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION The requirements of this ordinance are intended to complement regulations of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation including but not limited to those found in Fla. Admin. Code, Chapter 17-25, Regulation of Stormwater Discharge, and the Stormwater Rules of the St. Johns River Water Management District, all as adopted or as may be amended from time to time. Approval of a stormwater management system under this ordinance shall not relieve any applicant of the necessity to obtain required permits or approvals from other state, regional, or local agencies, including specifically, but not limited to, observance of DER permitting requirements for use of the "landward extent of waters of the state," as that term is defined by Fla. Admin. Code, Section 17-4.02 (17). In the event of a conflict between this -1- ordinance and any other law or regulation, this ordinance shall be interpreted to avoid the conflict when possible. If there is an irreconcilable conflict, the agency rule shall prevail. If this ordinance is more restrictive, the provisions hereunder shall prevail and no conflict will be considered to exist. SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS Abutting Property - Property that is immediately adjacent or contiguous to property that is subject to review under this ordinance or property that is located immediately across any road or public right-of-way from the property subject to review under this ordinance. Accessory Structure - .A, structure of a nature customarily subordinate or incidental in size and use to the principal structure and located on the same site. Examples are toor sheds-, garages, and greenhouses. Adverse Impacts - Any modifications, alterations or effects upon a feature or characteristic of water or floodprone lands, including but not limited to the quality, quantity, hydrodynamics, surface area, living resources, aesthetics or usefulness for human or natural uses of said water or floodprone land, which are, or potentially may be, harmful or injurious to human health, welfare, safety or property, or which unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property, including outdoor recreation. The term includes secondary and cumulative as well as direct impacts. Agricultural Lands - Those lands in any bona fide agricultural use. Alter or Alteration - Any work beyond maintenance of the original condition including additions to an existing system, changes of any part of an existing system to capacities or locations different from those originally constructed, and changes in the rate, volume, or timing of discharges. As -Built Plans - Amended construction drawings specifying the actual locations, dimensions, elevations, capacities, and capabilities of structures and facilities as they ' BOK -2- ,-;'d PnUC �'r � N �V 1 `7 1982 rN ® 8 �Olf W 17 1992 , have been constructed on or under the site. Building - An enclosed structure that is principally above ground. The term includes mobile homes and gas or liquid storage tanks. Coastal High Hazard Area - Means the area subject to high velocity waters caused by, but not limited to, hurricane wave wash or tsunamis. The area is designated on a FIRM as zones V1 through V30. Construct or Construction - Any on-site activity including land clearing, earth moving, or the erection of structures. Construction Plans or Drawings - The Engineering drawings, specifications, tests, and data necessary to show construction of the improvements. Detention (or to detain) - The collection and temporary storage of stormwater in such a manner as to provide for treatment through physical, chemical, or biological processes with subsequent gradual release of the stormwater to the receiving waters, in which the capacity for the specified treatment volume of stormwater is again provided within 96 hours following a storm event. On-line detention is temporary storage along the axis of the drainage system, whereas "off-line" detention is temporary storage at a location away from the system's direct path. Development Project,- Any intentional man -caused change or improvement to land which increases the amount of impervious cover or results in the change in elevation of any portion of the land or changes the existing stormwater system and flood management system. A development project shall include but shall not be limited to all projects which require site plan or subdivision approval under the County Code. Discharge - The outflow of water from a project site, drainage basin or other facility. Drainage System (Artificial) - Any canal, ditch, culvert, dike, storm sewer or other manmade facility which tends to control the surface flow of water. Drainage System (Natural) - Surface streams or marshes -3- which convey water to natural points of drainage. Elevation - Height in feet expressed in relation to mean sea level and referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Filtration or to Filter - The selective removal of suspended matter from stormwater by passing the water through suitable fine textured granular media such as porous soil, sand and gravel or other natural or artificial aggregate, which may be used in conjunction with filter fabric or underdrain pipe or both. Flood or Flooding - A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation ofnormallydry land areas from: (1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters. (2) The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) - An official map of a community, on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency has delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Flood Insurance Study - The official report provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The report contains flood profiles, as well as the flood boundary-floodway map and the water surface elevation of the base flood. Floodway - The normal channel of a watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must remain unobstructed to convey the regulatory flood discharge without raising flood elevations above specified levels as determined in Section 7 A (20) W. Floor - Any floor (including basement) usable for living purposes which include working, sleeping, eating, cooking, or recreation, or a combination thereof. Hydrograph - A graph of discharge, or, for the purposes of this ordinance, volume of stormwater, verses time for a selected outfall point. Impervious Surface - A surface which is highly resistant to infiltration by water. It includes surfaces such as compacted sand, limerock, or clay, as well as most conventionally surfaced -4- N O V 17 1982 pK PA -E Nov 17 1982 WK 52 Fr�6;E streets, roofs, sidewalks, parking lots and other similar structures. Legal Positive Outfall - Is the availability of a permanent and legally established water course or similar facility or,means which has the hydraulic capability of conveying the stormwater discharge from a development project to receiving waters downstream. "Legally established water course refers to a water course which is established by either an express easement, plat dedication, or other documentation, or implied easement or servitude'as may be demonstrated to exist in accordance with Florida Law. Lot - A lawful building site. Such building site may consist of all, portions or combinations of land parcels described by metes and bounds, quarter section descriptions, lots shown on a subdivision plat, or any other legally described building site. Lowest Floor The top surface of the lowest area within the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of a building. For slab -on -grade type buildings or buildings with basements the top surface of the slab or basement floor would constitute the lowest floor. For footing, foundation walls, or pile type buildings with crawl spaces under the building without basements, the top surface of the finished flooring above the horizontal joist, beam or other supporting member would constitute the lowest floor. Maintain or Maintenance - To keep in an acceptable state of performance and repair and, when referring to the height of grasses in a stormwater management tract or facility, means to keep at a height of twelve (12") inches or less above the ground. Mangrove Stand - An assemblage of one or more of the following species: Black Mangrove (Avicennia nitida); Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle); White Mangrove (Languncularia racemose); and Buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta). Master Stormwater Management Plan or Master Plan - An engineering plan, written report, or engineering drawing outlining the primary and secondary drainage and stormwater treatment facilities needed for the proper development of a specific increment of the unincorporated area of Indian River County. -5- Mobile Home - A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. It does not include recreational vehicles or travel trailers. National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) - As corrected in 1929 is a vertical control used as a reference for establishing varying elevations within the floodplain. Person - Any individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, trust, or other organization or business entity. Regulatory Flood - The one hundred year flood, i.e., the flood that has a one percent probability of being equalled or exceeded in any given year, as indicated on the official County -f1-oddhazard map. Retention or To Retain - The prevention of, or to prevent the discharge of a given volume of stormwater runoff into surface waters of the state by complete on-site storage where the capacity to store the given volume of stormwater is again provided within 96 hours following the storm event. The required storage volume must be provided by a decrease of stored water caused by percolation through soil, evaporation, evapotranspiration, or spray irrigation. Retention shall be "off line" (i.e. outside of the primary drainage path), unless it is demonstrated by the applicant that water quality in the receiving waters will not be adversely impacted by "on line" retention. Wet retention refers to an area the lowest elevation of which penetrates the dry season groundwater table. Dry retention refers to an area the lowest elevation of which lies at least two (21) feet above the wet season groundwater table. Sediment - Fine particulate material which is capable of gravity settlement, whether mineral or organic, and which is in suspension or has settled in a waterbody. Site - Any tract, lot or parcel of land or combination thereof where development is to be performed as part of a unit, subdivision, or project. -6 - NOV 17 1982 r1'7 19� - NOV anoK PACE Stormwater and Flood Management System - A system of natural or artificial waterbodies or watercourses which stores or conveys water. Structure - That which is built. = Subdivision - A subdivision as defined by the County's subdivision and platting regulation ordinance. System - A dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work or works, or a combination thereof, that is intended to provide drainage, water storage conveyance, prevent or impair inundation, or other water management capabilities in and for a discrete area or a work that traverses waters in the County. A system may be designed and constructed in phases. Thoroughfare Plan - The official map of present and future streets adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Water - All water on or beneath the surface of the ground including natural or artificial water courses, lakes, ponds, or diffused surface water and water standing, percolating or flowing beneath the surface of the ground, as well as all coastal waters within Indian River County. Waterbody - Any natural or artificial pond, lake, reservoir or other area which ordinarily or intermittently contains water and which has a discernible shoreline. Watercourse - Any natural or artificial channel, ditch, canal, stream, river, creek, waterway or wetland through which water flows in a definite direction, either continuously or intermittently, and which has a definite channel, bed, banks or other discernible boundary. Watershed - A drainage area or drainage basin contributing to the flow of water into a receiving body of water. Wetland - That portion of the following categories of waters in Indian River County where one or a combination of the vegetative species listed in Section 17-4.02 (17), F.A.C. are dominant plant species: (a) Rivers and natural tributaries thereto; (b) Streams and natural tributaries thereto; (c) Bays, bayous, sounds, estuaries and natural -7- s M M tributaries thereto; (d) Lakes, impoundments, and ponds, except those owned entirely by one person; (e) Atlantic Ocean.. SECTION 5. PROHIBITED ACTIVITY A. It shall be illegal and subject to the penalties provided herein for any person to construct, or arrange for, authorize, or participate in the construction of a development project within the unincorporated area of Indian River County without first obtaining a valid permit to construct either a stormwater management system (hereinafter referred to as a Type A Permit) or a flood protection-stormwater management system, when applicable, (hereinafter referred to as a Type B Permit) pursuant to this ordinance. B. It shall be illegal and subject to the penalties provided herein for any person to construct any structure in such a manner as to impede the functioning of a drainage system that is: 1. publicly maintained or 2. located on private property and is a part of a drainage system serving more than one owner when such system is located in an easement which exists for the benefit of other land owners. A structure which meets the requirements of the Indian River County Standard Specifications for the construction of public facilities and physical improvements shall be presumed not to impede the functioning of the drainage system. SECTION 6. EXEMPTIONS A. The following activities shall be exempt from the permitting requirements of this ordinance: (1) The construction of an.individual detached single family residence or duplex residence together with accessory structures, provided that said residences and accessory structures are not located in Flood Hazard Zones as determined in Section 7 A (20) (a -f). When located in a Flood Hazard Zone, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Flood Management Permit (Type C) which shall issue upon the applicant demonstrating compliance with Section 7 B (1-14). -8- PA -E : NO V 1'7 1982 r N OV 17 1982.9 G„ H SOK P� 5 (2) Bona fide agricultural uses except when an artificial drainage system will be used to increase the flow of surface water from the applicant's land to a County maintained drainage system, or when the particular agricultural use requires site plan approval. (3) Maintenance work performed on existing mosquito control canals or impoundment areas. (4) Any maintenance, alteration, renewal, repair, use or improvement of an existing structure which does not change or affect rate or volume of stormwater runoff or the construction of any structure or addition thereto which does not create an impervious surface exceeding ten (10%) percent of the site or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less. (5) Change of any part of an existing drainage system without changing the flow characteristics of the artificial water course. (6) All activities by a water management district, drainage district, or water control district established under the laws of the State of Florida and all activities undertaken by the State of Florida, Indian River County, or any incorporated municipality within Indian River County, within their respective easements and rights-of-way. (7) Any activity or development project which is demonstrated by the applicant in accordance with Section 15 hereof to have vested rights. B. Emergency Exemption. (1) This ordinance shall not be construed to prevent the doing of any act otherwise lawful and necessary to prevent material harm to or destruction of real or personal property as a result of a present emergency, including but not limited to fire, infestation by pests, or hazards resulting from violent storms or hurricanes or when the property is in eminent peril and the necessity of obtaining a permit is impractical and would cause undue hardship in the protection of the property. (2) A report of any such emergency action shall be made to the Division of Public Works by the owner or person in control -9- of the property upon which emergency action was taken as soon as practicable, but not more than ten (10) days following such action. Remedial action may be required by the Director of the Division of Public Works subject to appeal to the County Commission in the event of dispute. SECTION 7. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS A. Stormwater Management Permit (Type A). All development projects are required to obtain a Type A Permit. No Type A Permit to construct a development project shall be issued unless the following criteria are met: (1) The design of the on-site stormwater management system shall be based at a minimum on a 10 -year frequency 24-hour duration storm event; however, the applicant shall also provide data indicating the effects of a 25 -year frequency 24-hour duration storm event on the development project as proposed. The design of any off-site stormwater management system improvements shall be based upon a 25 -year frequency 24-hour duration storm event. (2) The hydrologic computations for the stormwater management system shall be based on full hydrograph generation for the development project and contributory area utilizing such methods as published by the Soil Conservation Service (USDA, SCS, "Natural Engineering Handbook", Section 4, Hydrology: 1972 and "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", Technical Release No. 55: 1975). For projects of less than 12.00 acres, the rational method of runoff computation is satisfactory. The rainfall intensity -duration curves provided in Appendix A, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated as.a part of this ordinance and shall be used in making all required hydrologic computations. (3) Retention or detention with filtration of the first 1" of rainfall shall be provided on site. Detention or retention shall be provided on site for additional stormwater runoff generated by the development project over and above that generated by the site prior to the proposed development unless there is a legal positive outfall available which has sufficient capacity to -10- pK 9 r Pia NOV 17 1982 NOV-17 1992 accept the additional runoff. (4) Retention or detention facilities shall be constructed in such a manner as to maximize utilization of available percolation capabilities on the site for recharge enhancement and to minimize mosquito breeding by being shallow, shall be easy to maintain. (5) Discharges from the development project shall be handled to a point of legal positive outfall. Tailwater stages of the receiving waters, as reported in the Master Plan or as generated from data in the Master Plan, must be taken into account in design. Enlargement of existing downstream facilities may be required. (6) The bottom of dry retention areas shall be sloped to a permeable drain. A detention area shall have an outlet device, and shall not be lower than the elevation of the off-site receiving channel or water body. (7) Where permitted, open drainage ways shall retain natural design characteristics and be so designed and protected that they do not present a hazard to life or property. The design shall include measures to protect against scour and erosion. Whenever possible, such waterways shall provide for adequate flushing action by prevailing winds and currents to assure the prevention of stagnant water and debris accumulation. y (S) Disposition of Stormwater Runoff - The stormwater management system for developments located predominantly on excessively drained soils should maximize stormwater infiltration. This shall be accomplished through the use of bottomless inlets, perforated pipe, grading to retard runoff, natural or artificial retention or detention basins, or other methods, depending on the characteristics of the land area. Specific guidelines are as follows: (a) Areas and lots shall be developed to maximize the amount of natural rainfall which is percolated into the soil and to minimize direct overland runoff into adjoining streets and water courses. Stormwater runoff from roofs and other impervious surfaces should be diverted into swales, or terraces on the lot. -11- (b) Street drainage shall be by grassed swales or curb and gutter in accordance with County specifications, provided all curb and gutter systems shall discharge or direct water into or across a grassed swale area or other filtering medium. Whenever practical, as indicated by soil characteristics, water table elevation, and topography, the overflow from any swale used shall be diverted to percolation areas, ponding areas or natural or artificial seepage basins of sufficient capacity to retain and provide for the maximum infiltration of stormwater runoff from each drainage area for the design storm. Each percolation or retention area shall include positive drainage facilities which provide for drainage to public outfalls or a lake, or water course, to handle the runoff from storms of longer duration and severity. Except in those development projects where temporary -ponding is allowable pursuant to Section 7 (A) (13) each percolation or retention area shall include positive drainage facilities which provide for drainage to public outfalls or a lake, or water course, to handle the runoff from storms of longer duration and severity. The area surrounding these retention or detention basins is recommended to be -used as public or private open space and shall be grassed. (c) The Soil Survey of Indian River County, Florida, published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, as made available, shall be the document to determine soil classification in this ordinance. (9) Material Specifications for Culverts and Storm Sewers. The following pipe materials are acceptable: (a) Reinforced concrete pipe; bituminous coated, corrugated steel pipe; aluminum pipe; and aluminum pipe arch; and bituminous coated structural plate steel pipe; and bituminous coated steel pipe arch. PVC pipe shall be acceptable only for installations in a privately maintained system and only if of appropriate wall thickness for the intended use. (b) Workmanship and pipe materials shall conform to DOT Standard Specifications, latest edition. (c) Only concrete and aluminum pipes shall be used NOV 17 1982 -12- �QDK 52, 2 E �9� NOV 17 1982 BOOK FAH r under County right-of-way pavement and into salt water outfalls. Concrete for reinforced concrete box culverts shall conform to DOT's Standard Specifications, latest edition. (10) Inlets - Design and spacing of inlets shall be in accordance with Florida DOT's Standard Specifications or Indian River Count Standard Specifications. (11) Drainage Structures - All cross drains and storm sewers shall have headwalls, flared -end sections, or terminating structures in accordance with County Standard Specifications or Florida DOT's Specifications. Endwalls, inlets, or other appropriate terminating and intermediate structures, and backflow devices may be required where necessary. (12) Temporary ponding is allowable in areas specifically designed with high percolation rates (such as east of SR A -1-A on the Barrier Island) so that ponding does not last more than eight (8) hours. (13) Materials used in drainage facilities which cross, traverse, or encroach major roads as depicted on the Indian River County Thoroughfare Plan shall be designed for a fifty (50) year life. (14) All stormwater facilities shall be established in dedicated water management tracts, easements or specified common areas. Condominium documents, deed restrictions, or other legally binding instruments shall describe the location of such areas, specifically define the mechanism for preservation of and maintenance of any private drainage systems, and shall appoint an entity responsible for maintenance and preservation. All water management tracts shall include a maintenance berm, with a slope not steeper than 8 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical. In addition such facilities, as well as open channels and ponds, shall have an easement for access to and around the perimeter for maintenance. Retention or detention facilities below the designed high water elevation shall be graded to slopes not steeper than 3 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical. Dry retention slopes and wet retention slopes above the design low water elevation shall be grassed or otherwise stabilized. -13- r (15) In watershed areas where the County has adopted a Stormwater Management master plan, all proposed facilities shall be in conformance with the adopted plan. (16) Stormwater systems connected to local 298 Drainage Districts facilities shall be designed with consideration given to the capacity of the Districts' overall system and shall be compatible with the objectives of each District. (17) Rainfall runoff from roads, parking lots, roofs, and other impervious surfaces shall be directed to areas where percolation into the soil can be accomplished prior to introduction into any off-site receiving facilities. Pervious areas on line shall be covered with grass or suitable ground cover which has effective filtering characteristics. (18) The stormwater management system shall handle all -stormwater that flows into, through and from the projedt without creating adverse impacts on other lands served by the stormwater management system or by the receiving waters relative to flooding, erosion hazards, or water quality and quantity. (19) The applicant will demonstrate that the development project is not in a Flood Hazard Zone. Flood Hazard Zones are identified under the following procedure; (a) A Flood Hazard Zone shall encompass all lands subject to inundation by the regulatory flood, including lands in a Critical Flood Zone or Coastal High Hazard Zone. (b) A Critical Flood Zone shall encompass: (1) Lands subject to inundation by a ten (10) year flood, i.e., the flood that has a ten (10%) percent probability of being equalled or exceeded in any given year. (2) Wetlands, watercourses and waterbodies. (3) Floodways (see (d) below). (4) Isolated topographic depressions with a history of flooding or a high potential for flooding. (c) A Coastal High Hazard Zone shall encompass areas subject to high velocity waters caused by, but not limited to, hurricane wave wash. (d) A Floodway shall include the normal channel of a -14- ffil NOV 17 1982 PIP- NOV 17 1992 BOOK PA- E Fr watercourse and adjacent lands that must remain unobstructed to convey the regulatory flood discharge without causing flood elevations to rise along any stretch of the watercourse above a specified permissible increase known as the floodway surcharge. The floodway surcharge shall be established, considering both existing and potential development, at a level that avoids an increase in potential flood damage. The floodway surcharge may be increased; however, if a developer wishes to construct some additional obstruction, he must first obtain flowage easements from the owners of all land that would be affected by increased levels. In no case, however, may a floodway surcharge exceed one foot. The floodway shall normally be calculated assuming equal encroachment on the floodplain from both sides of the watercourse, unless legally enforceable deed restrictions, limiting development rights, are recorded for the lands needed for the floodway. (e) Flood Hazard Zones, Critical Flood Zones, Coastal High Hazard Zones and flood elevation data may be identified through flood hazard studies and delineated on the Official Flood Hazard Map. A copy of the Official Flood Hazard Map and supporting data is attached and incorporated by reference into this ordinance (Appendix B). As new or better information becomes available, this ordinance will be amended to incorporate new maps and flood elevations or other data. Current maps and supporting information may be inspected at: Indian River County Administration Building Community Development Division 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 (f) Sufficient funds have not been available to map the entire land area of Indian River County and perform the engineering studies necessary to identify Flood Hazard Zones, Critical Flood Zones, Coastal High Hazard Zones and Flood Protection Elevations. The standards of this ordinance shall also apply to development outside of mapped area, and information submitted by the developer or otherwise available to the Community Development Director shall be used to determine whether the project is within a Flood Hazard Zone as set forth above. M M SECTION 7. B. Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Permit (Type B). When a development project is determined to be within a Flood Hazard Zone according to the procedure set forth in Section 7 A (19) (a -f), a Type B Permit shall be required and the project shall be reviewed under the criteria of Section 7 (A) and must meet the following additional criteria; (1) An equal volume of storage capacity must be created for any volume of the regulatory flood that would be displaced by fill or structures. (2) The velocity of the regulatory flood must not be adversely altered on any watercourse. (3) All structures, including buried storage tanks, must be anchored as necessary to resist flotation, lateral forces -and-the impact of floating debris. (4) No development will be allowed that poses a significant threat of releasing harmful quantities of pollutants to surface waters or groundwaters during flooding. (5) The Flood Protection Elevation shall be set for each project at the elevation of the regulatory flood plus one foot. In Coastal High Hazard Zones, the Flood Protection Elevation shall be established with consideration given to wind -drive wave action. (6) Residential buildings must have the lowest floor elevated to the Flood Protection Elevation for that site. (7) Industrial, commercial or other non-residential buildings must have the lowest floor elevated to the Flood Protection Elevation or be flood -proofed as follows:* (a) A Florida registered Professional Engineer or Architect must certify that the building has been designed and constructed so that below the Flood Protection Elevation, the structure and attendant utility facilities are watertight and capable of resisting the effects of the regulatory flood. The design must take into account; flood velocities, duration, rate of rise, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, the effect of buoyancy, and impacts from debris. L_ NnV 171982 -16- 60 PAGE 16- PAGE NOV 17 1982 BOOK 59 Fr �E K S' (b) Flood -proofing measures must be operable without human intervention and without an outside source of electricity. (8) Accessory buildings may be constructed below the Flood Protection Elevation provided there is minimal potential for significant damage by flooding. (9) Sewage treatment and potable water supply systems must be designed and located to prevent inflow or contamination of surface waters up to the Flood Protection Elevation. Electrical and communications utilities must be designed to avoid flood damage up to the Flood Protection Elevation. (10) Mobile homes must be anchored, tied down and blocked in accordance with the standards of Section 15C-1.10, Florida Administrative Code. Mobile homes must not be installed in a floodway or Coastal High Hazard Zone. (11) If any lot in a residential subdivision lies within a Flood Hazard Zone, then the following additional standards apply to approval of the plat: (a) Each lot must include a site suitable for constructing a residential building in conformity with the standards of this ordinance. (b) One or more elevation benchmarks must be established and indicated on the plat. Said elevations must be referenced to the NGVD (1929) and shall be calculated to within 0.1 feet. (c) All prospective agreements for deed, purchase agreements, leases, or other contracts for sale or exchange of lots within the Flood Hazard Zone and all prospective instruments conveying title to lots within the Flood Hazard Zone must carry the following flood hazard warning prominently displayed on the document: FLOOD HAZARD WARNING "This property may be subject to flooding. You should contact local building and zoning officials and obtain the latest information regarding flood elevations and restrictions on development before making plans for the use of this property." (12) All roads shall be set at or above the ten year flood elevation, but in no case shall a road be constructed at an elevation below five feet above sea level. All roads shall be designed to maintain drainage flow beneath the road bed so that equalization may occur. (13) If the development project is in a Critical Flood Zone, it must be demonstrated, in addition to compliance with Paragraphs 1 through 12, that: (a) The elevation or velocity of the regulatory flood will not be increased as a result of any obstruction or displacement of flood waters. (b) There is no significant threat of releasing quantities of pollutants which have the effect of degrading water quality below standards established in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-3, as amended from time to time, to surface or - -agrotvndwater during the regulatory flood. (c) The capacity of the Critical Flood Zone to store and convey surface waters or perform other significant water management functions will not be impaired. (14) If the development project is in a Coastal High Hazard Zone, it must be demonstrated, in addition to compliance with Paragraphs 1 through 13, that: (a) All buildings or structures shall be elevated so that the lowest horizontal supporting member is located no lower than the Flood Protection Elevation, with all space below the lowest horizontal supporting member open so as not to impede the flow of water. Such space shall not be used for human habitation nor enclosed in the future. Lattice work or decorative screening may be constructed below the flood protection elevation provided it is not part of the structural support of the building and is designed so as to breakaway, under abnormally high tides or wave action, without damage to the structural integrity of the building. Solidwalls will not be allowed. Only wood or mesh screening may be used. (b) Pilings or columns used as structural supports are designed and anchored to withstand all applied loads of the regulatory flood including velocity flow and hurricane wave wash. -18- NOV 7 1982 05 2 PAGE .9 r1 NOV 7 1982 Fill must not be used as structural support. rF 15 BOOK 511qd C, Compliance with these provisions must be certified by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. (c) Sand dunes or mangrove stands are not altered so -as to increase potential flood damage. SECTION 8. REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS A. Type A Permit - A detailed description and drawing (scale 1"=50' or larger) of the proposed stormwater management system shall -be submitted to the Community Development Director by a Florida registered engineer or, for any development project constructed on a site of 1.00 acre or less, a Florida registered architect as long as any engineering service involved in the design is purely incidental to the architect's practice, as provided for in Florida Statutes 5481.229 (1981), as may be amended from time to time. The following information shall be required: (1) Hydrologic data including design rainfall, project drainage area, tributory offsite drainage area, existing and proposed impervious area and soil characteristics including depth to seasonal high water table. Soil borings at four hundred (4001) feet spacing to a depth of six (61) feet shall be provided. Alternate representative soil profiles may be used if approved -in writing by the Public Works Director and if demonstrated to be from a reliable and generally recognized source. A one foot interval contour topographic map of development area including offsite area of sufficient size to indicate the general neighboring elevations. (2) Hydrologic calculations for determining existing and proposed stormwater runoff. (3) Hydraulic data including receiving water stages, stage -storage and stage -discharge data for proposed retention and/or detention facilities, and percolation test data as per the following procedure: (a) The test holes shall be located as close as Possible to the proposed location of exfiltration trench or other M M percolation facility (vertical and horizontal) and, if critical, to a depth two (21) feet below the water table (MSL) at the time of the test. (b) A hole for each test of approximately twelve (12") inches diameter (or as required for a maximum clearance of one-half (1/211) inch between the hole and the test casing) is excavated to the required depth and the casing is lowered into the hole with a minimum of twelve (12") inches extending above the surface of the grade. (c) The test casing shall consist of a pipe that is at least eight (8") inches in diameter with perforations in approximately the bottom seventy-five (75%) percent of the length as measured from the surface. The bottom of the casing shall be pointed. Exfiltration increments shall be measured with a suitable gauging device. (d) Fill the test bore to six (611) inches above the surface of the existing grade and run test no later than two (2) hours after level has exfiltrated to below surface of existing grade. In all cases test runs are to start only after the first two (2") inches exfiltrated. (e) Run tests for at least thirty (30) minutes and record at least the date, weather, project name, test run by, test number, location on site, sketch of hole and casing, groundwater conditions, incremental drop and time, and subsurface soil information. Information shall be tabulated and attested to by a registered professional engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The County Division of Public Works must be notified at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the tests being conducted and reserves the right to witness the test procedure. Exfiltration rates for designing the site drainage facilities shall be determined by the developer's engineer from these tests. Alternate percolation or permeability tests t procedures may be used if approved in writing by the Division of Public Works prior to their use. (4) Hydraulic calculations for sizing channels, culverts, inlets, retention/detention ponds, pond discharge N OV 17 1982 -20- c �AmE N O V 17 1992 BOOK Fr of structures, and determining discharge rates and maximum water surface elevations. (5) Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans, during and after construction. (6) Statement of all assumptions and reference sources used in the conduct of the study. (7) A certificate from a professional engineer licensed in the State of Florida that the soils are suitable and proper for the uses and purposes of the proposed development; or submission of a plan 'calling for the removal and replacement of unsatisfactory soils. If the applicant submits a plan for removal and replacement of soils, the applicant shall submit a certificate from a professional engineer after the removal and replacement of soils has been completed, stating the new soils are suitable and proper for the uses and purposes of the proposed development. Such certificate shall'be furnished to the Public Works Director prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion. (8) Where percolation is proposed, at least one boring per basin shall be submitted. Said borings shall be to a depth of twenty (201) feet below the invert of the basin or to a depth sufficient to locate the groundwater table or impervious soil layer. (9) A general description of the manner in which the stormwater management system is to be maintained, indicating who or what entity shall be responsible and by what method the responsibility shall be created and documented. (10) A list of all agencies (State, Federal or local) having permit jurisdiction for the project. B. Type B Permit and Type C Permit - In addition to the information required for Type A Permits in Article A of this section, an applicant for a Type B Permit shall submit to the Community Development Director the information described in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 below. An applicant for a Type C Permit shall submit the information described in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, together with that information required in Section 8 (A) Paragraphs 5 and 10: -21- (1) Elevation in relation to mean sea level of the proposed lowest floor (including basement) of all structures. (2) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any non-residential structure will be flood -proofed. (3) Provide a certificate from a Florida registered professional engineer or architect that the non-residential flood -proofed structure meets the flood -proofing criteria in Section 7 B (7) (a -b). (4) Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. SECTION 9. REQUIRED INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY TYPE B PERMIT APPLICANTS AFTER ISSUANCE OF PERMIT Applicants receiving Type B Permits shall provide to the Community Development Director a flood elevation or flood -proofing - 'certification after the lowest floor is completed, or in instances where the structure is in a Coastal High Hazard Area, after place- ment of the horizontal structural members of the lowest floor. Within twenty-one (21) calendar days of establishment of the lowest floor elevation, or flood -proofing by whatever construction means, or upon placement of the horizontal structural members of the lowest floor, whichever is applicable, it shall be the duty of the permit holder to submit to the Community Development Director, a certification of the elevation of the lowest floor, flood -proofed elevation, or the elevation of the lowest portion of the horizontal structural members of the lowest floor, whichever is applicable, as built, in relation to mean sea level. Said certification shall be prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, a registered land surveyor or professional engineer and certified by same. When flood -proofing is utilized for a particular building, said certification shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a professional engineer or architect and certified by same. Any work done within the twenty-one (21) calendar day period and prior to submission of the certificaiton shall be at the permit holder's risk. The Community Development Director shall review the Flood Elevation Survey data submitted and shall respond promptly as to any deficiencies noted. NOV 17 1982 -22- tau �2 63 i -1v NOV 17 1 ��oK �� �.�� 9�Z , t Deficiencies detected by such review shall be corrected by the permit holder immediately and prior to further work being permitted to proceed. Failure to submit the survey, or failure to make said corrections required hereby, shall be cause to issue a stop -work order for the project. SECTION 10. PERMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Preliminary Permit Application - Any person who is in doubt as to whether a proposed activity requires a permit under this ordinance may request a review by the Community Development Division upon completion of a preliminary application form supplied by the Division. No fee shall be charged for preliminary application. The preliminary application form shall be filed by the owner/applicant and shall contain the following elements: (1) A location map. (2) A statement and sketch expressing the intent and scope of the proposed project. Review - The completed preliminary application shall be submitted to the Community Development Director to be reviewed by the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. Within ten (10) working days after submission of the complete preliminary application, the Community Development Director will notify the applicant that either the project- --s-approved, is exempt, or a formal permit application must be filed for the project. B. (1) Type A or B Permit Applications - If a Type A or Type B Permit is required for the project, the applicant shall furnish all required stormwater management information, together with flood protection information, if applicable, to the Community Development Director on forms furnished by the Department. The requirements of this ordinance shall be reviewed during the site plan or subdivision review processes if the project would otherwise require site plan or subdivision review. If such review is not otherwise necessary, the Department shall review the application and render a decision as to whether the requirements of this ordinance are met within fifteen (15) working days. -23- M M - (2) Type C Permit Apolication - If a Type C Permit is required for the project, the applicant shall furnish all necessary flood protection information to the Community Development Director on forms furnished by the Department. The application shall be reviewed within ten (10) working days of receipt of the application or at the time of consideration of the request for a zoning permit, whichever first occurs. SECTION 11. ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES A. Stormwater Management: Duties of the Public Works Director: The Public Works Director shall perform the following specific duties: (1) Make all professional engineering determinations required with respect to analysis of any given application. --.=7 -(2) Approve any changes or amendments to an -approved stormwater management plan. (3) Provide courtesy notice as to the general description and location of newly constructed wet or dry retention facilities to the Indian River County Mosquito Control District. (4) After the completion of a project, require as -built plans from the owner or applicant and a Certificate of Completion from the Engineer of Record. (5) Any system required by this ordinance shall be maintained by the owner, successor owners, or an entity designated by the owner except that the Director may accept certain systems for County maintenance. The selection of critical areas or structures to be maintained by the County shall be recommended to the County Commission by the Director. All areas .or structures to be maintained by the County must be dedicated to the County by plat or separate instrument and expressly accepted by the County Commission. For any system which is to be maintained by a party other than the County, easements shall be established which permit the County to inspect and if necessary, as determined by the County, to take corrective action should the party fail to properly maintain the system. Such easements shall also establish a right of entry for the Indian River County Mosquito Control -24- NOV 17 198 �� 5 r UOK rT^ NOV1'7 1992 �� FtU District for the limited purpose of inspection, prevention, or treatment of mosquito infestations, as allowed by law. Should a party fail to properly maintain a system as required, the Director shall give such party written notice of the nature of the corrective action necessary. Should the party fail, within thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to take, or commence taking, corrective action to the satisfaction of the Director, the County may enter upon lands, take corrective action and the cost of such corrective action shall become a lien on the property benefited. B. Flood Protection Management: Duties of the Community Development Director: The Community Development Director shall have authority to administer this ordinance, and shall perform the following specific duties: (1) Determine any additional information that must be submitted for flood management review. (2) Review applications for compliance with the standards of this ordinance after input from the Public Works Director and the County Attorney as to those matters within their professional disciplines; and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on that review. If application approval is denied, the Community Development Director shall state the reasons; however, it is not the responsibility of the Community Development Director to design an acceptable development. (3) Maintain a record of the actual, "as built" elevation or flood -proofing of all buildings constructed after flood management review. (4) Coordinate the review with other permitting agencies, if necessary. (5) Notify adjacent communities, the St. John's River Water Management District, and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs prior to alteration or relocation of a watercourse and provide a copy of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administrator. (6) Maintain a record of all variances, including justification for their issuance, and submit a copy annually to the Federal Insurance Administrator. (7) Interpret the boundaries of Critical Flood Zones, Flood Hazards Zone and Flood Protection Elevations and interpret the boundaries drawn on the Official Flood Hazard Boundary Map to reconcile elevation data and field conditions. (8) Issue notice of violation and otherwise enforce this ordinance. SECTION 12. APPEAL PROCEDURE A. Duties of the Board of Adjustments - The Board of Adjustments shall have the following duties in administering this ordinance: (1) Upon appeal by the developer, review decisions of the Community Development Director regarding interpretations of -this=-ordinance, providing the appeal is filed in writing within thirty (30) days of the action which is appealed. (2) Issue variances from the standards of this ordinance when all variance criteria are met. B. Variance - The Board of Adjustments may grant a variance from the standards of this ordinance if the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The applicant meets the requirements of Section 26 of the Indian River County Zoning Code, and (2) Granting a variance will not result in an increase in the elevation of the Regulatory Flood, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, the creation of nuisances, fraud or victimization of the public, or the creation of conflicts with other local ordinances, and (3) No variance will be granted allowing a development that would increase flood damage on other property unless flowage easements have been obtained from the owners of all affected property. In no case, however, will a variance be granted that would increase the elevation of the Regulatory Flood more than one foot. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice specifying the exact nature of the variance. -26- BOK PAGE P7 NOV 17 1982 nu 171982 BOOK 5 PnE PIS, SECTION 13. NOTICE A. In the event the Community Development Director determines a violation exists, a written notice of violation shall be issued to the owner of the property. The notice shall contain: (1) The name and address of the owner. (2) The street address when available or a description of the building or land upon which the violation is occurring. (3) A statement specifying the nature of the violation. (4) A description of the remedial actions necessary to bring the development activity into compliance and a time schedule for completion of such remedial action. (5) A statement of the penalty or penalties that may be assessed against the person to whom the notice of violation is directed. (6) A statement that the Community Development Director's determination of violation may be appealed to the Board of Adjustments by filing a written notice of appeal within thirty (30) days of service of notice of violation. B. The notice of violation shall be served upon the person(s) to whom it is directed either personally, in the manner provided for P personal service of notices by the court of local jurisdiction, or by mailing a copy of the notice of violation by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested to such person at his or her last known address. SECTION 14. ENFORCEMENT A. Any violation of this ordinance is a public nuisance and may be restrained by injunction or otherwise abated in a manner provided by law. B. In addition to or as an alternative to any penalty provided herein or by law, any person who violates the provisions of this ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not more than FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Such person shall be guilty of a separate -27- M M offense for each day during which the violation occurs and continues. C. Any violator may be required to restore land to its undisturbed condition. In the event that restoration is not undertaken within a reasonable time after notice, the County may take necessary corrective action, the cost of which shall become a lien upon the property until paid. SECTION 15. VESTED RIGHTS This ordinance shall not limit the vested rights of any person to complete any development project for which approval was properly granted based upon prior law, where such previous approval remains in effect. The County Commission may acknowledge vested rights in other circumstances where it is equitable and just. �- - -SECTION 16. CONFLICT WITH OTHER ORDINANCES AND CODES In case of a conflict between the provisions of this ordinance and prior ordinances, the prior ordinance shall be deemed repealed to the extent of such conflict.. Indian River County Ordinance 78-25, as amended and codified, and Section 23 (k) of the Indian River County Zoning Code, pertaining to flood protection and stormwater management control and criteria respectively, are hereby expressly repealed. SECTION 17. SEVERABILITY Each separate provision of this ordinance is deemed independent of all other provisions so that if any section, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is held or declared unconstitutional, inoperative or void, all other provisions shall remain valid and enforceable. SECTION 18. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon receipt of the official acknowledgement from the office of the Secretary of State, of the State of Florida, that this ordinance has been filed with that office, or upon December 1, 1982, whichever date shall last occur; provided, however, that any development project for which a completed application for subdivision or site plan approval, as the case may be or a -28- NOV 17 1982 600K ? PAGE r1 NOV 17 992 moK completed application for zoning permit in the event subdivision or site plan approval is not required, has been received by the Community Development Division prior to the effective date hereof may be considered, at the option of the developer, under the law existing prior to the effective date hereof. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 17th day of November , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By / DON SCUR OCK, JR. Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State.of the State of Florida this 24th day of November , 1982. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 30th day of November , 1982, at 3:00 %NCk /P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL $6FICIENCY.4 i By Attorney iUII11a11111i9u1Qllull!111111111�l�or�Itlt/�ul!l�u1111111Ills IIlM111111 �wnwwr■ww•aawrurwrwrsr■�rr■�wrnw��rrrrYa.rarrnwrnnrr� iNEIir�wrrryirrr Inr. .r.unrr. rrsi■r!/afM��rwarf./OmanYrr��rrrry �4! wraraIV11rr►.r 'r/rl/irM MUM � ,arr.wMa0WN���" Ontf�1• ■• .a ar►A►Jrr'./a �r. rarer t= as ■rswarYY r ww�aYawrirn.o.r aarli!/J321WAVArrr..■r • nwnrrrrr■ra■ uawsar=arra■rYYnri�wwu■rYs�sYru�Merr�►.r�■rnan�arnrrrrrr ulrtrrrrrrr.�fN� nr.rr ■rrMr Ea Yswrwwsrnawwrff. rrAAr r.s��s.r.wrwirrnraa 1IIlllnrrfr■.■■Y!lI�IrMn�war..■■Y■f UMMMManmown M�fgY /tV/..4Mir.Dia//ffia■■ ., IIit1101 Iu11tIM1 ff.n■..........l.f��..■ .■nfll:.rAVAN rit► Ifu.1.1.. �Imnl■r 111M to o■m.■tRe.■■rfa.m... .■Ilw�rl.sn.•.�tN••/tT�M1111111 Hirt ili. `��H�_��:iiaaa-zwi iiiiilmownevinFM tW nIM55mir iH■liiiiii �w{u�r■uia"irir s n rer.-s�■■■nt.t•■a■�■.r.�rnsw.ie�.t►��r.mnu������ . illilll..� ..ll'C.'Ui..��i1T:7U■!i■islt■1�1/►.��WAIffiNl,�lilitOfl111t11 ' IIIi11ti111f1 llulldlnlutl>MI■f/�Uiilill/►/%VAS iiit/Ai�/1l111111111111i . nrr�ril� a•*■1ir1 �) rt qr a M1w a•►Il,a. v p�. ►1n uuNrnuar■ tr w■ fluintgl I�ti�fa�tr■•a�a����MwQ.I!!,■I1���5f��1Rr•1liNMrrrrrraa irti�r ..raa.Yif�t uweiiuiiiu■eii lt�■i;ii■�la�i if`rii Arlo lllitlflt l. .. .lgt(■[�iff.11M�.■.�V��i argy ,�/i/ dei■■.■MHIL Hileeli■. 1 Iltl/i lulu ■ ■IIs. te■■ .►an � r•■ . . ....nln1 1y.f..t... 'IAi"iNi:�R=11sr�Vi�'1:! i�iMauiu1Ww1Imur'MI Nixon , 111113111111 �Ilut f�:eut■ >t'� l ��..1►nv m��i�A�Hu� tnnm���flfi Illi!/JIIl � II :V� i.%1.►i1�,�IIt111tinIn111U11ii1ti11111 • MAI r ��1►.u.� I 111111A1 IMIl18gi1 �11 �NInunlPl uuiliinn:.��ri !�r. ■Innua.■...s rltlp ■ nr r ttl■ ■ ►v ► ► .pltl a e■.■Hrtllaleewtteu.. wnsummis..■ilt t 11 �■,, !' a �4 ��,��r4�� 1,2111 fill" �I .M■Itt.11l.Iwlll.... iiiiiiloomm ini 'w " unilt .e�ii�ii► ' PieI■■EIHIet�InleMenl■u1111eeeeteen■ .,. � �it1■■�relllrllleeeee■rrrn rall■lle■I■� ■t/il11��■ �Il 11!11 Illl(i 11j�" '!l1��I �r / r� 1 i///illlllllt111�1fit li®glii1111H111i ■t0■� 1 ■ I�I t �i � Y�" r .■■.■ 1==■ �! i! �' HIM ! 111111lino 111 ili i1 i ui ►�■ um11 .�' , . ��,� �suu■1�Ni■�� 1■■oil loll 11 111111 11N� !► all 111111111111ui if1M111111111 � � � ■ �11111 !■! 1 Ill gllt H!1 • t1�11lII�1■I iQ II .�p.��' oil 111 11111 illhinll I�l�,dulilli�il . - : _=gss�s .sEtesa�a■ =EF.�EsBsa�?OI�:��5 M _� • � l:rrnR■ '" oi■ ■ s �yRr�a.==ilt'nwils�i a =�, 1`riw"'iiawN �■ rrlrr� � N MfsMrrrr�■r e www■■■ rra■rs wrrrw�arwa■rrr � ar n nrrrsaaYaiar wwwaiaaaawa�fiarnurraaariii�) Mrnaraaa WM ■"i lung! ! M 1 =■ .Y 1= 9 'CMpli w Yf.�lrr� iI1 I �..�■oun C tlf,!�SHOWS U" 1.■ � s ■1llf ..■.t0 on on. ..■ t l'tw tb� . i�i 1 ��Qr 111 IiK1� EmsHwe ;Nailm Nllmn ;� ■�6e ne�iiumenaeeo In IN IN 1111 11 Sol Emu Q jR C■�0 �Q 1 11 =i�i � i:�: ERM. ill SRI at ■ Ittw. n� tt i d am ■■ � sonall a i °t uni ■ ��lonnow ' ■ _ ■ ■ ■■■ If Itis Bell Wow i III "iii Q i NAI ■t1 i�■ ilii 1111 I�1 i 1111110111 . loin' �/� A! I i n n111 �� Al■�on/ / �lMI l 1 11 1111 HONORS■ 1111111 101n01i1H111 .. N 0 V 17 '• 1992 BOOK 72, C, PUBLIC HEARING — PINESTEAD MOBILE HOME PARK FRANCHISE The hour of 11:00 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 Daily 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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a —In Ft', C C (j�j(1! in the matter of ?_1AI �A L.0 I Q. 1. Yl.i �1 1 I r I -,fl( - - 4 ,'tern in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of� r 19 $Q Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County. Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement: ano 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 advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscnbetlbeta a me t is — f tit • A.D. 19 j r usiness Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of a Cirircuit Court�dian River County, Florida) i�r '• A C, V RiMP I ' D1 G_=t e.I ', ane+oc nsioosnr�te - .ill.. - ._ . I A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Public Hearing for Pblestead Subdivision Water and Sewage System franchise ap- plication shall be heard 11 a.m., Wednesday, November 12, 1982, at the County Commission Chambers at the Indian River County Administration Building, 180 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 22960. All interested parties are Invited to attend and will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. The franchise is dedicated to providing water and sewer service to Pinestead Sub. division. The service area Is the tract of land shown In the accompanying sketch. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matters, heshe will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he -she may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which record includes the testimony In evidence an which thel appeal is based. Oct. 25, 19112. The Board reviewed the following memorandum dated November 10, 1982: r LL] TO: Hororable Members of the Board of Commission THROUGH: Michael Aright FROM: George Liner DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: DATE: November 10, 1982 FI LE: SUBJECT: Pinestead Mobile Home Pare: Franchise Application REFERENCES: Lakewood Village is a sizeable mobile home park near I-95 south of State Road 60 which was developed without a franchise. When the developers applied i'or expansion to the Pinestead area, the developer was requested to apply for a franchise under existing county regulations. The franchise has been applied for, and the background material to complete the application package is complete. The project will total 947 units including 367 existing units of Lakewood Village and 580 additional units in the Pinestead area. Total -water utility req'.!irements have been estimated by Carte; Associates, the levelopnr' engin:!ar at ,00,000 gallons per clay at build -out wh'i10 sewage raquirements wore estimated at '1150,000 gallons per day. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The developer through their engineer and attorney are aax•ia:!. to comply with county regulations and have the franchise approved at The oa; liles-t possib'!: moment. The public hearing has,been properly advertised, and the background data ire. been reviewed as being complete and satisfactory. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING: Staff recommends the approval of the subject franchise i:pplication. NOV 171982 44 ROK 52 FADE M NOV 17 1992 BOOK �� Fr,ct i 7 Terrance Pinto, Utilities Director, stated that staff recommended the approval of the franchise application for Pinestead Mobile Home Park. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. Chester Clem, Attorney, reviewed Section 14 on page 11 regarding the franchise fee of.$.068 per thousand gallons of water, consumed by water users in the franchise area. He explained that as part of the franchise agreement and as Pinestead was developed, the old plant would be phased out and would be tied in with the new sewer plant. Lengthy discussion followed. William Lehr, Vista Royale, came before the Board, and complained that the Board was -piecemealing things together and there was no overall design. He was very much against the franchise. John Sullivan, 1455 90th Avenue, expressed concern about what would happen to Lakewood Village if this franchise were issued. He felt that the costs would revert back to him, the consumer. Mr. Sullivan suggested various changes that should be made on pages 2, 6, and 14. Debate ensued. The Chairman commented that the County was trying to provide reliability of service. Attorney Clem stated that they have complied with everything and have a right to build a water and sewer system, as long as it can facilitate the area. He pointed out that, at the County staff's request, they were asked to include the people across the street - they were just complying with the County's request. Commissioner Lyons stated he had no problem with the franchise agreement. 4� Christie Demetrops, 156 Congress St., came before the Board and advised that he owned 11 acres nearby and was never notified of what was occurring in this area. M. Cloud, interested citizen, expressed concern about Lakewood Village having the assurance of protection if this franchise was issued. Mr. Pinto suggested adding to the franchise that 24 hour service would be provided, if any problems occurred. Brief discussion took place regarding the franchise and it was determined that an as -built set of plans, along with the new plans,would be required. Engineer Dean Leuthje interjected that they would give certification, and would get together with the County Utilities Department regarding the plans. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bird stressed that it was important to have inspections of the system. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board adopt Resolution 82-122 for the Pinestead Water and Sewerage System Franchise; authorize the.signature of the Chairman for the Franchise Agreement; with the addition that there will be 24 hour availability of service. 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. Resolution 82-122 will be made a part of the Minutes when received. NOV 17 1992 46 BOOK y Ph GE N O V 17 1992 BOOK The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 12:20 o'clock P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:45 o'clock P.M. with the same members present. Deputy Clerk Virginia Hargreaves took over for Deputy Clerk Janice Caldwell for the remainder of the meeting. APPEAL OF REZONING DENIAL BY REALCOR CO. OF FLORIDA The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO REACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily 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 daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a/ in the matter of in the Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues of�� Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; 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 advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. L Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of "f -A. 19 kusi ness Manager) (SEAL) (Ctro irc r than River County, Florida) - -47 NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, is reviewing the feasibility of making the following changes and additions to. the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida. This notice superced llrieslpriorh notices concerning the property. The and additions are substantially as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated on the southwest intersection of SR 60 and Interstate 95, Indian River County, Florida, to - wit: Parcel "A" — Parcel l: All of Tract 10, less and except the west 10 acres, and less and except the east to acres thereof, lying west of 1- 95 Road right-of-way, Section 3 Township 33 South, Range 3a East. Parcel 2: Tracts 15 and 16, lying west of 1-95 Road right-of-way, Section 3, Township 33 South, Range 38 East. Parcel 3: All of Tracts 2 and 7, and Tracts 1 and 8, lying west of 1.95 Road right-of-way in Section 10, Township 33 South, Range 30 East. Ali according to the plat of the Indian River Farms Company, filed in the offices of the Clerk of the Circuff fburt*of Saint Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25; said land now situated, lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Parcel ('•B'•: The west 10 acres of the east 20 acres of Tract 10, Section 3, Township 33 South, Range 36 east, according to the plat of the Indian River Farms company, filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Saint Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25; said land now situated, lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from A, Agricultural and C-1, Commercial to R -IMP, Mobile Home Park. The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing, regarding the appeal by the applicant of the decision by the Plan - ring and Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval of the rezoning request. The public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Board of County Com- missioners in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, November 17, 1982, at 1:30 p.m. If any person decides to 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 in- cludes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman Oct. 29, Nov. 10, 1982. r Staff memo and recommendation of denial is hereby made a part of the Minutes: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: DATE: November 160' 1982 FILE: SUBJECT: REALCOR COMPANY APPEAL OF A PLANNING AND ZONING C01MISSION RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THEIR REQUEST TO REZONE ± 135 ACRES FROM A -AGRICULTURAL AND C-1 COMMERCIAL TO R-1MP, MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT Bruce King, AICP REFERENCES: Community Development Director It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners �--=during their regular meeting of November 17, 1982: DESCRIPTION.AND CONDITIONS: On June 29, 1982, Mr. Robert A. Peters, Secretary -Treasurer, of Realcor Company of Florida, Incorporated submitted a re- zoning application to the Indian River County Planning Depart- ment. This application requested a -rezoning of a±135 acre parcel from C-1 Commercial and A -Agricultural to R-lMP Mobile Home Park Development. The proposed rezoning is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Interstate 95 and State Road 60. On August 12, 1982, this rezoning request was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration. Upon completion of the public hearing and staff discussion, the. Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -1 to recommend denial of this rezoning request due to the incompatibility of mobile home development with industrial land uses which are intended for the property immediately to the west of the proposed re zoning site, vehicular traffic generation, and finally due to its proximity to the New Hibi.scus Airport. The applicant appealed the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for denial ?rd this appeal was initially heard before the Board of County Cortai•'.ssionerslon September 15, 1982. At this meeting, the applicant requested and was granted a 60 day extension by the Boazd. A subsequent meeting was held during the month of October between the County staff and the applicant's agent in an effort to establish a common data set for the analysis of the net fiscal impact of this project upon the public fiscal structure. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: I. Introduction The process of analysis for all rezoning requests involves the evaluation of all the urban systems and their interrelationships. This process focuses upon tha identification of negative impacts concerning the public health, safety -and welfare. For this particular rezoning request, the urban systems to be discussed include land use, transportation, utilities, environment, and the net fiscal impact upon the public fiscal structure. N O V 17 1982 600K 2 7.7 NOV 17 1989 `�' BOOK Realcor November 16, 1982 Page 2 P,GE As stated above, the subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60. This intersection is the central core of the I-95/State Road 60 Com- mercial/Industrial Node. This node was one of the largest nodes identified in the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. It presently contains a mix of general commercial and highway com- mercial uses, as well as restricted and light industrial uses. This commercial/industrial core is surrounded by single-family residential and mobile home development. Attachment A contains a map illustrating the boundary of the I-95 and State Road 60 Commercial/Industrial Node and its surrounding residential development. The node concept is a very important and integral part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The basic reasoning for the node concept is to concentrate commercial and industrial land uses within small areas whereby their development and growth can be most efficiently planned and controlled. Through this effort, it is anticipated that strip commercial development can be minimized along the County's arterial street system. II. Land Use Within this section dealing with land use, the historical de- velopment pattern for the I-95 and State Road 60 Commercial/ Industrial Node and its surrounding residential development will be examined. In addition, the existing land use for this area along with the existing transportation facilities will be analyzed. This section also contains a presentation of land use principles by which the location of various land uses is determined. Finally, a future land use map and analysis is presented for this node. It is the intent of this section to present logical and rational reasoning for establishing the fact that the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 95 and State Road 60 is best suited for industrial development and not mobile homes. Historical Development Pattern The primary historic pattern of development in the vicinity of the subject property has centered around three land use types: 1) Highway/Heavy Commercial; 2) Mobile Home Residential; 3) Light Industrial. Two land use types, the Highway/Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, located in the area as the result of the transportation access afforded by the I-95/State Road 60 interchange. The third land use type, Mobile Home Residential, located in the area due to the availability of large, affordable tractq of land. The following description of the historic development patterns provides a more detailed time frame by which all existing land uses occurred in the area. 1) Single Family Residential: Three single family subdivisions, Greenbrier, Vero Tropical Gardens and Paradise Park, were platted between 1956 and 1960. Three other subdivisions, Wildwood, Westgate, and Westside Villas, were platted between 1974 and 1978. The general pattern of development for single familv subdivisions has been on land situated on the north side of State Road 60. Scattered single family homes have been established on an incremental basis over the years. Realcor November 16, 1982 Page 3 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: (Continued) Historical Development Pattern (Continued) 2) Highway/Heavy Commercial: The first Highway/Heavy Commercial uses occurring in the area were established to service the needs of agriculture. After I-95 was built, highway oriented commercial uses were developed to serve interstate auto and truck traffic. These uses have historically established themselves as close to the I-95/State Road 60 interchange as possible. 3) Industrial and Manufacturing: Although extensive land areas have been zoned for light manufacturing in the vicinity of the subject property, development activity has not taken place until very recently. This activity is currently taking place in the southwest section of the I-95/State Road 60 nodal area along 89th Avenue. 4) Mobile Home Parks: Mobile home park development has been the most -rapidly - growing land use in the area since the early 1970's. The vast majority of established or committed mobile home de- velopments have been historically located to the southeast of the I-95/State Road 60 interchange. Existing Land Use An analysis of the existing land uses within this node is impor- tant since it formulates the base with which future development must interface and conform. In this analysis the existing de- velopment as well as those projects which have been committed to development by the approval of site plans or plats will be analyzed according to type and location. Table 1 contains a breakdown of the existing land uses within the I-95/State Road 60 Commercial/Industrial Node and its surrounding residential de- velopment. Type General Commercial Committed Highway Commercial Built Committed Heavy Commercial Built Committed Residential Built Committed Mobile Home Built Committed Agriculture Institutional Vacant TOTAL.i L_ NOV 17 1982 TABLE 1 EXISTING LAND USE Percent Acres of Total 5 .1 270 9.0 240 20. 54 ' 1.8 40 14 950 31.7 760 190 600 22.0 1.80 420 745 24.8 25 .8 _280 9.3 3000 100.0 BOOK FADE 7 r NO V 17 198-2 Realcor November 16, 1982 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: (Continued) Existing Land Use (Continued) EaCr� � � �r �:E �®•: The actual location of the various land uses are situated in. specifically defined areas. These areas as described in the historical development pattern section, have developed with homogeneous land uses. The existing single family residential development is presently located north of State Road 60 from 98th Avenue on the west side to 79th Avenue on the east. In addition, there is existing residential development on the south side of State Road 60 from 82nd Avenue on the west to 74th Avenue on the east. Existing highway commercial land uses are generally located on the south side of State Road 60 from Interstate 95 on the west to 82nd Avenue on the east. Directly south of the strip highway commercial area is all of the existing mobile home developments with the exception of Ranchland Mobile Home Park, which encompasses a very small land area. Along the southeast side of Interstate 95, there are presently several heavy commercial developments. All of the present industrial land uses are located south of State Road 60 and west of I-95. Attachment B contains a map illustrating the existing and committing land use for -the I-95/State Road 60 Commercial/Industrial Node and its surrounding residential de- velopment. Existing Transportation Facilities Within the context of the I-95/State Road 60 Node, there are two primary modes of transportation. First, the existing road network to serve vehicular traffic; and second there is the New Hibiscus Airport which is a private facility. The existing road network can be analyzed using the functional road classification system which is based upon the overall purpose that each street serves. In Table 2 an analysis of the existing arterial, primary collector and -secondary collector streets is presented. TABLE 2 Street Name Functional Classification Paved I-95 Arterial Yes 60 Avenue Arterial Pr Collector Yes 82nd Avenue Primary Collector 'North of 16th 74th Avenue Primary Collector Yes 90th Avenue Secondary Collector Yes 12th Street Primary Collector No 16th Street Primary Collector No 8th Street Secondary Collector Yes As card be noted in Table 2, there are two arterial streets. The east -west arterial of State Road 60, and the north -south arterial is Interstate 95. In addition, there is a paved primary collector on 82nd Avenue from State Road 60 south to 8th Street. There are also two paved secondary collectors within the area. First, 90th Avenue from State Road 60 south Realcor November 15, 1982 Page 5 Existing Transportation facilities (Continued) M to 8th Street. The second is 8th Street from 90th Avenue to 82nd Avenue. The overall layout of the long range street network is illus- trated in Attachment C. As you may note, the long range plans will provide excellent vehicular access to existing mobile home development through the utilization of 16th, 12th and 8th Streets. The New Hibiscus Airport is located approximately 2,000 feet west of the subject property. This airport has a 31300 foot by '160 foot runway with a north -south orientation. There are hangars and offices located at the north end of the airstrip. In addition, the airport has lighting facilities for night time operations. — Mand Use Principles Location requirements take the form of guiding principles and standards for the placement of uses on the land. Involving a whole range of physical, economic and social considerations, these requirements are derived from the basic interactive needs of residents, firms, and institutions within the urban area. In their most elemental form, location requirements relate to health,-safety,.convenience, economy, and the general amenities of urban living. How these considerations are expressed in terms of principles and how principles are subsequently translated into standards of location are fundamentally matters of local deter- mination. In Indian River Counth, the principals for location re- quirements have been established through the adoption of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. General principals relating to the location of land uses com- prising the I-95/State Road 60 Commercial/Industrial Node and its surrounding environs are presented below. Industrial Areas 1. Reasonably level land, preferably with not more than 50 slope. 2. Extensive industrial facilities require large open sites for modern one-story buildings and accessory storage. 3. Sufficient loading and parking areas. - 4. Adequately sized sites ranging from 5 acres up to 100 acres or more. 5. Direct access to commercial transportation facilities Includ- ing major trucking routes and cargo airports. 6. Within easy commuting time of residential areas for the labor force and accessible to major thoroughfare routes. "IOV 17.1992 - BOOK FASE �� r �I NOV 17 198j®j 2 q i nr s� E(lGK 19_ Fb:Gc F� Realcor November 16, 1982 Page 6 Industrial Areas (Continued) 7. Availability of utilities at or near the site. 8. Compatibility with surrounding uses which includes the consideration of prevailing winds, the possibility of providing buffer areas, and other -amenity factors re- lating to the manufacturing area and its relationship to adjoining land uses. Wholesale and Warehousing Areas In addition to the principles listed for industrial areas, the above land uses utilize the following principles: 1. Direct access to trucking routes and major street system for incoming goods and outgoing deliveries. 2. Frontage on a commercial street or in well -served whole- sale centers. 3. Suitability for development of intergrated centers with consideration for development amenities with adjoining areas. Regional Commercial Areas The location principles for the above land uses are as follows: 1. Located adjacent to streets with heavy vehicular traffic flow including two major arterials tributary to the trade area. 2. An adequately sized site to accomodate peak parking needs and a complete line of shop and store types, eating and entertainment facilities, and branch business and financial services sufficient to fill several hours of a shoppers time (30 to 150 acres). 3. Mocation on intersection of major arterial streets: — -` Highway Commercial Areas 1. Locations in outlying areas on major highway approaches to urban area. 2. Sites which are adequate for integrated design of drive- in services and motel accomodations. 3. Proper consideration should be given to highway safety, road side beauty, and general amenities of adjoining land uses. I gidential Communities 1. Sites which do not exhibit .steep slopes or irregular shapes. 2. Sites which are well drained or exhibit high levels of percolation. 3. Areas which are in proximity to major thoroughfares with direct connections to work and leisure time areas. r 4. Bounded but not penetrated by major streets. 5. Internally served by a system of collector and service streets with due consideration to drainage and lighting. , 6. Suitability for integrated design of residential areas and their related shopping, school, church, and recreational M ® - M Realcor November 16, 1982 Page 7 Residential Communities (Continued) 6. facilities. 7. The provision of a range of choice in residential densities with the higher densities in proximity to permanent open spaces and nearest to the major arterial street system and community -serving shopping centers. The above land use principles were utilized in the formulation of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It is very important that these principles continue to be utilized in making land use decisions through the rezoning process. Through the application of these principles, more desirable living areas will be developed which better serve the needs of the County's residents. Future Land Use for I-95 and State Road 60 Commercial/Industrial Node The Land Use Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan establishes land use objectives and policies for guiding future development. Within the element,the broad range of -land uses is covered. The Land Use Element contains general performance standards for the '- °`--location of the various land uses which were based upon the general location principles discussed above. Within the Land Use Element, the primary mechanism utilized for locating the future commercial and industrial development within the County is the node concept. The Comprehensive Plan establishes the location and total size of the community -serving commercial areas. The neighborhood commercial areas or nodes were not desig- nated through the land use map. These nodes would be located as future service'dpmand dictates. The Comprehensive Plan utilizes the node concept in an effort to maximize flexibility in its application in guiding future de- velopment. However, with this flexibility comes a certain degree of uncertainty, especially in nodes which are established to serve more than one primary land use, such as the commercial/in- dustrial nodes. The Comprehensive Plan establishes the specific location and sizes of the commercial/industrial nodes. However, the actual location of the various commercial and industrial uses is not established nor is the total number of acres of land that is to be devoted to each of these uses. Yet, the Land Use Element establishes certain strategies and development standards for future commercial and industrial development which maximize the efficiency of land utilization for these uses. In an effort to minimize uncertainty and provide the maximum guidance for the development of all nodes, it is the desire of the Community Development Division staff to formulate and adopt small area plans for each of the designated nodes. This small area plan would present a mini -land use plan illustrating the general areas for the various types of development to be accom- modated within the node. These small area plans would utilize the general planning principles,as outlined above,in locating the various land uses. By formulating and utilizing small area plans, the County can maintain its posture of maximum flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan and at the same time, provide sound direction as to the manner in which nodes are desired to develop. In the following section, a small area plan for the I-95 and State Road 60 Com- mercial/Industrial Node is presented. -NOV 17.198 - � � NOV 17 1982 a�oK Realcor November 16, 1982 Page 8 Small Area Plan for I-95 and State Road 60 Node The small area plan for this node is presented in the format of a future Land Use Map for the area. This map is presented - for your information in Attachment D. In addition, Table 3 presents a breakdown of the various land uses projected as components of this node and the number of acres to be allocated to the various land uses. TABLE 3 FUTURE LAND USE ALLOCATIONS Land Use Acreage- Percent of Total Regional Commercial 60 2.0 Highway Commercial 150 5.0 Heavy Commercial 140 Industrial/Warehousing 4.7 500 16.6 Medium Density Residential 1,200 40.0 Mobile Home Parks 950 31.7 TOTAL 3,000 100.0 As can be noted in Table 3 there are three major land uses which will comprise the ultimate development within this small area plan. The largest land use category is the medium density residential which will contain a total of 1,200 acres and comprise 40% of the development within the small area plan. The location of the future development of medium density residential uses will continue with the historical trend as discussed previously and will be generally located north of State Road 60 between 98th Avenue on the west and 74th Avenue on the east. There is an additional medium density residential area to be located -south Of State Road 60 between 82nd Avenue on the west and 74th Avenue on the east. The second largest land use category within the small area plan is for mobile home development. This development will occur in the area bounded by Interstate 95 on the west , 8th Street on the south and 82nd Avenue on the east, district on the north and cite heavythe highway commercial northwest corner of the mobile home area. commercial otal of district the or approximately 32%, has been allocated for mobile home development within the current boundaries of the small area plan. The third most extensive land use is for industrial/warehousing facilities. The location of these use's again follow the histori- cal development pattern and are situated south of State Road 60 and west of Interstate 95. The industrial/warehousing area extends to the western and southern boundaries of the small area plan. At the present time a total of 500 acres, or 16,6%, has been allocated for future industrial/warehousing development. A total of 150 acres, or 5%, is allocated for future highway com- mercial development. This area is located south of State Road 60 extending between the approximate boundaries of 90th Avenue on the west and 82nd Avenue on the east. Heavy commercial development will be located within the southeast quadrant of the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60, and shall contain a total of 140 acres, or 4.7%. Realcor November 16, 1982 Page 9 A 60 acre site has been reserved for the future location of a regional commercial center to be located on the north side of State Road 60 and east of I-95. The formulation of the small area plan was predicated upon the land use principles, as previously discussed, and the histor- ical development pattern within the area. As you can note from the existing land use map, the site of the proposed rezoning is a part of the only remaining land area sufficiently sized to accommodate the County's future industrial needs within this area. Any other location within the small area plan would present the potential of conflicting land uses. Utilization of the subject property for mobile home development would place residential development abutting a major arterial street which receives heavy automobile and truck traffic pro- ducing negative noise impacts. In addition, this site would establish a land use conflict between the residential develop- ment and the industrial and warehousing zoning to the west. Furthermore, with the proposed mobile home development being located on the west side of Interstate 95, its capability of being integrated into the other residential areas is impossible. Furthermore, all related shopping is located east of I-95, along State Road 60. ---As previously stated, when 16th, 12th, and 8th Streets become paved these streets will provide direct access and integration between the existing mobile home development and surrounding residential areas. Should the proposed property be approved for mobile home develop- ment, this action would have a negative effect on the remaining land area south of State Road 60 and west of I-95 to be utilized for industrial/warehousing land uses. This action would dictate a major: shift in policy for the future development of the node. Instead of having a commercial/industrial area, the node would convert primarily to a highway commercial center. This could have the effect of creating additional demand for industrial land within the unincorporated area of Indian River County. It is the opinion of the Community Development Division staff that the I-95 and State Road 60 intersection has the prime potential for future industrial development based upon the land use principles previously mentioned. Previous Comprehensive Planning Activities On May 29, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Indian River County. This plan was prepared by Adley and Associates, Incorporated, a.widely known planning consultant within the State of Florida. One of the products generated from this planning process -was the develop- ment of a Comprehensive Land Use Map for the County which was completed in January of 1976. As you may note from this map, the I-95 and State Road 60 area_ contained a commercial core and was surrounded on the east by medium density residential. The southwest quadrant of this inter- section contained a large industrial area which abutted a com- mercial area which was along the south side of State Road 60. As you can see, this land use sd-eme is very similar to the one that is being proposed in the small area plan for the I-95 and State Road 60 node. N OV 17.1982 e90x. 5 FAR . ... N 0 V 17 R19q?or November 16, 1982 Page 10 III. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Road Facilities: BOOK F:,eF�: The proposed rezoning to R-1MP, Mobile Home Park District, in conjunction with the mobile home density policy (6 units/acre) established in the Comprehensive Plan and existing constraints to the land, would allow for a maximum of 720 units to be placed on the site. This level of development would generate an addi- tional 4000 Average Daily Trips (ADT's) and an additional 430 Peak Hour Trips. ThA ex3.sting capacity of State Road 60 located near the subject property is 10,000 Average Daily Trips west of I-95 and 22,000 Average Daily Trips east of I-95. The traffic impact of the proposed rezoning would create a volume capacity ratio of .61 west of I-95 (610 of capacity) and .57 east of I-95 (57% of capacity). This analysis is based on a 100% eastern directional split with the assumption that all users will travel to shopping, medical, and recreational facil- ities located in Vero Beach. At the stated level of capacities, the proposed rezoning would not adversely impact the existing road network. Airport Facilities: The subject property lies beneath the downwind leg for landing on Runway 18 at the New Hibiscus Airport. The.$ureau of Aviation, Department of Transportation, has determined that the property is not located in an accident potential -hazard area. utilizes a standard left turn flight The airport ends the subject property. However, the estimated waverage tdecibele level for noise impacts from the airport is not significant. IV. UTILITIES Existing Facilities: Electric power is presently available to the subject property from Florida Ppwer and Light Company. There are presently no centralized sewer and water systems avail- able to serve the subject property. Two private utility franchises exist in relAtion to Village Green and Heritae Village Mobile Home Parks. g The nearest of these two franchises, Village Green, is located approximately one-half mile east of the subject property. There are presently no plans to expand this system to include the subject property as a portion of its service area; thus, any immediate development of the subject property would require in-, dividual septic systems and wells or private sewer and water treatment systems. County ServiceArea Plan The Utility Element of the Comprehensive Plan states in reference to sewer and water service for the State Road 60 Corridor, "There is pressure for expansion along the major east -west thoroughfare ...In the future, the County will provide service to this area as part of its customer base. This area will be a future point - for interconnecting the North and South County systems." The Plan recognizes that the MD -1 District and the I-95 Commercial/ Industrial Node, being part of the State Road 60 Corridor, are especially vulnerable to rapid urbanization over the next several years._ As a result, the Plan specifies a mid-term utilities service priority planned for the area by the Year 1990. This priority includes the subject property. As outlined in the Land Use Section of the analysis, the subject property is highly compatible for industrial use. Through the future provision of central water and sewer services, industrial development of the I-95 Commercial/Industrial Node, which should include the subject Property, will be facilitated. Realcor November 15, 1982 Page 11 Vegetation and Wildlife V. ENVIRON11ENT The subject property consists of scattered slash pine and sand pine as an overstory with scrub live oak, saw palmetto in the understory and wire grass and deer moss as a space understory. This type of vegetation association is not considered environmentally sensitive within the context of the Comprehensive Plan. There are no rare or endangered plants located on the subject property. Wildlife that can be expected on-site on a regular or periodic basis are: 1) Reptiles a. Gopher tortoise - Gopherus Polyphemus b. Southern Ringneck Snake - Diadophis punctatus c. Eastern Diamond back rattlesnake - Crotulus Adancuteus d. Eastern Indigo Snake - Drymurchon Corals 2) Birds a. Black Vulture - C�gyps 'atratus b. Florida Jay - _ Aphel'ocoma 'cohrulescens C. Florida Grackle - 'Q'uiscalus quiscula • 3) Mammals a.- N ne-Banded armadillo - Aosypus novencinct'us b. Old -field mouse - ' P'eromyscus olionotus C. Southeastern pocket - Gopher Geomys'pinetis d. Florida mouse - Peromyscun Floridarius The only threatened species which could occur on this subject property are the gopher tortoise and the Florida mouse. No recorded observations of these animals have been made on-site, Major negative environmental impacts to the subject property as a result of urban development are not expected. Drainage The subject property is located within the Indian River Farms Water Control District. The stormwater runoff from the subject property will discharge into the Sublateral D-5 Canal, then run east to the lateral D Canal on Citrus Road and thea north to the Main Relief Canal. All proposed development requiring site plan approval must meet the stormwater runoff requirements of Section 23(k) of the Indian River County Zoning Ordinance. Stormwater runoff generated by industrial development can be expected to be significantly more intense than that created by mobile home development; however, due to the large capacity of the existing system, the net impact to the County drainage system will not differ significantly with either type of development. Flood Protection The subject property is located on the "Ten mile Ridge" approximately 251 to 10 above mean sea level. The property is not located in a flood hazard area (Zone A) as described on the Indian River County FIRM. NO 1'7.1992 N nor 17 1982 Realcor November 15, 1982 Page 12 VI. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The Indian River County Planning Department staff has prepared a Fiscal Impact Analysis for three possible development proposals for the subject property. The first analysis concerns mobile home development, the second involves single family residential development, and the third evaluates the fiscal impact generated by industrial development. These analyses were prepared in response to a letter dated August 24, 1982, and written by the applicant's agent. Within this letter he referred to the financial advantages of mobile home development when compared to single family residential development. The applicant's Position that mobile home park development was more economically beneficial to the County did not consider the economic benefits attributable to industrial development of the proposed site. By comparison of the three fiscal impact analyses, it can be seen that industrial development provides a positive net fiscal impact upon the County's fiscal structure. However, despite the conclusions drawn in this analysis, it should be noted that fiscal considerations are not the County's primary concern in evaluating rezonings or making land use decisions. These fiscal impact analyses are not being utilized as the basis for this land use decision but only as a response to the applicant's concern. (For a detailed review of the three development fiscal impact analyses,please refer_ to Exhibit #1.) RECOMMENDATIONS: The Community Development Division staff recommends that the rezoning request by Realcor Company of Florida, Incorporated for a zoning change from A -Agricultural and C-1, Commercial to R-1MP, Mobile Home Park be denied. This recommendation for denial is predicated upon the fact that based upon sound land use planning principles the site of the proposed rezoning would serve the County's long range land planning needs best by being developed as industrial instead of mobile home development. ATTACHMENTS: A) Map of the boundary of the I-95/State Road 60 Commercial/ Industrial Node and its surrounding residential development. B) Map of the existing and committed land use for the I-95/State Road 60 Node. C) Map of existing street network. D) Future land use map for small area plan. Ey Exhibit 1, Fiscal Impact Analyses F) Application G) Minutes of August 12, 1982, Planning and Zoning Commission - Meeting. H) Minutes of September 15, 1982, Board of County Commissioners Meeting. I) Location Map APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: FOR: BY: ATTACI MENT A) BOUNDARIES OF THE 1--95/SR 50 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1 s ism -EXAM ; t - � -;{ .' � '-(Wj`c8�".; ..fie YP3�C'X'2'.'k'4�h1°!�T�•'�'C4'�e`aF,`a' - �}-Wj.� w1 r- ,t, aY}:`Ih';w�iia • .3" 7 ? w �'%tt�n.�'%it; i, stl iii ; w �.. � i� iuli i � t u�r,r\ 1 iii llilUi �I Ilr�iiil�ii�iiF.iif bio: Y ■rs�11• u u Irbil r ■gg„1 u■+�� I 4, ^� 1■■ 3 � D:\al■I ■ �� PL!� �:A r L 1 rD d■ 'uu I■p.■O � ara■ / $�f n! ala ■ l.�Ili rr,=;lw�■„Y■■• n ytl■■1 . Ml ■ IOW �,� FIJI I 1�Dtil■■ Ii■t/ ■ ■i ■per ■ /DN■■■■ ■ ' riii= r: : ■ ■M ■� _ .: Lr� ■ I:;i dill ii ,:+-: =■uu■■n IN ■ ■ ■.q ■■]] I1D ■. ■ R■ii "an■■■■ move y 3I Evil I ■: ■ i■�i ■:■:■ r�u■i n =:u■■ ou■r �..=■=1 ! 1 ■t■\� ■■■■� ■■gll�ll:■■■■D■ P!._ \■N■\tl 9 ■ t -...� ■■1 PP 11•.2• ■■1■■71 /.r■■�■1 t S m.�ni ■�i� t ■fir ■t ■n■ Ruu n. r• ! j F1is N■■, ■■■ I�■,t► ■1 ■t1■ NidUNII:11 /■::■ f4�11 . RNOI■II■7Nrlo■1 K t■� 1 ■a. =Il�i ■■■■q■1 •1 ■�3 on: ■II■I1:■rJ ■■ ;t4ai, ■■Op. Manq T, Nunn ■nuu:u ■■ur:uu■:■\I .Isomer a■■nu\n■r lr.. • among:: i■: r , �i�0•� ago Imaidill rsa, Iii yr ` ,ofr ■■/DODO■ ■■■NNr.••.aloong ICO '11 a DONOR■ ■ 4 u■■q■RII■■: � , S1 ■■■■■■■■■■■ 1•••11 1 i`i••.��iPir►P ■■■ ■R■a[a ■ 1 IRO ■ n uNa� ko.A 0.1'1':0••0.OY:•••1;�•1••••'/' i s • ♦ • 110• •1 1111 L Di:: ::::::::Ki:il i::::u�i: :■ r 1�i101'•IY•;111111;1•�i•1•i1•i11•1'vi1 'YI :::::iw�j*,� i::�:�i:i� :: ■R: <x ►�OOJOii0'• !� `„� ' /•1•1•'•1110111i0�1ISO1/'0 i••i'••9 0.51••1••1'•1011.110•1•1 1•.11•11•1•105. ••015ofi101 L1''i1 �■nmu 104ft 1. 1.1. 1.A5 1. NwrnNR■■ }u�■D■ ■4: R4 1111.101•/11./ •11111 1■ ��. r■1 ,a L / ♦1 ••{'11/1.111)11 Y••II.J 1• ■ :Ra■ ■■ :d /11.1.1 •11.1• ♦11 1111••110E I. ■ IS D .R: ,',. '1✓i,_r-�-�3 ► 1'1'11�i 111/1111111�1111i1•0'i•�1'i'1•i dY,•10 i ■■11nano ^ i ; 7 f) ,� 4.� 0111♦/111•///111111•-11 ♦1► ♦ :�+f w• . r�! •'i• •• 1111 •••1 •111101/100 t'r"�, �'"�''����'�^'� %+^;`�.R`I'�;�::-�"��'"�•>;��di;w 111.111111111.1;1.11`•i1�i;111111/11111911g o Y. w i1�11J 1'`I{'•'1-1•Nr •111 11 1.11.11.111••1 /1 `R / �/;�i;►1�051'111/111,11•.�.•11•�i•.•.111v1011•���11111111111.1.1.111111/•••1•►1�•1•II.�j� e. "3' `''�':y �'i'11'1'd•'•1'�•.'''••••'':�i':•:'�i1i•••�;�r•.•':❖'d:• '•:1'•i r ";' l is•;:;:;1�'d:;�i;�:•:i;�::•��:;id V.-N�i:�:•:'i;❖:1:''• No vi . .'",. � �1;1;•;•;•w+►•i;1;1;1�;0.0.1•1;iL;11;1;1;•;•;%1;•�i;•;Oi;•;•;1�1;1�;1;:;i;1;IL`f.* �� / ► •111•"i►�11•.117••1 •1••1.1••.11.1'•11•• 11••111.1• y ..111► .•• 11• .111.1♦11•••111.1111 , glove 11'111111.101.1.1•.•.11111111••.•11.1••11• ♦1.111111"11 7 � ;? � •1111.1► •. ,"1••1/1•••1111.1111.•.1•.• •.•.1.111 � i 1 ♦•.•It•01.•111.1.1.111.11.1111111. 11•••.11 1 �'�dtM1 '�`'{'f'�`4�? 5 '^� ?� �J•��•�1�.•i►iii1.•.►i•.i1�1�1�1%11.111.1.1/11• 11.♦.••1.1 1:�■tlr o■r now 11:11 ■■■ +111 ►'iii�i♦1II N11... Sao17'i"1 ■ nr■ m masor■o:N 'i'ii1'i'iii0 ...N�I:o ■Ro=■o ■roe..R1•1►1•/•.x'0'•1.1000'0.•1•. ' .. ........ ■o ■ ■ .. .1.. . 1.•1.... . .o<.,� ■=nnn anan n=:=o:)Id.►.►.1.►;1J.►p.►1►1►1►D'Lr:; ■/on■■■ ■■■N■N■\/■■/\DODO■■ ■\DODO■■ y. :e:8aefeea meeE:eEe=99'se k :■RR■7 ! . IuSnr■■■uo■uu■■rnN■uuuou■u t 4#Yii}JYA�Y tea;{a a'a^C+r.'1%Y�ua ��,y��,�_t5�i'.,�,*ci.U:�7��?• �'s'.+�.?.��','}a." x ROAD CLASSIFICATIONS PRIMARY COLLECTOR �.�._ SECONDARY COLLECTOR PAVED 1-95 S.R. 80 98TH AVE. 90TH AVE. SOUTH 62ND AVE. OF S.R. 60 8TH ST. UNPAVED 26TH ST. 16TH ST. 12TH ST. 74TH AVE. S O ,. ". �. ...-.,..... ....... .. ..a. a '., ... .. �: ..... .. .x .. ..i .. .. >.:^.... .. ..:.... � -:. . . 1 :' .. .. �. .: '. e ..' � ATTACHMENT E) EXHIBIT 1 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MOBILE HOME SINGLE-FAMILY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE REALCOR REZONING REQUEST I. ANALYSIS OF MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT The first section of this fiscal impact analysis looks at the costs the County will incur and the revenues it will generate if a Mobile Home Park is built on the site in question. The method used in this section of the analysis is the per capita multiplier method. It is based on a model from The Fiscal Impact Handbook, by Robert Burchell and David Listokin. There are several assumptions inherent in this method. These are that: 1) Current average operating costs are the best estimates of future operating costs. 2) Local service levels are the most accurate indicators of future service levels. 3) Current population composition demanding current level and types of services will remain the -same in the future. 4) The number of residents and students attributable to new development varies with the size and type of dwelling unit. 5) The current distribution of expendituressamong the various county service sectors will remain constant in the long run and will accurately reflect future expenditures. Determining the Cost of the Incoming Facility Table 1 shows the County and County School District's Budgets for 198283. This information is from the County Finance Department and County School District office, respectively, and will be used in determining the costs to the County of the proposed Mobile Home Park Development. For the purpose6 of this section of the analysis, the County's total budget will be calculated as $14,497,603. This reflects the fact that the proposed Mobile Home Park will not contribute to the County's public works expenditures as they will provide their own roads, sewers, cantations, etc. '.'ABLE 1 County & School District Expenditures by Service Category Indian River County, Florida Salaries & Wages/ o Of Countyl Other Expenses Total Operating (including statutory) General Government $6,806,037 29.7 Public Safety 4,811 869 21.0 Public Works 8,417,548 36.7 Health & Welfare 1,203,.606 5.3 Recreation & Culture 593,774 2.6 Debt Service TOTAL N0V1 , T.•911�n'wn T.... L.. 1,082,317 22,915,151 4.7 BOOK U4 PAGE .100.0.. ��� NOV 17'1982 WOK F,���� 94 TABLE 1 (Continued) County & School District Expenditures by Service Category Indian River County, Florida Salaries & Wages/ = Of School District 2 Other Expenses Total Operating (including statutory) $29,104,544.91 94.5 Debt Service 2,265,984.76 5.5 TOTAL $31,370,529.67 100.0 I. ANALYSIS OF MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT (Continued) Anal sis To Determine the per capita costs of a residential facility, a figure which represents costs assignable only to residential development must be determined. In other words, non-resi- dential costs must be separated from the County's total expenditures. The first step in doing this requires determining the non- residential share of total local real property value. Table 2 lists the County's total property value and the value of non-residential land. Value of Non -Residential Property: $365,164,210 Total Property Value: $2,748,4 1,877 _ .13 In Indian River County non-residential land uses comprise 13% of the total value of all locally taxable real property. Taking the number of non-residential land parcels and the total number of locally taxable land parcels from Table 2, it can be seen that the average value of a local non-residential parcel exceeds the average value of all local property by a factor of 2.62. Non -Resign tial Real Property Valu = $365,164,210 $127,014 Number —0 f Non -Residential Land -Kr-cels 2,87T_ - per Total Local Real Prop. Value = $2,748,4610,877 ~ 4 Parcel Total Number of Parcels = $48,450 56,728 per parcel Ratio of Non -Residential to = $127,014 = 2.62 Average Parcel Value 48,450 TABLE 2 Indian River County Property Values 1. Total local assessed real value.3 «$2,336,134,150 2. Total local real property value for non- residential pro erties.3 310,389,580 3. Local equalization ratio.3 .85 4. Total local equalized real Prop. value (1:3) $2,748,393,118 5. Total local equalized non-residential real Property value (2:3) 365,164,212 6. Total number of taxable landarcels.3 ' 56,728 7, Total number of non residential land parcels.3 2,875 equalized real property value/parcel (4:6-) $48,449 9• Avg. equalized non-residential real property value/parcel (5:7) r 2 Fndian-River Co. School Dist 111982 127,014 3 -83 Dist. Summary Budget." �. Property Appraiser's me Interim Report 1982-� To calculate the amount of the County's budget which is attributable to residential development the following steps should be taken. Mobile Home Park Costs: Total County Expenditures4 = X Proportion of Non-residential to Total Local Real Prop. value. _ This must be multiplied by a refinement coefficients = Total Existing Co. Expendi- tures Attributable to Non- residential Uses. County's total budget $14,497,603 Budget assignable to non-residential. 2,827,033 $11,670,570 $14,497,603 .13 $ 1,884,688 X 1.5 $2,827,033 $11,670,570 = Net Annual Total Residential Expenditures for County Population According to the 1980 Census, there are 38,432 people in the unincorporated portion of Indian River County. _ $11,670,570 . '38,432 = $304 Annual per capita costs for County servicea_to residential p=Qperties. _ Table 1 also lists the Indian River County School District's 1982-83 budget. Based on a figure of 9,300 students, provided by the school district, the per pupil costs for school district services is $3,373. Total Budget $31,370,530 = $3,373/Student # of students 9,300 Once the per capita service costs -for the County and per pupil costs for the school district have been determined, it is necessary to calculate how many residents and students the Mobile Home Park will generate. Demographic multipliers by household type have been derived from U.S. Census information. See Attachment A. 4 See Table 1, since it is assumed that Mobile Home.Parks provide their own streets and sanitations, etc., the pdblic works portion of the County's budget has been subtracted from the total budget. It will be assumed that in the initial phases of development the County will not have to provide Public Works Services to the development. This assumption will also be made for residential development because developers must build their own roads, etc. 5 From Burchell & Listokin, p. 124 A refinement coefficient is necessary because the relationship expressed by the proportion of non-residential to total local real property value is not a linear function. M NOV 17.1982 Boa 159 FnE (15 NOV 17 600K _P � Py E � Using the multiplier for residents in 1-3 bedroom mobile homes in the South Atlantic Region, there will be an estimated 2,021 residents in the mobile home park. 2.807 - Multiplier x 720 - Mobile Homes 2,021 - New Residents in the County Using the multiplier (See Attachment B) for school-age children in 1-3 bedroom mobile homes yields an estimated 297 new students. 0.367 - Multiplier x 720 - Mobile Homes 264 - New Students From these figures the costs attributable to mobile home park residential development can be calculated. 2021 -'New Residents $304 - County per capita service cost $614,384 - Total County service cost attributable to MHP development 264 - New Students $3,373 - Per pupil school district's cost $890,472 - Cost to school district of 14HP development $614,384 + $890,472 = $1,504,856 Total Cost of Mobile Home Park 4 -4- Revenues Generated by a Mobile Home Park Assumptions The County receives revenue from several sources at the federal, state and local levels. For all the case studies in this analysis it will be assumed that revenue from federal and state sources will not be greatly changed. In all three (3) development possibilities, mobile home park, single-family residential and industrial, the influx of population as a result of development will not be great enough to significantly alter the amount of revenue which the federal or state government allots to Indian River County. So, only the change in local revenues, as the result of development of the proposed site will be evaluated. Analysis The proposed site is ± 135 acres in size. There is a mutual under- standing between staff and the applicant that 15 acres will be used for a lake and drainage improvements. In addition, the gross density for mobile home development was established at 6 units/acre. Using these figures, the revenue calculations in this analysis will be based on a total of 720 mobile homes in the proposed development. Mobile home parks generate revenue for the County from an ad valorem tax on the value of the total development, its land and improvements, as well as from tag fees for each mobile home unit. Staff's analysis is based on a maximum of 720 mobile homes and ---a-sessed at a millage of $10.90 per $1,000 of assessed value, or a rate of .0109. This millage rate was provided by the Indian River County Property Appraiser's Office and is that for the taxing district where the proposed development would be located. The valuation figures for the development are those provided by the applicant, in a letter to the department on August 24, 1982. Using this information the revenue generated by the proposed mobile home park is calculated in Table 3. TABLE 3 Revenues from Proposed Mobile Home Park Development 1. Ad Valorem Tax Including: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Value of Improvements to Land: Assessed value of Pads: 2. Tag Fees: $1,620,000 x .0109 Mills $17,658 $ 800,000 x .85 x .0109 Mills $ 7,412 $ 5,500 x 720 x .0109 Mills $43,164 720 mobile homes x $73.506 Average, • only one-half of which $26,460 County goes to the Total Revenues Assignable to Proposed Mobile Home Park $94,694 Net Fiscal Impact of Mobile Home Development According to the preceding data, the cost to the County ofIa Mobile Home Park development on the proposed site would be approximately $1,504,856. The annual tax revenue which the County could expect to generate would be approximately $94,694. Thus the County would have a deficit of $1,410,162. 6 From the Indian River County Tax Collectors Office; it is the to fee for a 24 x 50 trailer. g NOV 17 1982 -5- - pox 2 PAnf 97 BOOK nor 17 1982 II. ANALYSIS OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT The per capita multiplier method will also be used to calculate the -costs to the County of single family residential development on the parcel east of I-95 and south of State Road 60. The assumptions inherent in this method were listed at the beginning of the Mobile Home Park analysis and will not be restated. Cost Information Most of the initial cost calculations for residential development were done in the Mobile Home Park section of this analysis. The County and County School District's 1982-83 Budgets will be the basis for cost information in this section also. Thus, the County per capita service cost, $304, and School District's per pupil cost, $3373, will.be the same. This analysis differs from the Mobile Home Park analysis in the number of residents and students which the development can be expected to generate. Using the demographic multi- pliers for single family residential units which have been compiled using U. S. Census Bureau information (See Attach- ment #B), based on 564 units, it can be estimated that the development would have 2129 residents, 637 of whom are students. 2129 - Residents x $ 304 - County per capita service cost $647,216 = Total County service cost attributable to single family residential development. 637 - Potential new students $3373 - Per pupil cost $2,148,601:-= Total cost to school district of single-family residential development $ 647,216 - County's cost $2,148,601 - School District's cost $2,795,817 = Total public cost of the development -Revenues Generated by a Single -Family Residential Development Assumptions As with the mobile home park analysis, the applicant and planning department staff have a mutual understanding that single-family development will have a gross density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre and 15 acres are to be used for a lake and drainage improvements. It is assumed that the development is to have its own sewer and water facilities. Using these considerations, the maximum number of single- family dwelling units which could be built onihe proposed site is 564. Also, the assessed value per home is assumed to be $60,000. Analysis 564 Homes x $60,000 Assessment = $33,840,000 x .85 Equalization Ratio = $28,764,000 This $28,764,000 assessment does not take into consideration Homestead Exemptions. Homeowners living in Florida more than five (5) years are elegible for a $25,000 exemption. Those living in Florida less than five (5) years are eligible for a.,$5,000 exemption. Since most large residential developments are built in phases, rather than all at once, it seems reasonable to assume that not all residents in this parcel would be eligible for a $25,OOO'Homestead Exemption at the same time. Staff has determined that for this analysis half of the residents will be considered to receive a $5,000 Homestead Exemption. 282 - Dwelling Units x $ 5,000 = $1,410,000 282 - Dwelling Units x $25,000 = 7,050,000 Total Exemptions = $8,460,000 Assessments = $28,764,000 Homestead Exemptions_ = 8,460 000 Total = $20,304,000 To determine the taxes paid on the assessed value, the millage rate for the parcel must be applied. The millage rate is .0109. Assessed Value = $20,304,000 x Millage Rate = .0109 Taxes paid by a single family residential development =•$221,314 Net Fiscal Impact of Single Family Residential,Development The costs to the County for providing services to a single family residential development on the proposed rezoning site have been .calculated as $2,795,817. The tax revenue that the County would generate from the single family residential development are an estimated $221,314. Thus, for a single family residential development to be built on the site in question would cost the County $2,574,503. III. ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL -DEVELOPMENT The per capita multiplier method is not a very accurate method for determining the impacts of industrial development. As has been demonstrated previously, the per capita multiplier method relies on estimates of incoming residents to determine impact on the total budget of the study area. This is not possible for industrial development. There is not.a strong correlation between residents being attracted to an area and industrial development, as there is between residential population growth and residential development. The Employment Anticipation Method will be used in this analysis to determine the impacts of non-residential development on the County's service costs. This method bases changes in the County's expenditures on anticipated changes in the County's employment base. Researchers have developed coefficients which can be used to predict the change in County expenditures related to local employment variation. (See Attachment C) These coefficients can be used to extrapolate the percentage change that one industrial employee will produce in the County's per capita local publics service expenditures. The Employment Anticipation Method is based on these assumptions: 1) The level of County industrial employment directly affects the magnitude of local County expenditures. 2) The relationship analyzed is the impact of industrial employment on County expenditures within a multivariate context, bontrolling for the effects of other social, political and economic factors. 3) The impact of additional employment will vary for communities of differing population size and direction of growth.? Costs Generated by Industrial Development Assumptions To determin development NOV 17 7 2 hell & e the potential number of employees which industrial would generate, it is necessary to calculathe Listokin LAK 1 FADE �.`� r NO V 171982 K 5? ;,. _ , -''tea . Possible floor area of industrial development which might be built. The proposed site is 135 acres in size. However, not all of the 135 acres could be built upon. In calculating the Possible floor area -a maximum figure. of 54 acres of construction was used. The County's Zoning Ordinance requires in the LM -1, Light Manufacturing District that no more than 40% of the lot may be covered by principal and accessory structures. The M-1, Restricted Industrial District has no maximum or minimum -lot coverage regulations. Assuming that 40% of the 135 acres were constructed on, 54 acres would be built. This does not include the acres which would be required for road construction, so staff feels that this figure represents a reasonable estimation of the total floor area to be utilized for industrial Purposes. Analysis The first step in determining the costs of Industrial Development is to determine the per capita County expenditures by service category. Table 4 lists the County's total expenditures by service category. Per capita expenditures are calculated by dividing the County's total population of 38,432 into the total expenditures. TABLE 4 County's Per Capita Expenditure for Each Service Cateaor Category Total Per Capita Expenditure Costs General Gov.'t. $6,806,037 $177 Public Safety 4,811,869 125 Public Works 81417,548 219 Health & Welfare 1,203,606 31 Recreation & Culture 593,774 15 Debt Service 1,082,317 28 Total $22,915,151 $595 The second step in using this method is to estimate how many employees development of this parcel might generate. Since this analysis is of the consequence of industrial development in general, not of a specific type of development, only general standards for numbers of potential employees may be used. Industrial plants have, on the average, one employee per 300 square feet net leasable area. Warehouses have abogt one employee for every 750 square feet of gross leasable area. Since the existing uses surrounding the proposed site include these uses, these figures will be used to calculate employee numbers. Fifty-four acres is equal to 2,352,240 square feet. Allotting half of this floor area to warehouse construction yields 1568 possible employees. Allotting the other half of this floor area to construction of manufacturing plants yields 3920 potential employees. Thus, the County may expect approximately 5488 total employees as a result of industrial development -on the proposed site. Next, the percentage increase in per capita costs which can be expected in each governmental service category should be multiplied by the number of potential employees. 8�I11 & Listokin, p. 138 TABLE 5 Service Category Most Cost Incre se .0170159 _ No. of Employees Total Service Cost Increase General Gov't. .0000001 x 5488 .000549 Statutory & Unclassified Public Safety 0000109 x 5488 .0598192 Public Works .0000002 x '5488 .0010976 Health & Welfare .0000031 x 5488 .0170128 Recreation & Culture .0000244 x 5488 .1339027 Statutory & Unclassified $11.88 Expenses .0000157 x5488' '.'0'86'1773 Debt Service '.0000099 x 5488 .0543312 TOTAL . 0 0 0 0 6*43 ...x .5.4.8.8 ....... •.3.5.2.8.8 9.8. These cost increase figures are multiplied by existing County expenditures in each category to yield the per capita dollar increase for each service. TABLE 6 Existing Per Per Capita Per Capita Service Category Capita Expend. Cost Increase ._ $ Increase for Ea. 'Cat. General Gov't. $177 .000549 .1.0. Public Safety 125 0598301 . . . . 7.48 Public Works 219 .0010978 •24 Health & Welfare 31 .0170159 _ . _. • .5.3. Recreation & Culture 15 .1339316 2.01 Statutory & Unclassified Expenses 0 .0861773 0.0 Debt Service 28 .0543411 1.52 TOTAL $595 $11.88 The final step in determining costs attributable to industrial development is to multiply the dollar increment in per capita costs by service category by the existing community population. M NOV 17 1982 9.S as NOV 17 1982 BOOK TABLE 7 Service Category Incrementa Service Cost County's Unincorp. County Cost In - crease Increase Area Pop. for each Co. Serv. Assign. Total to an_Industxial Facility `General Gov't. .10 x 38,432 $ 3,843.20 Public Safety 7.48 x 38,432 287 471.36 , Public Works .24 x 38,432 9,223.68 Health & Welfare .53 x 38,432 20,368.96 Recreation & Culture 2.01 x 38,432 77,248.32 Debt Service 1.52 x 38,432 58,416.64 TOTAL $11.88 x 38,432 $456,572.16 Thus, the cost to the parcel in question is County for industrial development on the estimated to be.$456,572. Revenues Generated by Industrial Development Assumptions To determine the revenue that would be generated if industrial development were to occur on the proposed site an assumption must be made. This assumption is that the development which occurs would not be radically different than the development that already exists in the County. So that existing data may be used to predict future development. Also, as with the other two analyses, secondary impacts are not being considered as part of the revenue generated by development. This is revenue which is generated not directly as part of taxes or fees paid by the development, but revenue which may come from secondary sources such as increased sales taxes. But, i -t -should be noted that industrial development would have a greater number ` of secondary impacts than either type of development previously analyzed. This is because industrial development generates not only tax revenue, but it also generates employment. Attachment D lists the employment income and sales multipliers for the primary industries in Indian River County. These multipliers indicate the level by which employment, sales and income would increase as the result of one job in one of these particular industries being created. While not a part of this analysis, these multipliers are presented to document the importance of secondary fiscal impacts when industrial development is being considered. Analysis Table 1, presented earlier in this analysis, contains the information that will be used in this section. Total number of industrial/commercial parcels taxed in Indian River County 10 = 2,875 Existing Industrial & Commercial Acreage in Indian River Countyll = 980 Average Number of Parcels/Acre in Indian River County 2.93 2.93 Parcels/Acre x 135 Acres12 = 396 Possible Parcels on site. Total Assessed Value of Industrial/Commercial Land = $310,389,580 in Indian River County -10- Number of Industrial/Commercial Parcels10 2,875 Average Assessed Value/Parcel $107,962 $107,962 Average Assessed Value/Parcel x 396 Possible Parcels on Site = $42,752,952 Assessed Value of 135 Acre Parcel .0109 Mills x $42,752,952 = $466,007 Estimated Annual Tax Revenue Net Fiscal Impact of Industrial Development Using a method based on employment projections, the cost to the County of industrial development would be $456,572. The revenue which the County could get from such development has been estimated to be $466,007. Thus, the County would gain approximately $9,435. Again, this net fiscal impact represents only the direct revenue impacts, not any secondary impacts. IV. CONCLUSION OF ANALYSIS The net fiscal impact of each type of development are as follows: TABLE 8 Type of bevelopment ......Economic Costs Reventes' Benefit 'to County Mobile Home Park $1,504,856. $ 94',694. -$1,410,162. le -Family 2,795,217'. . Industrial ommercial ..... '456,572'. 46 6', 0-0-7. + $.2.,.574.,503. $ 9,435. Clearly, industrial development on the proposed site would be of greatest economic benefit to the County. i - 10SeeTable 1. -11 11FromIndian River County Comprehensive Plan "� 12 WK 2 PA --E103 NOTE: --The full 135 acres have analysis because whether been the included in the revenue land NOV 17 1982 or not, if it were part development, of an had a structure on�it industrial/commercial it would be taxed as such. 1 1 1 �r Attachment A FIEGIUNAL AND NAiIUNAL DEMOGRAPHIC MULTIPLIERS FOF1 COMMGN CGNFIGURATIO14S OF STANDARD HOUSING TYPLS' TOTAI HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY HOUSING TYPE AND SIZE IU -S. CE :SUS PUL'LIC U::[ SAMPLE — 19/013 uOL+SI,vG ir4+ES s"VC1 f F4UIL 1• GAROfII APARrmEN)S HIGII RISE MAW of0usF5 MOBILE HOW )wn )e.,r. F." On. )wO OM )w%;, One 7*0 )nrM Ont 7w0 )r," 6,0—u:n Bldruan. BN '^YI, B,.nldld' Bw,•-im 0.4,0u, (jw'o dt stud -.0 Be9,.r,n Bea,Odn• 010nded"' B4drOO,n 600,00M Bed,Odn , 8100~" BIOIO" SM � �r 94410,;—n 94410n b1snIe40- F4A•uN \ •Hf•+5,4 •.. f • 2v, • 2 445 3.440 4 !/F5 3 931 1 f..q ; 430 1 1 14 1.071 11470 2 770 1 700 - 2 700 -2 - - 2 3!3 3 548 2.516 •, 1:. a .• .; .1116 3 77L 4 6:5 3 E,1 72: : 575 7 •911 1 077 1 436 2 523 1 790 1691, 2 630 4 110 3 933 1.5116 2 441 3 -a78 2 700 a 1111 1111 tat. •11 11, ^ -•1111. . 595 3 852 4 rxd „I 1 1 719 : ao 2 285 100 1.432 : 673 2 357 1 364 7 727 4 1n 3' •8 1 C47 7 4y: 3 83: 2 C20 .^+•a 2511 3714 4640 3831 1586 2479 2195 - 1386 1515 - 2833 3GU0 3015 1.757 24L7 7b77 2044 .'n —t% A..a, . C 2 Yu. 109 19 4 4:;5 3 ;7j 1 Uu 7 4a5 7 64' - 1.208 - 1.417 - 2 778 - - 11955 2 500 3 &-4 2 Ik:1 f n • 5.:.. Ce^•v,n 2A:3 3W 4f,5.3 3C4.8 1B76 2#,27 2418 - 1.367 2385 1.619 - 2.600 4•.000 2944 2.665 7697 3:93 291C 2 995 3 758 4660 3 754 1 ti)V 7 157 7 246 - 1.2U2 116? 1,483 1.783 2 720 3 735 2 741 2070 2 532 4 Cdr, : 951 nt57 � 4w^�nun 2 SCS 3 716 4 466 3 983 I .C61 2510 2 216 1%0 1 333 2.400 1.443 - 2.154 - 2.815 1.719 25,61 4 0.3 2 86U a •c 2 745 3 687 4 561 3.876 1 514 2 530 2 149 1.159 1.338 2 220 1.585 1 758 273S 4.033 2 9C5 1.746 7 133 3w) 2 113 tie•::'•. at • •r • 2 613 3 752 4 66b 1111_.-L.....1 161.5 7 WA 1 112 1 435 2.270 ) 959 2.731 4 073 1.7;4 2 431 3865 • a. r a.dl u0,*. 14i1U•fy70 "LOW ,•an 1 '.'00.r,•1 .n 111.1 CM1e3P V I..IIu'I-C ont 11r'P.e 1 tel • 3C.e :_net •e, 11 Ip de1.n.l•0 l and -11-0.0— On n0« IC .,w thew Ie:ies 4T,ee C"eP1.• 13 10, .np1„f.- $tam 1 t,A , ..-:1 e.e,4a, •C.n.•r. U S CMWf P.,LN.t Uw S.'nple, 1970 , From: The Fiscal Impact Handbook. P :) rt 1•7. Burchell & David Listokin X12, 1 1 1 1.• �n { 1 ~ Attacturlent"M RE610NAL ANU NATIONAL OCIVIG6,4AFHIC MULTIPLIENS FON C0.10MON CONFIGURATIONS OF STANDAND HOUSING TYPE.51 SrII00L•AGE CHILDNEN.BY HOUSING TYPE AND SIZE IU,S. CENSUS PUBLIC USE SAMPLE — 157013 SNc4t 1 FA40:1 r GA•7(:EN 4P4N fMFNTS NIGH ROSE 704fif HOUSES M591, E W)Mf. TMJ f•.rr F.•c• Crn. /wa Gnr Two One Two Hire* one rwJ r. - 9r� o..n' Ba.r<•:••-• y•• Q, ...;• Q.:',:.,... +7.c.../o e,•rJ-15 Sroa•� e.a••.m• Q•rr•o0/n Q/enued• Q•a/o0•n •—'---.--,-.. _ ----' -•--..-._ Br J/unm Rr^•aa+n ersnaea' Q.a•aur 6rJ .q... Cr....cn: tl/t + r. . til ;: Ir 11, %-,•7t,(ASf4 - 'I•n F 7 •^ J 0 246 1 133 20(.d 1 112 0 0.4 li +>) 0 174 0 OrA 0011, 0 081 01.33 0 000 2 0 w •• 0 2,La G.324 G JSS v.,,t,s•.•rl.c 3208 1111 1•:11 1211 9rttJ 0?0t) 01l 0000 0015 0318 C125 Oils 0304 1311 1181 0048 0177 1:r72 0375 L 3E•5 - 1 173 7 1- ; 1 :41 J '!6 0 231 r7 219 u fOJ ; 013 0 290 0 473 C GZ10 0 409 1371 1 076 G c111 0 20d I ton 0 3C': •1• %• •- ' ^ `• 0 J.•1 • ,IYi 2 tn.3 1 14: „ ,,,, „ :SL ^ 171 ^ 0C; C!•.d - a I A - 0 383 C t. (1 0 L44 0 135 t 10 0 430 •.•^ a • •^ •.: 1; SL3 1 121 1 'Eh • 1 13:. C Xtl .. 69 0 366 - 7 GT. - Dull - 0.556 - c 838 0 136 C 194 C 3'.6 0 367 044: 14116 1 :Yi 1024 C:3: c:'x 0333 - C, - 0021 0,(X3 02261 1540 OVA c323 0:62 C3?9 u4.2 •. 01. & 11;19 1988. 1161 Ci15: 0:ye r214 - 0610 r, 210C 0014 0087 0400 1245 '0570 C239 0231 1.:37 051J .•.Cif ' rylp:^:rn C 4 u 1081 1P.5 1364 0034 024 0,21. CIAO.: :)W1 0.000 0000 - 0.231 - 0571 0043 02fi1 11y7s :!161 0_1 c 0 44S 1 106 1 64: 1 :55 0 044 0 307 0 211x3 0 074 0044 0 C98 0 009 0 015 0 322 1.333 0 617 0 C31 0 159 1 431 0 197 AA f:Z•/4At - 4•A• $ a•.f•prl 0401 1104 1924 G1743 C27t CO2 0011 0,182 0103 �_. 0345 1,331 0014 0201 -'1070 —__..__.._.� ._. _. __. Y rt.r—__ •t . , bnr., l lisv-thy.. _ _____—. 7. ht •h., t Gcrti yMtf u• iP•t .4tr J1 . I.r•1••tt•, .n' f.t^,,• . f cel 1�r. t•r µ.rr. 13 1,.• x1.1 0.11`.'•, J!•7 •i,t/,.•IJ^{ C^ •'•1I. 1:1 .•M 1h..I lilt!\ � 4: 1. Vin•: •., t.f .„ .n:IJI•.f ItJt.1 � 1 S J S C,• w, 0.Y c V,r S414- 1174 • �V F'i'a-:: ri9�c Fiscal Inpact Iiandb��. W cn itabcrt W. L•�:zc11e11 & I mid- Listokin t� O -�13-• z F x @? �D ®O C7 V- C:) z 11 r14r 1 1 I At taC}mient C ' EXPENDI IURE MIJLTIPLICIIS MEASURING THE DEMAND GENLHATED IMPACT OF WOUSTHIAL ACTIVITY UPON SEVEN CATECOHIES OF PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES Orow,n9 CGriets Declining Cities Caregory of Munic•pe% Semite Category of municipal Service S1.3turory Statutory Recreation and Recreation and C•r, Gener41 PubAc Public Health and and tleclatsdoed Debt Generaf Public Public Health and and Unclassifed Debt 5:< Gcrrrn•ent Safer✓ Works Welfare Culture E.Penses Service Government Safety tVorlrs Welfare Culture Expenset Service �•ts 1•• ••• 0 ✓,00822 0 -%0U31 063,X1331 0.00r304r5 0 0000518 0.00035125 0.0000607 0.0000161 0.0000564 0.O 030029 0.0000280 0.0000182 0.0001042 0.0000380 . J t .00014 OXWO523 O.d'v00655 0.0000201 0.0000166 0.0001025 398 000503 C.QOOJ665 0.0000444 073 G 01}fit5 74Gia3L' O.C.CX)332 0.0000 03,: 0.0000267 4 ?y, • f,Of;AVNC ;;0000187 0.0000461 00030279 0.0000577 0.0✓r0900 0.17J00O30O 0.00001!14 0.0000397 0.0"P50620 0.0000120 0.0000188 0.0001016 0.0000207 CC4 Gcr00•r1B 0.00001622 0.0000290 OA000104 0.0000403 0.0000496 0.0000212 0.0000008 0.0000168 0.0000471 0.0000033 0.0000006 0.0000540 0.0000136 ;4:r•a 0.0X.0001 000001117 0.0000002 0.0000031 0.0000244 0.0000157 00000099 O.00O0000=00374 0.0000032 0.0000148 0.0000000 0.0000027 0.0000106 O0037 4 3:?93 5C.ur3- 00013005 0.3000:143 0.0000007 00000000 0.0000003 0.07(13046 0.0000046 0.00000.00 0.0000013 0.0000064 0.0000000 0.0000007 0.0000041 0.0000017 ICO 0C n.0003000 0 OOOOOC2 0 00000/04 0.0000000 0.0000014 0 000,3001 0.0000006 0.0000000 0.0000003 0.000O007 0.0000000 0.0000006 0.0000007 0.0000004 r:-•r.r 1(;• • w•r•, an,! cl rllmny titles refer to the direction of population change over the past live to ten years. '':v,^be t a•e re.xs at f �R,:wt One add-t,onal irxtustrial ernployae in a growing city whose current population is between 10,000 and 24.909 will increase Per ca,:, i p;;bl,c safety e■Renditures by 0.00162 percent. S •n a FU•CSrs Un"r's•ty, Center for Ultba„ Pul•cy Research. apnnr3 1977. University of Ncrth Ca•o'ina ICharlottel. Institute for Urban Studies, 197). Frcm1: The Fiscal irmact Handbook.. , Recut W. Burchell & David Listakin. ' r14r 1 1 ATTACHMENT D co t_C.gor.' Employment Income Sales • �. '":•:r,c;rt J Number of Firms in of Number of Employees b of e Mul tiplirr Multipli(-r A4ultiplier Indian River County I Total in this classification 'Total CQ in this classification --- _�, . _ 3.15 2.32 1.15 2 11V ' 6.9 145 5.6 . .... 1 • 66 1.62 1.33 6 20.7 126 ::F •3.9 ' r•: ?i:.te 1.75 1.61 1.17 5 17.2 96 I 3.7 1.63 1.54 1.02 10 34.5 2132* 1 �'•4 6 2.0.7 87 3.4 University of Florida, Institute of Agriculture and Industry. rida Inc,ustries published by the Florida Chambers. rr N C -15- NOV 17 982 990K 519 Commissioner Bird wished to clarify for the record a situation that exists between an ownership interest he has in some real estate in the county with some of the individuals who since have become some of the principals involved in making this application today. Commissioner Bird informed those present that back in 1979 a 10 acre piece of property became available for sale on South Winter Beach Road,.and he was approached in regard to buying it by James Coffey, who is now a member of the Realcor group. Attorney Evans interjected that the principals Mr. Bird is speaking of are Ralph Evans, as Trustee, not Realcor. Commissioner Bird continued that he and Mr. Coffey did go together and buy this 10 acres in 1979. A few months later the adjoining 10 acres became available and they wished to purchase that acreage and have it contiguous. Being short of funds, they decided to bring some others in with them, and they contacted Ray Smith, Bill Wodtke, and Ralph Evans to see if they would have any interest in purchasing the other 10 acres. They did; the additional 10 acres was purchased; and Attorney Evans set up a land trust agreement where the five shared equally in the owners- t -p -of - the 20 acres. Commissioner Bird stated that as soon as he was elected to the Board, he decided some people might construe it as a conflict of interest if he and Commissioner Wodtke owned a piece of property together; they, therefore, immediately proceeded to try to sell the property, but due to the condition of the real estate market and the state of the economy, they have not been successful as yet. In the meantime, three of the individuals involved in the 20 acres with him and Commissioner Wodtke got involved with the Realcor group. Commissioner Bird wished to make it clear that there is no tie-in whatsoever between the partnership who owns the 20 acres on South Winter Beach Road and the group making the application here today. He continued that 49 he has discussed this thoroughly with the County Attorney, who has told him that this does not constitute a legal conflict of interest and that it will be necessary for him to listen to the input and vote this afternoon. Commissioner Bird did not know if Commissioner Wodtke had anything he wished to add, but he wished his statement on the record. Commissioner Wodtke had nothing further to add to the statement made by Commissioner Bird. Attorney Sam Block came before the Board representing Realcor Company on their appeal of'denial of their requested rezoning to R-lMP and displayed an aerial photo of the property in question which is located on the southwest sector of the intersection of I-95 and SR 60. Mr. Block announced that the technical aspects of their presentation will be addressed by Engineer Jim Young of Beindorf & Associates; the remainder of the presentation will be made by himself representing the applicant and Ralph Evans as Trustee representing the owners of the property. Attorney Block informed the Board that Realcor is a Florida corporation, which was formed specifically for the purchase and development of this property. The principals and only owners, Robert Peters and Robert Hatfield were involved in the development of Heritage Village Mobile Home Properties. Attorney Block commended the Planning Department as to the extensiveness of their report, but saw controversy in the following areas: 1. The Airport 2. The physical impact analysis and the dollar effect. 3. The technical aspects - drainage, sewage, transportation. 4. The meaning of MD -1 within the MasterPlan. 5. Community impact. 6. NOV 17 1982 Compatability of land use to surrounding uses. 50 BOOK Pip I NOV 17 1992 Attorney Block then introduced Jim Young, registered professional engineer, to discuss water and sewer, drainage, transportation, etc. Mr. Young first addressed the matter of traffic, noting that after completing their study, the Planning Staff reached the conclusion that "at the stated level of capacities, the proposed rezoning would not adversely impact the existing road network," and applicant concurs. As to drainage Mr. Young pointed out that the project is located basically on an area known as the 10 mile ridge which contains a great deal of white sand and drains excessively well. He noted that staff made the statement that storm water run off from industrial development can be expected to be significantly more than mobile home development; they felt that drainage should not be a problem and any impact most likely would be negligible. In regard to water supply, Mr. Young continued that although they have not done any testing on this site, they have done extensive testing in Village Green and know there is water in the area. He further noted that their project would require only 1/1.0th of 1% of the gallonage the U.S. Geological survey — indicated was available. As for sewer, they are sitting on the high sand ridge where there should be very good percolation. The staff report referred to future County water and sewer service in this area as there is pressure for expansion and felt it would be compatible with industrial use. Realcor agreed, but felt it also would be compatible with mobile home park development which would provide a good base for a system. Mr. Young then reviewed some of the reasons the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial of their request for rezoning, noting that the staff report negated the statement made by Mrs. Bowman that: "This area would be better used for industry where less of the 10 mile ridge 51 would be covered up with asphalt and roofs, with quick run-off." In regard to the statement made by the Planning and Zoning Commission that this area was better suited for commercial and industry, Mr. Young emphasized that most of this park sits on the 10 mile ridge at 25-30' elevation and will handle residential probably better than any other area west of the City of Vero Beach. He asked that the Board bear in mind the drainage problems in Rockridge Subdivision and the Royal Palm area. As -to the Planning and Zoning argument recalling "the hours spent coming up with the Plan and the thoughts behind a node at Route 60 and the designating of this for light manufacturing," Mr. Young noted that while Y part of that node does encompass part of their property, the majority of their property is MD -1. Attorney Block again took the floor and spoke in detail of the other areas with which they take issue, noting that they feel they are compatible with Hibiscus Airport and this contention is supported by a letter from Mr. Brown of the DOT, which states that their project is compatible and also that it is not within the accident prone area which is less than 2,5001. As to the noise factor, Attorney Block reported that the same letter gave wording to a disclosure his client would be willing to present to any prospective resident. He submitted that the issue concerning the airport has been put to rest. Attorney Block next addressed the physical.impact analysis and questioned the validity of the figures used by the Planning Department to come up with a negative benefit — for a mobile home park of 1.4 million and a positive benefit from industrial/commercial of approximately $9,500. He pointed out that in reaching this conclusion, they used a per capita multiplier to determine how many children would be generated by the mobile home park to impact the school 52 ` NOV 1.'71982 WK �� FAGE11 r NOV 17 1992 BOOS system, and since this is to be an'adult retiree community with no children, he felt this statement should be stricken. He continued that on the expense -side, the Planning Department used a multiplier of 2.8 and came up with 2021 residents while on the income side, they limited the project to 720 mobile homes. Attorney Block contended that the average used by most agencies is 1.7 rather than 2.8. He agreed there is still a negative effect, but felt a figure of $200,000 would be more realistic than 1.4 million. He argued that staff then used a different theory to compare the mobile home park with industrial and believed that the figures used for square footage of industrial floor area, on which they based employment anticipation, would not be realized in the next 70 to 100 years. Attorney Block continued that not only does the mobile home resident pay a tag fee, but the developer, who does not have the benefit of Homestead Exemption, pays a real estate tax based on the land and the pads, and it was his opinion that the tax generated would amount to more than the estimated $9,400 benefit from industrial/commercial. He then questioned the need for industrial property, noting that the market `P'ar -z-- industrial use is in a slump, but the market for affordable housing is here today. Attorney Block stressed that MD -1 is a permitted use for a mobile home community, and in regard to concerns re impact on civil defense, law enforcement, fire, etc., he noted that there is a fire station at Village Green and pointed out that during Hurricane David, the problems encountered were in the fixed properties, not the mobile home properties. In any event, they are committed to be a part of the Civil Defense plan and to build an extra strength clubhouse. Ralph Evans, owner in trust of the 135 acres which is the subject of this public hearing, informed the Board that he is not financially involved with Realcor; he is however, 53 M M M M under contract to sell them this property and one of the contingencies is that the property be rezoned. Mr. Evans commented that, as an attorney, he has found that when people come into a room such as this and sit on a jury, they feel as if they are in a vacuum, and he wished them to face up to the realities of the situation. Mr. Evans then emphasized that efforts made over a 9 month period to sell this property for industrial were unsuccessful; the fact that Rampmaster is coming into the county obviously does not mean that we are having rapid industrial growth. Attorney Evans did not believe that Mr. Orth's grass strip airport is an issue; they are not encroaching on Mr. Orth's land, and although Mr. Orth may be hard to get along with, Mr. Evans T •ar a� believed the projects are compatible and can live together. As to compatibility with light industry, Mr. Evans read from the County Code the description of LM -1, which requires that there be no objectionable noise, vibration, odors, air pollution, etc., and also requires development standards which assure an open uncrowded appearance. Mr. Evans noted that the subjective theory proposed by the Planning staff both contradicts a precedent that has already been voiced - the fluidity of the node - and negates the policy of "first come, first served." Mr. Evans did not see why the node could not take shape around their property and stressed that his group has been on the doorstep every chance they get. They are designated MD -1; the MD -1 does cross I.95; the benefits of an influx of retirees speak for themselves; and Mr. Evans noted that all they are asking is that they be allowed to do what it was indicated they could do. Community Development Director Bruce King made the presentation for the Planning staff. He eliminated the areas of drainage and transportation as being potential issues and also did not feel the airport is a primary issue. Mr. King wished to resolve some of the ambiguities in the rezoning 54 NOV 17 1982 K 2 P��r:V rNOV 1 1992 � BOOK 52 issue. He agreed that the Plan does show a large commercial/industrial node at the subject intersection surrounded by MD -1 land use designation, which is a medium Y density residential use. He noted that one of the central conflicts in this, however, is that the Land Use Plan does not specifically define the limits of the commercial/ industrial node; it was set up on a node concept specifically to maximize flexibility in its utilization. Mr. King further emphasized that the Zoning Ordinances does not differentiate between industrial and heavy commercial uses. Mr. King submitted that the primary issue in this is the land use, and the process of analysis for all rezoning requests involves the evaluation of all the urban systems and their interrelationships. He then went on at length to summarize the detailed information presented in his memo re historical development pattern, existing land use, existing transportation facilities, utilities, environment, drainage, and fiscal impact, etc. Mr. King then reviewed Attachment B, a map of Existing Land Uses, which also includes committed land uses, stating that the primary area within this entire 3,H0 acre plan is the southwest quadrant. He believed that - if the proposed property were to be approved for mobile home development, it would dictate a major shift in policy, and the node would convert primarily to a highway commercial center rather than a commercial/industrial area. Considerable discussion followed on the flexibility allowed in the nodal concept with Mr. King contending that the problem arose when this flexibility was set up. He stressed the need for more guidelines about what can be developed in a node and the need for small area plans. Question then arose as to how much the size of the subject node had been expanded at the time of the Land Use hearings. Planning Manager Challacombe stated that the node in question had not been expanded. Mr. King discussed the 55 MD -1 area as being contingent on the size and shape of the node, and argument continued regarding expansion of the node as several members of the Board were not convinced that it had not been expanded and also in regard to it not being a definitive node with specific boundaries. Commissioner Fletcher felt the discussion was wandering from the relevant issue, which is the specific request for rezoning. In regard to dealing with the identification of issues and non -issues, he was not convinced that the proximity of the airport to the proposed mobile home subdivision is not an issue, and he believed that when the subject acreage fills up with a bunch of folks, every time a loaded spray plane takes off, there will be complaints - raised. Commissioner Fletcher believed it was his responsibility as a Commissioner to prevent these problems. Chairman Scurlock brought up the problem of how such a development would affect the flight pattern, and noted that restricting the turn -out to the west, would put it over the single family residences in the area. Commissioner Bird commented that if this 135 acres were to be developed into an industrial park, he felt it would generate not only more traffic, but heavier truck type traffic than a retirement community. He further noted that there did not appear to be anything in the staff's fiscal comparables relating to revenue derived by the County from Sales Tax collected when the mobile home unites were sold. Mr. King agreed that was an oversight, but noted this _ is the first fiscal impact analysis done by staff. He continued that generally any other use than residential would have a better impact. He further explained that the $9,000 positive impact figures from industrial was a direct impact figure; they did not estimate secondary impacts. 56 N O V 171992 � NOV 17 1982 BOOK PA", The Board recessed briefly at'3:35 and reconvened at 3:45 with the same members present. Chairman Scurlock announced that he is in receipt of letters from M.A. Ford Manufacturing Co., Inc., Rampmaster, Inc., and Vero Beach Civic Association, opposing the subject rezoning. Said letters are hereby made a part of the Minutes. 57 M• A• FOR® MFG. CO., INC. P.O. 3628 DAVENPORT, IOWA 52808 - PHONE 319-391-6220 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Reach, FL. 32960 Attention: Mr. Don Scurlock - Board Chairman BURS O 1 D COUNTERSINKS DRILLS END MILLS PUNCHES & DIES November 16,1982 Ref: Rezoning request of 135 acres in the proximity of I-95 and State Road 60. - mer Sir: Our Company at this time would like to go on record as opposing the request for the rezoning of this parcel of land. We feel it would be detrimental to the future development of this Commercial and Indus— trial Node. j:'e are presently developing our industrial site, and feel that the area we chose is one of the prime locations in the County for light manufacturing. the hope that this area will be attractive to other light manufacturers as well. Also, we feel that this type of zoning, as it presently exists, is what is needed to attra.ck the light manufacturing that is needed for sound economic grottth of the County. Please, consider our opinion when determining the request for this rezoning, before you now. Respectfully, M.A. FORD M Mi . CO. , INC. Tim J. War ow Plant Manager r PLANT. 1-80 & IA -150 INDUSTRIAL PARK NORTHWEST BLVD AT 77TH ST. DAVENPORT, IOWA M NOV 17 1982 s ax fA E11.7 r NOV 17 1982 X00 5— �a ' November 12, 1982 The Honorable Don C. Scurlock Jr, Chairman BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Commissioner Scurlock, Please refer to the zoning/land use hearing to be held 11-17-82, concerning a mobile home park development in the area immediately west of Interstate 95 and south of State Road 60. As landowners in the area to be affected, we wish to be on record as opposing the use of this property as a mobile home park. Thank you for your consideration Very ruly Your , _ Billy J. Thompson _ RAMPMASTER, INCORPORATED 9825 State Road 60 Vero Beach, FL 32960 C\J 0.9 ° &7 t n I, % 000 DISTRIBUTION ' LIST Commissioners _ Z _ Administrator ✓ Attorney t/ Personnel Public Works Community Dev. Utilities Finance Other 59 a � � 7 VERO B_ACH • civic ASSN. P.O. Box 3381 Vero Beach, F1.32960 L_. 8 VERO REACH CIVIC ASSOCIATIOIN "The objectives and purposes shall be to preserve, foster and promote the beauty, natural resources and good government of the City of Vero Beach and Indian River County. " October 12, 1982 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Attention: Mr. Doug. Scurlock, Chairman RE: Request by: REALCOR Company of Florida to rezone land situated S.W. of the intersection of S.R. 60 and I-95, con- sisting of approximately 1:35 acres from AG1 and -C-1. to Rl -QIP . Gentlemen: The Foard of Directors of the VERU BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION at its regular monthly meeting on 13 September 1982 unanimously went on record as opposioq the zoning.charge request as referenced above. In spite of some statistical exercises trying -to prove otherwise we do not feel, under present law, expansion of mobile home developments is good for the county, in that there appears to be an imbalance in the matter of taxes paid to the county and services demanded of the county. We feel that un -til such time as the Florida State Statute is revised, the occupants either by rental or ownership of these mobile homes should be required to carry their fair share of the tax burden conuuensurate with the services they demand and obtain. LG: jce Sincerely, VERO BEACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION r ��l Y.^-'4'L..G.. L'':.��. •/`�✓�_{.-i.%�4.��z 1. C....E: E+ Lomax] Gwathmey '� President NOV 17 1982 "a 2 mt-'119 r NOV 17 1982 A letter from Mr. Koehler in favor of the proposed rezoning was also made a part of the record. November 12, 1982 Mr. Paul E. Koehler 947 20th Place Vero Beach, Florida 32'";60 Dear Commissioner This correspondence is in regard to Realcor Company of Florida, Inc. asking for a change in zoning to mobile park on the 138 acres on the south side of Route 60 and the west side Of I-95. This letter is meant to give you the reasons why I feel you should vote yes for the rezoning. I would like to point out that I do have two vested interests in the outcome of this rezoning. I am a part owner of the property and I am the listing real estate broker in the transaction. Even though these two considerations are strong, I have a stronger desire to have Indian River County stay the most desirable place in Florida to live. The following are considerations I would appreciate you reviewing. 1. TAXES. There has been discussions that the county would loose tax revenues if this property was zoned mobile instead of industrial, etc. This is not a true statement. If the tax assessor does the right job in appraising and uses the income approach to taxes, then the county would certainly receive more money -than if it were on a single family basis' where the majority of owners would have the Homestead Exemption. 2. INDUSTRIAL ZONING. Indian River County has in the past, discouraged industrial development and I see no reason why it should change at the present time. Based on the land used for industrial purposes in Indian River County in the past 30 years, zoning this property industrial would doom the property to a 71 year sell-out. This means, not considering any other industrial property, this acreage would allow us to -have a 71 year supply of industrial land. 3• UNEMPLOYMENT. The latest statistics have indicated that Indian River has a 17.1% unemployment rate. I believe it is your responsibility as county commissioner to do everything possible to improve that rate and still hold our community as a bedroom and service area. This mobile community would give jobs to construction people for at least four to five years and to service and supply people for an unknown number of years in the future. 4. ECONOMIC IMPACT. There are studies that indicate mobile home owners bring to the community the following advantages. (a) Large bank deposits. (b) High buying power. (c) They do not put a drain on mortgage money for a large portion pay cash or have small loans that are paid off in a short period of time. (d) They do not put a strain on schools and other publically•owned facilities. I consider the mobile park as the most desirable use for this property. It certainly cannot be used as agriculture because of the quality of the sand and industrial would be an over -kill. Based on this, mobile is the answer. - I hope you have found thio constructive and you will vote YES, the community needs the livin accomodations and the jobs the mobile community will o ' r. PEK/meg E. KOEHLER OR - G.R.I. 61 r The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. W. E. "Kinky" Orth, 3045 10th Court, owner of New Hibiscus Airport, requested that he be allowed to speak after all other have been heard. Dell Lockwood of Dogwood Lane urged the Board to consider the dangers inherent in "now" thinking and vote against the appeal so our charming community does not turn into a concrete jungle. Landis Ketner, 120 Sopwith Drive, member of a group made up of those who fly home builts and restored antiques informed the Board that Hibiscus Airport is the only place in this county they can operate from, and any threat to the airport such as high density close to it would curtail their operation. He, therefore, opposed the requested rezoning. David Cairns, attorney with Jones, Foster & Moss,spoke on behalf of Indian River Industrial Associates, which owns 60 acres zoned industrial contiguous to the property under consideration today. He reported that his clients have plans to develop the property industrially; although, they are not at a stage where they can proceeed immediately, and they oppose not only mobile homes, but any kind of residential development, which they feel is incompatible and inconsistent with industrial zoning. Gary Wheeler, 625 32nd Terrace, commented on the "first come, first served" policy. He pointed out that.the airport was there first, and he did not feel the two environments are compatible. Mr. Wheeler noted that we live in a very — noise sensitive community and it is the older retired people who have the most objections to the noise, who would be filling up the mobile home park. Lee Wiehunt, owner of property west of the subject property, had no objections to an adult trailer park and NOV 171982 r NOV 17 1982 felt there is plenty of room out there for both the airport and this community. Ralph MacCormack, Realtor, resident of Village Green, and former owner of the subject property for 28 years, felt it is time for the property to be used for something. He brought up the point that land used for mobile home parks can be changed to another usage more easily than most any other.type development, and, therefore, if it were desired to use it for industrial 20 to 30 years in the future, there would be very little difficulty in removing the mobile homes and using it for other purposes. Mr. MacCormack spoke in favor of mobile home development, noting that he and his neighbors are very happy in Village Green Mobile Home Community. John Johnson, 676 Royal Palm Place, commented that if he were a flyer of an ultra light, he would rather fly over mobile homes than dodge industrial smokestacks, and he wished to know if we can't say how the land can be used in a node, how we can say that we can't have a mobile home park in the adjacent area. - 01wen Lavatelli, Realtor, representing InterAmerican— - Land Associates, owner of 155 lots east of the subject property, stated that her client felt the mobile homes would be greatly preferable to industrial use of that land. Vic Trino of 2117 Dunbarton Way, Lakeland, President of Florida Manufactured Housing Association, stressed that less than 100 of the population has income to qualify to purchase a new home and that is why manufactured homes now account for 39% of all homes sold in this country, and this is projected to exceed 50a by 1990. Mr. Trino then refuted the many myths about manufactured homes, stating that they are not meant for temporary housing and do not have transient population; they have 300 less instance of fires than site constructed 63 I IV residences; they cannot resist a tornado, but fare better than other forms of housing in windstorms; those built in HUD Code are equal to or superior to those built to the Standard Building Code; when all other areas of taxation are considered, they contribute a great deal, even more than some other areas; and a new study has shown that rather than depreciating in value yearly, they are appreciating 10% annually. He again stressed that site built housing and condos have priced themselves out of reach. Ron Richey, 2035 13th St., a 10 year resident, self- employed carpenter and home improvement specialist, felt strongly that our economy needs every shot in the arm it can get. He noted that every time Piper cuts back, he gets hurt, and the proposed mobile home project would bring an influx of new people and new money to the area. Mr. Richey emphasized that the people behind this project have a proven track record and a reputation to uphold, and he did not feel the controversy over Mr. Orth's small airport was of enough consequence to warrant consideration. Mr. Richey did feel that "now" thinking is important, but did not believe this is a spur of the moment thing or that our community will ever become a Miami or Lauderdale. He urged that the Board approve the proposed rezoning for the best interests of the community as a whole. Evelyn Neville, 501 Bay Drive, resident of the county since 1936, appeared as a property owner, repreaenting other property owners, and also to express her own personal feelings. She informed the Board of a telegram received from Woodrow Hunt, with whom she and her husband own 7 lots on SR 60, urging approval of the proposed rezoning. Mrs. Neville then reported that the trustee for owners of 6 lots in Aero Tropical Gardens, which is almost directly across from the airport, had no objection when the airport went in there and they also have no objection to mobile home development. In 64 N 0 V 17 1982 0.,0 2 �� NOV 7 1982 B©oK addition, another client owning 155 lots in this area has no objection to mobile home development. Mrs. Neville then . spoke of how difficult it is for many retired people who have not been able to keep pace with inflation to purchase a home. She emphasized that these people have found happiness in mobile home communities such as Village Green and they contribute much to our economy. In regard to using this land for ipdustrial purposes, Mrs. Neville stressed that this interchange is the front door to Vero Beach for most people coming to Vero Beach for the first time, and she felt there is a lot of land in other areas that can be used for industrial purposes which would not offend newcomers to the county. She could not understand why MD -1 was extended west of I-95 if it was not intended to be used for multiple housing and commented that former Planning Director Val Brennan had felt that the best use of this area for many years to come was mobile home use, with the possibility of considering multiple family in the future. Mrs. Neville urged that the Board consider the lack of low cost housing and approve the requested rezoning. - W.E. "Kinky" Orth, co-owner of New Hibiscus'Airptrt,—- took the floor and informed the Board that the reason he and Mr. Lysne moved their airport out to this area was because of the development that had grown up around them. He continued that they searched for two years to find a piece of land that would satisfy the FAA and the DOT; they have a two million dollar investment and they were there first. Although the north side of SR 60 is zoned residential, there is about an 800' buffer, and if there had been a mobile home development adjacent to them, he did not believe their airport would have been able to obtain approval from the FAA. Mr. Orth stated that he would welcome industry, agriculture or light manufacturing, which is what was designated when they bought the property. He felt strongly 65 4 M that if this mobile home community goes in there, those people are not going to want any manufacturing near them, and there will be complaint upon complaint. He reported that Mrs. Wiehunt, resident of the area already has made two or three complaints about the airport noise. Mrs. Wiehunt denied it, stating their only complaint was when her daughter was afraid an experimental plane was going to crash into the tower. Mr. Orth continued to emphasize that it is the airport that gets the complaints and gets sued. He noted that they already have had to move their flight pattern because they got so many complaints from the mobile home units just east of I-95, and if they had to change from a left hand traffic pattern, he believed it would put them out of business. Mr. Orth then reported that he has a petition signed by many pilots of the ultra lights opposing the rezoning because they would not be able to operate over a congested area. He urged that the Board give the airport consideration because they were there first and they did have confidence in their zoning. Attorney Block wished to have some time for rebuttal to clarify some of the points raised in 3h hours of discussion. He did not believe he had said the airport was not an issue, but that the issue had been talked about and the Planning Department did not feel it was an issue. Mr.Block then quoted excerpts from a letter from Herbert Brown, Aviation Specialist of the DOT, which stated that it is clear that the proposed development is not in the accident potential _ hazard area and that he did not believe a mobile home park would be prohibited in this location. As to noise, Mr. Brown stated that at a range of 800 feet, the noise produced by planes would produce 60 decibels; Attorney Block reported that he had determined this would be similar to the sound produced from a TV at normal range. He noted that Mr. Orth 66 NOV 17 1982 WK 2 , FAoE . NOV 17 1982 ffao has contended that the proposed development would put him out of business, but Attorney Block pointed out that he grew up in McAnsh Park, where his parents still live, and he believed they are located even closer to the main airport which is much noisier and busier than New Hibiscus Airport. He further emphasized that future residents of the mobile home park would be notified about noise impact before they bought and again stressed the fact that the new Comprehen- sive Land Use Plan designated MD -1 on the west side of I-95. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously extended the meeting to 5:30 o'clock P.M. Attorney Ralph Evans again took the floor arguing that any noise created by the spray planes would be inconse- quential and that the airport does not present a problem. He noted that in Aerodrome Subdivision people fly in and park their planes by their homes. He asked in the event the Board does not approve this rezoning, what their property would be. , Mr. Orth wished one more chance to rebut and again argued that it is not legal to put a statement warning about noise on a deed. He also stated that the suggestion that they alter their flight pattern by flying further on down the road is stupid. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing Commissioner Wodtke inquired if staff had an answer to the Board's question as to expansion of the commercial/ W 67 1 •. industrial node at the I-95 and 60 interchange. Planning Manager Challacombe read from the July 29th Minutes, which stated that staff had not recommended an increase in the node, but merely that the acreage limitations on industrial and commercial be removed; the size of the node to remain at 230 acres. Commissioner Wodtke noted that Attachment D, Future Land Uses, shows heavy commercial, industrial warehouses, etc., and he believed it covers more than 230 acres. Mr. King explained that this map actually includes 3,000 acres. They have allowed 60 acres for regional commercial and 150 acres for highway commercial, which is _ in -filling between the current highway aY commercial The also allowed 140 acres for heavy commercial, and he believed this trend n has been established by sitePP lans approved P recently; . the MD residential covers 1,240 acres and mobile home parks cover 950 acres. Mr. King discussed the concept of the node and felt it is difficult to say that we are going to establish a node at that particular intersection of only 230 acres for industrial/commercial when the long term potential is far greater. He further noted that there are very few existing constraints on this node as there has not been a great deal of development in this area. Discussion continued at length in regard to the size and shape of the node, which Mr. King felt would not be round, but rather elongated on the east. As to .the size of the area, he noted that what they have shown is approxi- mately the same. as that area designated in the 1975 Plan. Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that we did not adopt the 1975 Plan and we must go by what we have on the books now, which shows residential on the west side of I-95. Chairman Scurlock felt the decision to move the MD over to the West of I-95 was based partly on the fact that there was an existing subdivision in that vicinity and also due to 68 N OV 17 1982 ��-I r N 0 V 17 1982 the unique circumstances involving the gas transmission line and the lake on Mrs. Neville's property. It was his opinion that the main issue is the effects that will result from having residential zoning in close proximity to light industry and whether it is acceptable to put people next to these type of activities. Commissioner Lyons believed the main question is whether -we want to break up the node by running residential right through it. Commissioner Pletcher was inclined to agree, but felt Mr. Evans deserves an answer reference what he can do with the property if this rezoning request is denied. Mr. King stated that Mr. Evans basically could either use it with its present zoning; he could come in with another rezoning application; or he could wait until the staff does their recommendations for administrative rezoning. Chairman Scurlock felt the bottom line is that the property would be LM. Commissioner Wodtke noted that in the Plan we adopted an -area which shows an industrial/ commercial node and--also--- shows MD -1. Is our policy going to be first come, first served as we indicated or to wait for all the rezonings? He continued that one of the original problems he had with nodes is that the property owners need to know if they are commercial or residential, and just how they can use their land. Commissioner Wodtke felt we must address this on the basis of what we have adopted and not something that will be done at a future date. Commissioner Bird concurred that we did proceed all along on the concept that nodes would have some elasticity to them and expand as demand indicated on a first come, first served basis. He noted that this applicant has come in pretty early in the game and indicated that they feel the M 69 M i i i need is there now for multi -family in the form of a mobile home park. Commissioner Bird felt strongly that a person should have the right to develop his property to the highest and best way he thinks is right unless it is totally in conflict with our Plan and would have an adverse effect on the county and surrounding residents. Chairman Scurlock was greatly concerned about comments made by two people in the real estate business, who evidently looked upon mobile homes as a transient use of the land since they noted that if it were desired to have a different use of this land at some time in the future, it would be easy to move the mobile homes out. He believed that this intersection is the obvious activity area for a regional mall, light industry, etc., and did not want to sacrifice long term use for temporary use. Commissioner Lyons did not wish to be a party to any type of rezoning that would make a mobile community a temporary community. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- mously extended the meeting to 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Fletcher believed it was pointed out by the representative from the manufactured home industry that it was a myth that mobile homes were temporary housing, which in his mind pretty well negated any transitional use. He also believed we indicated in hearings we were looking _ for industrial/commercial to benefit major arteries and highway land so that the traffic generated would not affect tributaries. Commissioner Lyons asked staff if they had any idea as to how much undeveloped R -IMP is available in the county now. 70 NOVrin 17 1982 rIp- N 0V 17 1982 Mr. Challacombe stated that Village Green West is under construction and they have received a site plan for The Pines. The majority of other mobile home areas are located up and down U.S. 1, but according to the Plan, the only area where this use would be granted would be in the MD -1 area. Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher to deny the appeal of rezoning denial by Realcor. He stated that after hearing -43-2 hours of argument on both sides of the question, he has come to the conclusion that this rezoning would not be in the best interests of the citizens now residing in Indian River County, and his priorities lie with the citizens living here now. He further based his Motion for denial on land use compatibility, the project's impact on existing land use, and the fact that to grant this appeal, in his view, would only perpetuate the problems we have been living with for many years in the past. The Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to grant the appeal of Realcor and approve the requested rezoning.-- Commissioner Wodtke based his Motion for approval on his belief that Realcor's project is compatible and that it is incompliance with the designations adopted in the Land Use Plan and the node concept of industrial/commercial. Commissioner Lyons announced that he would vote against the Motion on the basis that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Plan we just got through adopting in that it would inject a residential area right in the middle of an industrial/commercial node, and he believed that it does create a problem with the airport. He further noted that he did not believe this will deny affordable housing 71 since there is zoning available in the county for this particular use. Chairman Scurlock stated that he planned to vote against the Motion because he felt there is a non -conformity and that it would not be compatible with the surrounding node. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. Commissioners Bird and Wodtke voted in favor, and Commissioners Fletcher, Lyons and Chairman Scurlock voted in opposition. The Motion failed 2 to 3. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that in order to overturn an appeal there should be a positive Motion. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, to deny the appeal of Realcor for the reasons previously stated in the Minutes. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would vote against the Motion for the reasons cited in his Motion to grant the appeal. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 3 to 2 with Commissioners Bird and Wodtke voting in opposition. I DISCUSSION TURNING/DECELERATION LANE - ST. EDWARDS UPPER SCHOOL The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director, as follows: 72 NOV 17 1982 WX r NOV 17 192 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 9, 1982 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Request by St. Edwards Upper School to Fund A -1-A Turning/ Deceleration Lanes FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. , REFERENCES: J. Dale Sorensen to Mir. Doug Public Works Director Scurlock dated Nov. 1, 1982 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS As directed by the Board of County Commissioners eturing their regularly scheduled meeting of March 3, 1982, Lloyd and Associates, on behalf of the St. Edwards Upper School, has designed and received bids on constructing left turn and deceleration lanes along A -1-A in the vicinity of the St. Edwards Upper School. The cost of improvement is $40,998.94. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Alternative No. 1 As recommended in March, 1982, since A -1-A is a State D.O.T. Road and since the School is a Private School, the County could take the position that County funds should not be expended for this project. Alternative No. 2 Past County policy on publicly dedicated, County ILtaig _ ; tained roads involves the County funding 25% of the improve- ments while the benefiting owners fund the remaining 75%, For informational purposes only, the Town of Indian Ri•vei Shores is currently investigating three (3) laning A-1-3 along a one (1) mile length. Funding shall he by developers a-1 the as.aa. RECOMMENDATIONS A14D FUNDING Xf the County desires to participate in this project Alternative No. 2 is recommended whereby the County would fund 25% of the cost for a total of approximately $10,250. Funding to be from Road and Bridge Materials Account. Dale Sorensen, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of St. Edwards School, noted that he came before the Commission many months ago re assistance for obtaining a turning lane and traffic control. At that time the Board indicated they would like to help, but stated that in order to do so, they would need more information. He continued that the 73 s � w engineering now has been done and a permit obtained; they have gone through a formal bidding process, and are back once more to ask for assistance. Discussion followed on the staff recommendation that the County fund 25% of the cost of the improvement, or about $10,250, which is our usual policy with petition paving. Some alternatives were brought up, but it was generally agreed that we would run into trouble by proposing more than we would in a normal situation, especially since we already are stretching a point to participate in this on a State road. Mr. Sorensen asked about the possibility of participation by adjoining land owners, and Public Works Director Davis reported that there are no existing developments in that area which could share the load at this time, though something might develop in the future. Commissioner Lyons did not see how we could set up an assessment roll on this type of situation, and the Chairman felt there is also the question of setting a precedent we can't live with in the future. Mr. Sorensen felt, in light of what has been said, that for the school to ask the Commission to do otherwise than is now proposed would be somewhat unfair, but he did ask that they move ahead as been discussed. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to accept Alternative No. 2 of staff memo dated Novem- ber 9, 1982, with the understanding we will ask the state for participation. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we could include in the Motion that we would assist the school in any possible 74 NOV 17 1982 WOK P�uE r N 0 V 1 7 1992 BOOR reimbursement of funds at a later date resulting from development of adjoining lands. Engineer Robert "Flip" Lloyd felt it would help to have such a statement in the Minutes. Commissioner Fletcher stated he would be willing to include such a statement in the Motion if the Attorney felt it could be done, and Commissioner Lyons had no objection. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that it could be included. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, including the statement just discussed. It was voted on and carried unanimously. SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE & AMBULANCE SQUAD REQUEST DONATION FOR NEW FIRE STATION Billy Adams of the Sebastian Volunteer Fire Department informed the Board that they are in the process of trying to build a new station on Barber Street; their main goal is to cut down on response time because at the old station tfteyi - have had problems with the railroad tracks being blocked. He continued that this is a joint effort by the Fire Department and the Ambulance Squad, and their plans are to erect a metal building which will house a pumper, a brush truck, and do ambulance. Their goal is $30,000; they have approximately $14,000, of which the City of Sebastian donated $7,000, and the Sebastian City Council has stated that they would match ' anything the County would donate up to $10,000. Mr. Adams stated that the Fire Department and the Ambulance Squad have managed to raise about $1,500-$1,600, but it is not easy because the people feel they are being taxed for fire protection already. 75 r Chairman Scurlock felt some of the problem originated from the District setting such a low millage rate in the first place. Commissioner Wodtke asked who would own the fire station building, and Mr. Adams informed the Board that the City gave them the property, but if it is not used for a fire station, the property reverts back to the City. Commissioner Bird asked if anyone has approached General Development as he believed they benefit greatly from the services of the Fire Department. Mr. Adams stated that they did approach General Development about five months ago, but building activity was down and they did not feel they could contribute at that time. Discussion followed regarding the problems involved in the County donating to the Fire Department which is funded by the taxing district, and Commissioner Lyons asked if the Fire Department would get $16,000 if the County donated , $8,000. Mr. Adams explained that the City of Sebastian already has donated to the Ambulance Squad, and they will only match what is given to the Fire Department. The alternative of donating to the Ambulance Squad was suggested, and Mr. Adams believed the Fire Department would be in favor o -f whatever way this could be accomplished. Commissioner Fletcher explained that at budget time building a fire station was discussed; at that time, however, it was the desire of the Sebastian Fire Department that they own the building and do the building themselves. As a result, the budget did not include any capital expenditures for building. Mr. Adams informed the Board that the problem was that the North County Volunteers believed if they built a new NOV 17 1982 ffi- MOK FA EJ"r- N O V 17 1992 ROOK fire station with money the County put up, that very shortly the South County firemen would be up there running it. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that the North County and South County fire districts are two separate entities, and the Board of County Commissioners is in control of the situation. Discussion continued at length regarding the possibility of funding only the Ambulance Squad because of the technical problems involved, and also regarding what the City of Sebastian has said and what the North County Fire District wants. ON MOTION BY Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- mously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Bird felt very strongly that one of the greatest benefits of the new station for the Fire and Ambulance Squads would be to General Development Company which has such extensive development in this area, and he felt they should participate financially. He further—A=- --- believed we have set a precedent in making donations to the Vero Beach Ambulance Squad. J w MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to donate $5,000 to the North County Volunteer Ambulance Squad for the building fund and instruct the Chairman to write an appropriate letter to officials at General Development Corporation outlining the project, the funding that is required, and re- questing them to participate in the amount of $11,000. 77 Commissioner Fletcher asked if it is the intent that the $5,000 donation be contingent on the contribution from General Development, and Commissioner Bird stated that it is; he noted that we can always readdress the situation. Discussion continued in regard to the possibility of having a lease on the station, and Mr. Adams did not have any problem with that. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. DISPOSITION OF FELLSMERE CITY HALL Dan Kilbride, Attorney for the City of Fellsmere, reported that the City officials met with representatives from the North County Fire District Advisory Committee, who had requested that they be permitted the use of a portion of the property that houses the old City Hall, and he felt they had come to an agreement as set out in the following excerpt from the Council Meeting of October 14th: 78 N O V 17 1982 BOOK 52 PAnE q17 r17 1982i -7 Nov BOO!( z -r �` i U ,?!8 City of Fellsmere INDIAN RIVER COUNTY POST OFFICE BOB 38 FELLSMERE, FLORIDA . 32948 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE POLICE DEPT. PHONE 571-0116 PHONE 571-1360 Tak(m from the Regular Council Meeting of October 14,1982 -� Notion by CM Runyon that we ask the county for a lease on this building in the name of the City of Fellsmere with a clause in it, providing that when the ambulance squad needs space that we will provide whatever space is required for them at that time, leaving of course the front room for meetings of the public and excess to the restrooms, motion seconded. by CM Whitaker, roll call vote, all aye, motion carried. Mr. Al Payne who was acting as spokesman agreed to the above and shortly after the meeting close& he canine back in and t aid he would have to talo: it before the North County Fire District and we have heard nothing from him L-1nue. Our agreement as above still holds. Attorney Kilbride stated that it is now his understanding that at the next meeting of the Ad"visoi�y– ' — - Committee it was determined the North County cannot get in the ambulance business, and Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that at the last meeting of the North County Fire District Advisory Board, Mr. Payne made a Motion to withdraw their request. Attorney Kilbride reported that no other group has come to the City and the City Council still supports the idea of an ambulance squad, and will do whatever they can to provide an area for those services when they can be brought about. Mr. Kilbride then discussed the question of whether the 1944 Resolution is a binding dedication which makes this property forever a municipal recreation center and public park and stated that the City's first choice would be to resolve this question by a deed to the City with a reverter clause if the 79 property ever should not be used for public purposes. Another alternative could be a long term lease to the City so long as the land is used for public purposes, with a provision regarding space for a future ambulance squad, if the Commission so desires. Commissioner Fletcher asked Fire Chief Weaver if he felt the Motion made by the Fellsmere City Council would address the concerns of both the Fire Department and the Ambulance Squad as well as the City, and Mr. Weaver believed that it would. He noted that they are trying to get an ambulance squad together, but they must do it outside the District and all they are interested in is to have a place close to the firehouse to house the personnel and the ambulances. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to instruct the Attorney to draw up a lease according to the recommendation made by Fellsmere City Councilman Runyon at the meeting of October 14, 1982. Commissioner Wodtke concurred with the need for an ambulance in the Fellsmere area, but noted that when the new Sebastian station is built, it will house an ambulance considerably closer to this area. He had some concern about the granting of a Certificate of Need and stated that he, therefore, would prefer a lease agreement rather than an outright deed. Commissioner Fletcher concurred. Discussion ensued as to the length of a lease, and it was agreed that it should be for 50 years at $1.00 a year. Commissioner Wodtke felt it would be important for the Motion and the lease to state that space would be made available for the ambulance in this specific building. 80 NOV 17 192 sorc .. PACE:° N OV 17 1992 BOOP( Commissioner Fletcher and Lyons agreed to include the above provisions in their Motion. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion including the above statements. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Fellsmere Mayor Alvin Thomas asked if the lease would be for $1.00 a year, and the City would maintain and insure the building, and this was confirmed. the Board for their consideration. BEACH ACQUISITION PROGRAM Mayor Thomas thanked Public Works Director Davis reported that staff is working on recommendations for beach acquisition under the Save Our Coast Program, and if the County wishes to be considered in the first 50 million dollar round, it is desired that we submit a formal resolution at the earliest possible time indicating that the county has the authority to raise the money by bonds for such acquisition and confirming that the property will be developed a's a park for outdoor recreation, etc. He noted that there are two or three counties which had a referendum regarding beach acquisition at the last election. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Chairman write the Department of Natural Resources and indicate informally that we are going to prepare such a resolution and also that we ask the Attorney to prepare such a resolution with whatever facts we have available for the next meeting. 81 M Commissioner Bird felt one of the first things we should do is prioritize our parcels. Commissioner Fletcher expressed concern about any "strings attached" and wished to know how much the state is willing to commit. Chairman Scurlock explained that the state is not going to commit to anything other than that they will consider us on the first round if we are willing to try. Attorney Brandenburg stated that he would try to draft a resolution without strings; he did not believe it is required that this resolution specify specific sites. Commissioner Lyons felt that possibly the Parks & Recreation Committee can come up with a recommendation on sites. His preference was to expand anything we have existing and then possibly acquire more 70' strips for beach access. Chairman Scurlock agreed that we can assign this to Commissioner Bird and his committee and the Administrator and Community Services Director could work With them. Commissioner Fletcher believed the referendum specified that we were going to put all funds into acquisition of land, and he expressed concern that we maximize every Possibility to buy the most economical piece of land without being gouged. It was pointed out that appraisals are required. Community Services Director Thomas emphasized the importance of writing the letter to the Department of Natural Resources immediately. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 82 N O V 17 1982 L.- - - - Q, 2 FnE 1 r NOV 17 1992 - ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR ACQUISITION OF BEACHFRONT LAND AND RESOLUTION CERTIFYING RESULTS OF BOND ELECTION ON MOTION BY Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, The Board unanimously adopted Resolution 82-123 providing for the issuance of bonds, not to exceed $5,000,000 for the acquisition of beachfront lands and Resolution 82-124 certifying the results of the Bond Election held November 2, 1982. 83 RESOLUTION NO. 82- 123 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,000 TO PAY THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION OF BEACHFRONT LAND ON THE ATLANTIC OCEAN IN THE COUNTY, AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO SUCH BONDS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinater respectively called the "Board" and the "County"), that: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolu- tion is adopted pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. and declared as follows, that: It is hereby found, determined A. It is necessary, desirable, and in the best interest sof" radian -River County, Florida, and its inhabitants that general obligation bonds in an amount not exceeding $5,000,000 be issued to finance the cost of the acquisition of beachfront land on the Atlantic Ocean in the County, for recreational purposes; together with other purposes necessary, appurtenant or incidental thereto (herein called the "Project"), including all costs of the issuance of the bonds. B. The issuance of such bonds was approved by a majority of votes cast in a bond election held on November 2, 1982, by the qualified electors of the County in the manner required by the Constitution and Laws of Florida. C. The cost of such project is estimated to be $5,000,000. Such cost shall be payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable property in the County without limit as to rate or amount. Such cost may also include, but not be limited to, architectural, inspection, legal, fiscal and accounting expenses; bond discount, if any; the cost of issuance of the bonds, including engraving, printing, advertising and other similar expenses; and such other costs and expenses as may be necessary or incidental to the financing herein authorized and the acquisition of the N 0 V 17 1982 -1- BOOK 52 FA;E 14 3 NOV 17 1992 Project. D. Such general obligation bonds, together with all other outstanding general obligation bonded indebtedness of the County, do not exceed any limitation on debt as imposed by applicable law. SECTION 3. RESOLUTION TO CONSTITUTE CONTRACT. In con- sideration of the acceptance of the bonds authorized to be issued hereunder by those who shall hold the.same from time to time, this resolution -shall be deemed to be and shall constitute a contract between the County and such holders. The covenants and agreements herein set forth to be performed by the County shall be for the equal benefit, protection and security of the legal holders of any and all of such bonds, all of which shall be of equal rank and without preference, priority or distinction of any of the bonds over any other thereof, except as expressly provided therein and herein. SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION OF BONDS. Subject and pursuant to the provisions of this resolution, bonds of the County to be known as "General Obligation Bonds", herein sometimes referred to as "Bonds", are hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of not exceeding Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) to finance the cost of such Project. SECTION 5. DESCRIPTION OF BONDS. The Bonds shall be dated as shall be determined by subsequent resolution of the County; shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, shall be numbered consecutively from one upward in order of maturity, shall bear interest at such rate or rates, not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law, to be determined upon the sale thereof, payable semiannually, and shall mature serially, in numeri- cal order, lowest numbers first, in such years and amounts, but not exceeding thirty (30) years from the date thereof, as shall be determined by subsequent resolution adopted prior to the sale of said Bonds. Such Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form without coupons; shall be payable with respect to principal at a place or -2- places to be determined by the County prior to the delivery of the Bonds; shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America; and shall bear interest from their date, payable by mail to the registered owner at his address as it appears on the registra- tion books. SECTION 6. EXECUTION OF BONDS. The Bonds shall be exe- cuted in the name of the County by the Chairman of the Board and countersigned by its Clerk of the Board, and its corporate seal or a facsimile thereof shall be affixed thereto or reproduced thereon. The facsimile signatures of the Chairman or the Clerk of the Board may be imprinted or reproduced on the Bonds; provided, that at least one signature required to be placed thereon shall be manually sub- scribed. In case any officer who shall have signed or sealed any of the Bonds shall cease to be such officer of the Board before the Bonds so signed and sealed shall have been actually sold and delivered, such Bonds may nevertheless be sold and delivered, as herein provided, and may be issued as if the person who signed or sealed such Bonds had not ceased to hold such office. The Bonds may be signed and sealed on behalf of the County by such person who at the actual time of the execution of such Bonds shall hold the proper office in the County, although at the date of such Bonds such person may not have been so authorized. SECTION 7. NEGOTIABILITY AND EXCHANGEABILITY. The Bonds issued hereunder shall be, and shall have all of the qualities and incidents of negotiable instruments under the law merchant and the laws of the State of Florida, and each successive holder, in accept- ing any of said Bonds, shall be conclusively deemed to have agreed that such Bonds shall be and have all of the qualities and incidents of negotiable instruments under the law merchant and the laws of the State of Florida. The County hereby covenants and agrees, so long as any of the Bonds are outstanding, to retain and maintain a Bond Registrar having appropriate registration books for the purpose of registering and transferring the registration of any Bonds as in this section -3- N O V 17 1982 soa.2..Fn .fir NOV 17 1992 5? contemplated. The Clerk, or such other Registrar as may hereafter be duly appointed, is designated such Bond Registrar. The County, its agents, and the Registrar may deem and treat the registered owner of any Bond as the absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of receiving payment of the principal thereof and the interest payable thereon, and for all other purposes whatsoever. Upon surrender for transfer of any fully registered Bond at the office of.the Registrar, the County shall execute and the Registrar shall deliver to the transferee or transferees a new fully registered Bond or Bonds for a like aggregate principal amount. Fully registered Bonds may be exchanged at the office of the Regis- trar for a like aggregate principal amount of fully registered Bonds or authorized denominations of like interest rate and maturity. The execution by the County of any fully registered Bond in an autho- rized denomination shall constitute full and due authorization of such denomination and the Registrar shall thereby be authorized to deliver such fully registered Bond. All Bonds presented for transfer, exchange, redemption or payment (if so required by the County or the Bond Registrar) shall be accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of transfer or authorization for exchange, in form and with guaranty of signature satisfactory to the County and the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered holder or by his duly authorized attorney. The County and the Bond Registrar may charge the bondholder a sum sufficient to reimburse them for any expenses incurred in making any exchange or transfer after the first such exchange or transfer made after delivery of the Bonds. The Bond Registrar or the County may also require payment from the bondholder of a sum sufficient to cover any tax, fee or other governmental charge that may be imposed in relation thereto. Such charges and expenses shall be paid before any such new bond shall be delivered. The County and the Bond Registrar shall not be required (a) to issue, transfer or exchange any Bonds during a period beginning :M M at the opening of business on the 15th business day next preceding either any interest payment date or any date of selection of bonds or parts thereof to be redeemed and ending at the close of business on the interest payment date or day on which the applicable notice of redemption is given, or (b) to transfer or exchange any Bonds selected, called or being called for redemption in whole or in part. New Bonds delivered upon any transfer or exchange shall be Valid special obligations of the County, evidencing the same debt as the Bonds surrendered, shall be secured by this Resolution and shall be entitled to all of the security and benefits hereof to the same extent as the Bonds surrendered. The County reserves the right to change the above registra- tion and transferability provisions of the Bonds at any time prior to the delivery thereof in order to comply with applicable laws and regulations of the United States in effect at the time of issuance thereof. SECTION S. UNREGISTERED COUPON BONDS. Pursuant to Section 310 of Public Law 97-248 (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as the "Tax Act"), which provides, inter alis, that obligations issued after December 31, 1982, shall not be exempt from Federal income tax unless the obligation is in registered form, it is provided in Section 5 hereof that the Bonds shall be issued only as fully registered Bonds without coupons. However, notwithstanding any provision contained herein, to the contrary, if the effective date of Section 310 of the Tax Act is changed from December 31, 1982, to a later date and if the Bonds are issued prior to said later date, the Bonds may then, in the discre- tion of the Board, be issued either as fully registered Bonds without coupons or as coupon Bonds which may be registered as to principal only; provided, however, that in no event shall the deci- sion of the Board as to the form of the Bonds cause the Bonds not to be exempt from all Federal income taxes. If the Bonds are i§sued as coupon Bonds registrable as to principal only, the form of the y� 1 1 BOOK '5� FASE I A.7 N 0 V 992 F'",- 1 -7 NOV 7 1982 BOOK 4, . coupon Bonds shall be fixed in the resolution adopted by the Board prior to the issuance thereof which fixes the date, maturities and redemption provisions of said Bonds. In such event, said resolution shall also determine the provisions for registration of such coupon Bonds. SECTION 9. BONDS MUTILATED, DESTROYED, STOLEN OR LOST. In case any Bond shall become mutilated, or be destroyed, stolen or lost, the County may, in its discretion, issue and deliver a new fully registered Bond of like tenor as the Bond so mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost, in exchange and substitution for such mutilated Bond, upon surrender and cancellation of such mutilated Pond, or in lieu of and substitution for the Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, and upon the holder furnishing the County proof of his ownership thereof and satisfactory indemnity and complying with such other reasonable regulations and conditions as the County may prescribe and paying such expenses as the County may incur. All Bonds so surrendered shall be cancelled by the Clerk of the Board. If any such Bond shall have matured or be about to mature, instead of issuing a substitute Bond, the County may pay the same, upon being indemnified as aforesaid, and if such Bond be lost, stolen or destroyed without surrender thereof. All such duplicate Bonds issued pursuant to this section shall constitute original, additional contractual obligatioAs'Q4 the part of the County whether or not the lost, stolen or destroyed Bonds be at any time found by anyone, and such duplicate Bonds shall be entitled to equal and proportionate benefits and rights as to lien on and source and security for payment from the funds, as hereinafter pledged, to the same extent as all other Bonds issued hereunder. SECTION 10. PRIOR REDEMPTION. The Bonds or any of them may be made redeemable prior to their stated dates of maturity, at the option of the Board, in such years and with such premiums as shall hereafter be determined by resolution of the Board prior to the sale of the Bonds. -6- Notice of such redemption (i) shall be published at least thirty (30) days prior to the redemption date in a financial journal published in the Borough of Manhattan, City and State of New York, (ii) shall be filed with the paying agents, and (iii) shall be mailed, postage prepaid, to all registered owners of Bonds to be redeemed at their addresses as they appear on the registration books. Interest shall cease to accrue on any Bonds duly called for prior redemption on the redemption date, if payment thereof has been duly provided for. SECTION 11. FORM OF BONDS. Subject to the provisions of Section 8 hereof, the text of the Bonds and the validation cer- tificate to be endorsed thereon shall be in substantially the following form and tenor, with such variations, omissions and inser- tions as may be necessary, desirable and authorized or permitted by this-Aesolution or any subsequent resolution adopted prior to the issuance thereof: -7- Nov 17 1982 BOCK 5,4PAGE-JA r NOV 17 1982 NO. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND EQOK ��f, F,`-.�F c $5,000 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Indian River County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "County"), for value received, hereby promises to.pay to or registered assigns or legal representative, on the day of 19_, solely from.the special funds hereinafter mentioned) the principal sum of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS and to pay solely from such special funds interest thereon to the registered owner hereof from , at the rate of per centum (% ) per annum payable semiannually on 1 and 1 of each year, by check or draft mailed to the registered owner at his address as it appears on the registration books of the Registrar hereinafter mentioned. Both principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America at the , or at the option of the holder, at the For the prompt payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond as- the same shall become due, the full faith, credit--and— taxing redit=-anitaxing power of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Bond is one of an authorized issue of Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $5,000,000, of like date, tenor and effect, except as to number, interest rate (if all bonds do not bear the same rate) and date of maturity, issued to finance the cost of the acquisition of beachfront land on the Atlantic Ocean in the County, for recreational purposes, under the authority of and in full compliance with the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Florida, particularly Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law, and pursuant to a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners -8- M of Indian River County, Florida, on the day of 198_ (herein respectively called the "Board" and the "Resolution"). This Bond is subject to all the terms and conditions of said Resolution. (Insert Redemption Provisions) Notice of such redemption shall be given in the manner provided by the Resolution. This Bond may be transferred only upon the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar under the Resolution upon surrender thereof at the principal office,of the Bond Registrar with an assignment duly executed by the registered owner or his duly autho- rized attorney, but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges provided in the Resolution, and upon surrender and cancellation of this Bond. Upon any such transfer, there shall be executed in the name of the transferee, and the Bond -, ..,_ Registrar shall deliver, a new registered Bond or Bonds in the same aggregate principal amount and maturity and interest rate of the authorized denominations as the surrendered Bond. It is hereby certified and recited that all acts, conditions and things required to happen, to exist and to be performed, prece- dent to and in the issuance of this Bond, have happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, applicable thereto; that the issue of Bonds of which this Bond is one has.been approved at an election held in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of Florida on the 2nd day of November, 1982; that the total indebtedness of the County, including the issue of Bonds of which this Bond is 1 one, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory -limitation; and a that provision has been made for the levy and collection of a direct annual tax, without limitation as to rate or amount, upon all taxable property within the County sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on this Bond as the same shall become due, which tax shall be.levied and collected at the same time and in the same manner as other ad valorem taxes of the County are assessed, levied and �V 171992 80OK PAGE NOV 17 1982 BOOK -0 ! llr. e yl<d collected. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Indian River County, Florida, has issued this Bond and has caused the same to be executed by the Chairman of the Board and attested by the Clerk of the Board by their manual or facsimile signatures, and its corporate seal to be affixed, impressed, imprinted, lithographed or reproduced hereon, all as of the first day of 198 ._ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (SEAL) . ATTEST: Clerk, Board of County Commissioners Chairman, Board of County Commissioners VALIDATION CERTIFICATE This Bond is one of a series of Bonds which were validated and confirmed by judgment of the Circuit Court for Indian River County, Florida, rendered on the day of , 198. Chairman, Board of County Commissioners PROVISIONS FOR ASSIGNMENT - For value received, the undersigned sells, assigns, and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to transfer the within Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: -10- t SECTION 12. PLEDGE OF FULL FAITH, CREDIT AND TAXING POWER. For the prompt payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds, the full faith, credit and taxing power of the County are irrevocably pledged. SECTION 13. SINKING FUND AND LEVY OF AD VALOREM TAX. There is hereby created a Sinking Fund for the purpose of paying the prin- cipal of and interest on the Bonds as they become due. In each year while any of such Bonds are outstanding there shall be levied and collected atax, without limitation as to rate or amount, on all taxable property within the County, over and above all other taxes authorized or limited by law, sufficient in amount to pay the prin- cipal of and interest on such Bonds as the same shall become due. Such tax shall be assessed, levied and collected in the same manner and at the same time as other County taxes are assessed, levied and - col-leated . _ SECTION 14. ARBITRAGE. The proceeds of such Bonds will not be used by the County in a manner that would cause such Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. SECTION 15. MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT. No material modifi- cation or amendment to this Resolution or of any resolution amen- datory hereof or supplemental hereto, may be made without the consent in writing of the holders of sixty-seven per centum (67%) or more in principal amount of the Bonds then outstanding; provided, however, that no such modification or amendment shall permit a change in the maturity of such Bonds, or a reduction in the rate of interest thereon, or in the amount of the principal obligation or affecting the unconditional promise of the County to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds as the, same shall become due, or reduce such percentage of holders of such Bonds, required above, for such modifi- cations or amendments without the .consent of the holders of all such Bonds. -11- N CIV 17 1982 BOOK 52 PAGE 1531 r V. 1 �7 1992 Nov RQOK 152 1 t4 SECTION 16. SEVERABILITY OF INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions of this Reso- lution shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohi- bited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separate from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions, and in no way affect the vali- dity of all the other provisions of this Resolution or of the Bonds issued thereunder. SECTION 17. BONDHOLDERS NOT AFFECTED BY APPLICATION OF BOND PROCEEDS. The holders of the Bonds issued hereunder shall have no responsibility for the use of the proceeds of said Bonds, and the use of such Bond proceeds by the Board shall in no way affect the rights of such Bondholders. The Board shall be irrevocably obligated to continue to levy and collect the ad valorem taxes as provided herein and to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds, not- withstanding any failure of the Board to use and apply such Bond pro- ceeds in the manner provided herein. SECTION 18. VALIDATION OF BONDS. The County Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to institute appropriate pro- ceedings for the validation of said Bonds, and the proper officers of the Board are hereby authorized to verify on behalf of the bounty any pleadings in such proceedings. SECTION 19. REPEAL OF PRIOR RESOLUTIONS. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict or inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed insofar as there is conflict or inconsistency. SECTION 20. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. -12- A The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissionex Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Dick Bird Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17th Attest: ".q iFREDA WRIGHT? Clty k APPROVED A13-nTO FORM AND -LEGAZ' T&FIC.&ENCYV x7 By M/BRAND EN y Attorney day of November , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By C DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Chairman -13- BQOK 512 PAGE-Jk. Nov 17 1982 NOV 17 198 .,.-� :.fit �;?,_� • RESOLUTION NO. 82--.124 RESOLUTION CANVASSING THE RESULTS OF A BOND ELECTION FIELD IN THE COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA, HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 1982. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ( the "Board") of Indian River County, Florida ( the "County"), by its Resolution, duly and regularly adopted at its meeting held on the l.st day of _September, 1982, did call an election to be held on the 2nd day of November, 1982, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors residing within the County of Indian River, Florida, for their s ,.�, Pprova or disapproval*of the question of whether the County should issue general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $5,000,000, bearing interest at such rate or rates not exceeding the maximum legal rate fixed by law and maturing serially in annual installments over a period not to exceed. thirty (30) years from the date of the bonds, and said Resolution having further provided and did direct that notice of said election be given by publication in accordance with law; and WHEREAS, due and regular notice of said bond election has been published in The Press Journal, a newspaper of general cir- culation in the County, said publication having been made once each week in the third and fifth week prior to the week in which said special election was held, with the first publication =`'°` — - thereof being not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of said special election, to -wit: September 28 and October 12, 1982; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution calling said election and in accordance with law, the question in said Resolution stated was submitted to the qualified electors residing within said County for participation in the election on the date specified in said Resolution, to -wit: November 2, 1982; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable that the quali- �ied electors residing* in the County Y a PProve the issuance of such general obligation bonds; and 4 WHEREAS, it appears that the lists of qualified electors I A -1- who voted at such election have been returned to this Board by the Inspectors and Clerks, together with the returns hereinafter mentioned; and WHEREAS, it appears that said election has been duly and properly held in accordance with law and that the votes cast thereat have been returned, delivered and canvassed, and that the returns of said election have been delivered to this Board for the purpose of canvassing said election returns and determining and certifying the results thereof; and WHEREAS, it appears from the official returns of said election so delivered to this Board and so canvassed by this Board as aforesaid that the total number of votes cast in said election by such qualified electors, as above described, residing within said County in favor of the issuance of said bonds was 8,761 and that the total number of votes cast in said elec- tion by said qualified electors residing in said County against the issuance of said bonds - was 4,953 NOW, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, FOUND, DECLARED AND HEREBY CERTIFIED by the County of Indian River, Florida, at a meeting of said Board of County Commissioners, duly and regularly held, at which the said official returns of said election have been duly and regularly canvassed according to law, as follows that: 1. The total number of votes cast in said election by said qualified electors residing within said County in favor of the issuance of said bonds was 8,761 . 2. The total number of votes cast in said' -election by said qualified electors residing within said County against the issuance of said bonds was 4r953 3. Said election was in all respects conducted in accordance with law, and that all steps in connection with and leading to said election have been duly, regularly and lawfully taken and had , and that all provisions of the Statutes and Constitution of the State of Florida have been duly complied -2- N OV 1'7..1992�ax �� �l� �tiil �, � 902 �: _ F�:ur �,? .•� with. 4. Said returns be entered and recorded in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners; that this resolution, determination, finding, declaration and certificate be recorded in the minutes of this Board. ADOPTED this 17th day of November , 1982. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: , Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Dick Bird Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17th day of November , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA B J Y � DON C. SCURLOC , JR. Chairman Attest: FREDA WRIGHT, G rk FORM APPROVED A�'J1' O AND LEGAT�!�T..��,,.'�i By Atto 4 1 -3- M R! CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING OFFICER The undersigned HEREBY -CERTIFIES that: 1. SHe is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Clerk of the (herein called the "Bo rri , 'and eeper o the records thereof, including the minutes of its proceedings; 2. The annexed copy of extracts from the minutes of the Regular meeting of the Ron -rd I held on the 17th day of Nm7pinher , 1942 , is a true, correct, and compared copy of the whole of the original minutes of the meeting on file and of record insofar as the same relate to the resolution referred to in such extracts. and to the other matters referred to therein; 3. The meeting was duly convened in conformity with all applicable requirements; a proper quorum was present throughout the meeting and the resolution hereinafter mentioned was- duly proposed, considered, and adopted in conformity with applicable requirements; and all other requirements and proceedings incident to the proper adoption of the resolution have. been duly fulfilled, carried out, and otherwise observed; 4. He is duly authorized to execute this Certificate; and 5. The copy of the resolution annexed hereto entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 82x124 RESOLUTION CANVASSING THE RESULTS OF A BOND ELECTIDN HELD IN THE COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA HELD ON NOVEMBER 2, 1982 is a true, correct, and compared copy of the original resolution referred to in the extracts and as finally adopted at the meeting and, to the extent required by law, as thereafter duly signed or approved by the proper officer or officers of the which resolution is on file and o record. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Clerk ,. this 17thday of November 19 R9 J Freda Wright, Clerk (SEAL) NOV 17.1992 BOOK - 52 PAGE° 5NP19 41 NOV 1982 -POCK 52 _; � EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF A —Regular MEETING OF THE Board of Coimtv Commissioners OF IndianRiver _County, Florida r - HELD ON THE 17th DAY OF November , 19 82 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida met in _ Regular meeting at 1840 25th Street in the City of Vero Beach Florida at 8:30 o'clock A M. on the 17th day of November 19 82, the place, hour, and date duly established for the holding of such meeting. The Chairman called the meeting to order and on roll call the following answered present: Dick Bird A. Grover Fletcher , Patrick B Lyons , and the following were absent: None William C. Wodtke, Jr. , Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman _. ;� �- ,. _ • The declared a quorum present. A -resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 82-124 RESOLUTION CANVASSING THE RESULTS OF A BOND ELECTION HELD IN THE COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER, FLORIDA, HELD ON NOMBER 2, 1982 was introduced by tax• Attorney Gary Brandenburg ,; The resolution was then read in full and discussed and considered. Mr. Lyons then moved the adoption of the resolution as introduced and read. Mr. Bird seconded the motion, and, on roll call, the following voted "Aye": Dick Bird• A Grover Fletcher• Patrick B Lyons• William C Wodtke, J Don C. Scurlock. Jr. and the following voted "Nay": None The Chairman thereupon declared the motion carried and the resolution adopted as.introduced and read. There being no further business to come before the meeting, upon motion .duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned. Nov 17 1982 890K NOV 17 1982 BOOK FUND AIR CONDITIONING ALTERATION AT COURTHOUSE The Board reviewed the following memo from Acting General Services Director Williams; TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 10, 1982 FILE: Agenda the Board of County Commissioners November 17, 1982 THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: Courthouse Air Conditioning System FROM: Lynn Williams REFERENCES: Acting Ge ervices Director _ DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Staff was instructed at the August 4, 1982, meeting of the Board to implement recommendations submitted by Mr. Bob Rnoedler of Ralph Hahn and Associates. Recommendations included a Air Balance Study and several modifications to the duct work to eliminate noise, code and thermal problems existing in the system serving the Circuit Judges' offices and Courtrooms A and B. Air Balance Corporation completed an air balance study of the Courthouse systems and submitted recommendations. These were forwarded to Mr. Rnoedler who reviewed and returned a composite of both his and Air Balance recommendations. Staff then sought estimates for these alterations from two local Air Conditioning/ Mechanical -Contractors; Midstate Mechanical Contractors and '" — Colkitt Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning. Both have performed work for the County and are reputable firms. ALTERATIONS AND ANALYSIS Essentially the alterations as proposed will include ducting return air directly to the Air Handler, relocating supply duct serving the Circuit Hearing Room and opposed blade dampers in the supply duct to throttle the air serving the secretarial area. In Courtroom A and B the proposals include lining the R/A (Return Air) duct with insulation to reduce noise; relocate diffuser and move them forward in the audience area. Additionally Staff proposes to duct through the roof an existing exhaust fan, as requested by Judge Smith. Mid State Mechanical estimated total $3,295.00 Colkitt Sheet Metal estimated total 2,475.00 Cost to duct exhaust fan is estimated at 400.00 ALTERNATIVE "A" Authorize Staff to contract with Colkitt Sheet Metal to perform alterations as stated. Funds not to exceed $3,000.00. 84 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff reco,:�mends approval of Alternative "A",funding from Board of County Commission contingency fund #001-199-513-99.91 not to exceed $3,000.00. ON MOTION BY Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- mously approved Alternative "A" of staff memo dated November 10, 1982, and approved budget amendment as follows: November 23, 1982 Td: Board of C,punty Commissioners FromJeffrey K.. Barton, Finance Director Subject: Courthouse Air Conditioning System The following Budget Amendment is necessary to correctly allocate funds for this expense that; was approved at the November 17, 1982 Board of County Commis§ioners meeting. Account Title Account Number Increase " Decrease Maint./Air Conditioning 001-220-519-34.62 3,000. B.C.0 Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 3,000. RESOLUTION REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE PLANNING & MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ON MOTION BY Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird,.the Board unanimously approved Resolution 82-125 making an appoint- ment to the Hutchinson Island Resource Plan- r ning and Management Committee. 85 SOV 17 1982 rNov 17 19 82 ROOK , F,a., . , 4 RESOLUTION NO. 82- 125 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO THE HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AND FURTHER EXPRESSING THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS. WHEREAS, in 1974 the Division of State Planning evalu- ated Hutchinson Island as a potential area of critical state concern, but found that local efforts were under way to alleviate the concerns and that the area should not be designated at that time, and. - WHEREAS, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council on July 16, 1982, voted to request that Hutchinson Island located in Martin and St. Lucie Counties be designated as an area of critical state concern, and WHEREAS, subsequent to the initial recommendation by Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council their staff expanded the boundary of the recommendation to include the Barrier Island lying in Indian River County running north to the Sebastian Inlet, and WHEREAS, Governor Graham upon receipt of the recommenda- tion established the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Committee pursuant to Florida Statutes 5380.045 and now requests all affected jurisdictions to appoint representatives to the Committee, and WHEREAS, the County Commission believes that Indian River County has acted responsibly in enacting its current Comprehensive Plan and administering land use controls for Indian River County and particularly the Barrier Island and strenuously objects to any implication for the need to designate the Barrier Island in Indian River County as an area of critical state concern and further feels that any such designation would be an unwarranted intervention in this County's responsible planning and zoning practices, and WHEREAS, Indian River County is concerned that this community is being brought into a process that is designed and aimed at a problem with land development practices and growth management policy existing on Hutchinson Island, and WHEREAS, the County Commission has no desire for Indian River County to intervene as an arbiter in other problem areas and does not see the logic behind the appointment formula to the Committee, and WHEREAS, the regional problem that exists on Hutchinson Island should be solved by those participants who have the major interest that is, St. Lucie and Martin Counties, and although Indian River County should be represented as an affected area this County should not be placed in the middle of the dispute, and WHEREAS, the State Planning Agency staff has indicated that there are no problems with Indian River County's planning and growth management practices on the Barrier Island and that Indian River County is only included in an effort to have all potentially affected jurisdictions represented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons is hereby appointed to serve as Indian River County's elected official representative on the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Committee, and 2. The Community Development Department's Director or his designee is hereby designated as Indian River County's repre- sentative from the Planning Department to the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Committee, and 3. Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolu- tion expressing the County's concerns be forwarded to the Governor, the State Planning Agency, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the legislative delegation for Indian River County and the County Commissions of Martin and St. Lucie Counties. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner'- Wodtke who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote,'the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Dick Bird Aye -2- NOV 17 1992 stox � ���c ` 6 r1 N OV 7 1992 BOOK, F',aF- The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17th Attest: FR'EDA WRIGHT, Clek ly APPROVED TO FO AND LEG OF CI By G BRANDEN. o n Attorney day of November , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. Chairman L/ BID #148 - 40 CUBIC YARD ROLL -OFF CONTAINERS The Board reviewed staff memo and recommendation: -TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: November 3, 1982 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: IRC Bid #148 - (4) 40 Cubic Yard Heavy Duty, Open, Roll -off Containers FROM: Carol Goodrich REFERENCES: Purchasing Department Manager 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received November 2, 1982 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC Bid #148 - (4) 40 Cubic Yard Heavy -Duty, Open, Roll -off Containers. 7 Bid Proposals were sent out, 3 were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bid of $2750.00 ea. was submitted by Industrial Refuse Sales, delivery time of 60-90 days and Hesco Sales, Inc., delivery time of 30 days. This bid was for square bottom containers as are currently in use by the Landfill. Hesco Sales also submitted an alternate bid of $2500.00 ea. for round bottom containers. Our roll -off containers have been purchased from-Hesco Sales for the last 3 years. ME .] 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC Bid #148 be awarded to Hesco Sales, Inc. in the amount of $2750.00 ea. total cost $11,000.00. There is $12,000.00 budgeted in AccounL #1004-209-534-66.49 for the purchase of 4 roll -off containers. ON MOTION BY Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #148 for 4 40 -Yard Roll -off Containers to Hesco Sales in the total amount of $11,000 as recommended by staff. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 -14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION BID NO. DATE OF OPENING IRC #148 November 2, 1982 BID TITLE 40 Cubic Yard Heavy -Duty, 0 Gjro C tr UNIT PRICE )Y 0 ti O ti IYro Aj Dg b hw o /yam �0 sq. bcttom ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRCCE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE 1. 40 Cubic Yard Heavy -Duty, Open, sq. bcttom sq. tt m Roll off Container 4 ea. 2750 30 .2750 00 .3213 0 2. Days required for deliver after receipt of Purchase Order. 60-90 a. 30 d . 15 da. A L_NOV 171982 ssox 512 FnE 2 6 S N OV 17 1992 INCREASE IN HEALTH DEPARTMENT FEES•FOR SERVICES The Board reviewed letter from Dr. Flood and the proposed fees, as follows: s STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF Bob Graham. Go%ernor -- Health & Rehabilitative Services INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH UNIT 2525 -14th AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 September -3, 1982 Mr. Dotgla.s Scurlock, Chairman County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25 Street Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Dear Doug: At our budget hearing the question of increasing health department revenues by the addition of fees for service was discussed. The appended list of suggested fees is based on a survey of the charges imposed by most of the counties surveyed. Will ;you please review then and lct auc know how you wish to proceed.. I contacted Gary Brandeuburg and hir opinion was that their is no legal. problem involved. Thank you for your consider: Exl.on of. m�*+.ter. CCF/f g 0 88 Sincerely yours, Crosbie Flood, M. D. Director STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF Nub Graham. Ginernor Health & rehabilitative Services INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH UNIT 2525 -14th AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 September 3, 1982 Sur,gested fees:•• current proposed ape service fee fee Certified copy of - Birth & Death Certificate $ 1.00 $ 2.00 PrZma-rftal VDRL and/or - = Certification form -0- 5.00 Soil Test and/or 40.00 Septic Tank permi. (all size tanks) Sep. ,i,c tank permit 0 - 2000 gallons 40.00 50.00 Septic tank permit 2,040 - 5,000 40.00 100.00 Service & food Outlet -0= 10.00 Cam -is, Recreation - & Labor '- o- _.. " 25.00 Way ar Samples (nor.. -required) -0- 5.00 • Fooc Training Course -0- 5.00 Water Samples (Non -community public water supplhes) -0- 25.00 ,r - Commissioner Commissioner Wodtke noted that this will make a big change, and the Chairman agreed that it raises the rates significantly. e L� NOV 17 1982 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, for purposes of 89 B60K 52 FAGF19 r�K a � 4 �'� NOVN QV 1'7 1982 �+ P,,u. 70 discussion, to adopt Resolution 82-126 increasing the charges to be imposed for services of the IRC Health Unit as outlined in memo of Septem- ber 3, 1982. Discussion followed regarding the increase in the fee for a Soil Test and/or Septic Tank Permit. Mike Galanis of the Environmental Health Department explained that the test and the permitting are the same thing, and the fee on a septic tank permit up to 2,000 gallons, which is the normal homesite size, would be increased to $50.00. He informed the Board that our County performs this service for the people so they don't have to pay an engineer $100 to do it; in effect, therefore, we are charging half as much as they do in St. Lucie or Brevard Counties. In further discussion, it was pointed out that the fee for water samples for non -community public water supplies is - $25.00, and the fee for a simple water sample has been increased from 0 to $5.00. Mr. Galanis reported that although the state laboratory has been doing the actual testing of the samples free for many years, the 7Healttr— a- - Department has had to bear the cost of the employee to take the sample, to process it and ship it, plus the cost of mailing the results, etc., and he felt the proposed $5.00 fee really does not recover costs. He hoped that in the future they will be able to work with County Utilities and have some of the testing done in the new water laboratory. He noted that they still will have the cost of materials, but will be able to provide much quicker service. Mr. Galanis informed the Board that he made a mistake on two items - Food Service & Food Outlet and Camps, Recreation and Labor and these items should be deleted from the proposal. The reason those fees were proposed originally was to give them greater regulatory authority 90 over these agencies, but he has discovered that without a local ordinance backing him up, he does not have the authority to do this. Commissioner Lyons asked if we then do not have any regulation over food, and Mr. Galanis stated that we do, but he was simply going to ask that he be able to permit them in at the county level. He stated that he will come back to the Board about this later. Commissioner Bird asked what the justification is for doubling the fee for septic tanks over 2,000 gallons. Mr. Galanis explained that they must review the commercial ones, which are those over 2,000 gallons; this requires several days of review and one or two site visits. They do not review the individual who goes through the Community Development process and comes to them with a simple zoning stamp. Commissioner Fletcher asked if it would clarify it better if we specified that the -$100 fee was for commercial or multi family septic tanks, and Mr. Galanis felt that would be fine. The Board agreed to change the wording accordingly. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to adopt Resolution 82-126 increasing the Health Unit fees, deleting those proposed for Camps, Recreation & Labor and Food Service & Food Outlet and clarifying the wording as proposed by Commissioner Fletcher. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Mr. Galanis asked if Dr. Flood's charges at the clinic are included in the Motion, and Commissioner Fletcher did not believe they were. 91 to 52 PAU- 1,71 Nnu 17 1982 Boo 52., c 7 Attorney Brandenburg stated that only those items recommended in the letter to us which are attached as the exhibit to the Resolution are included. Discussion continued, and Administrator Wright reported that there are two letters - one on September 3rd where birth certificates and VD tests are added and they are included. Commissioner Fletcher asked if it was the Attorney's interpretation that the Motion included those items, and Mr. Brandenburg agreed that the Board adopted a Resolution authorizing the fees listed on Attachment A, which contains those items. 92 RESOLUTION NO. 82- 126 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, INCREASING THE CHARGES TO BE IMPOSED FOR SERVICES OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH UNIT. WHEREAS, during the 1982-83 fiscal year budget session, the Board of County Commissioners requested the Health Department to examine the schedule of fees charged to individuals using the services of the Department to determine whether the fees were sufficient and commensurate with that charged in other communities, and WHEREAS, it has now been determined that a fee increase is necessary to increase the revenues of the Health Department and to bring fees in line with the standard prevailing rates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Health Department is authorized and directed to impose the charges for services as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" commencing December 1, 1982. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fletcher and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice -Chairman A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye Commissioner Dick Bird Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17th Attest:%'j'te1L FREDA WRIGHT, Cle' APPROVED.,A TO FORM ANDLE SUF CI CY By r Yy . BRANDENBURG uOn Attorney - N O V 17 1982 day of November , 1982. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER.COUNTY, FLORIDA By / G DON C. SCUR OCK, JR. Chairman 89oK' 5� PAl Fc I �3 NOV 1 992 . '7 ` EXHIBIT "A" Type Service Fee Certified copy of Birth & Death Certificate $ 2.00 Premarital VDRL and/or Certificate form 5.00 Soil Test and/or - Septic Tank permit 50.00 (private) (all size tanks) 75.00 (commercial) Septic tank permit 0 - 2000 gallons 50.00 Septic tank permit 2,000 - 5,000 100.00 Water Samples (non -required) 5.00 Food Training Course 5.00 Water Samples (Non -community public water supplies) 25.00 Commissioner Lyons left the meeting at 7:00 P.M. RECOMMENDATION TO NAME FINANCIAL CONSULTANT Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that we still do not have a full Finance Advisory Committee - they only have four members. The Board reviewed the Chairman's memo,Ias— - follows: 93 'TO: Board of County DATE: November 10, 1982 FILE: Commissioners SUBJECT: Financial Advisor to the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Don C. Scurlock, Jr- REFERENCES: Chairman, Finance Advisory Committee Attached are the Minutes of the Indian River County Finance Advisory Committee, dated November 43, 1982. Representatives of the four (4) companies listed in the above-mentioned Minutes made personal presentations to the Committee. Following are the fees for the four (..4) companies involved: I. Clayton Brown & Associates, Inc. a. Fee, $5,000,000 bond issue --$25,000. b. Annual retainer: no contract, $125 per hour. 2. Florida Municipal Securities a. Fee, $5,000,000 bond issue a $2219000. b. Annual retainer: $7,500 per year, 150 hours; excess hours, $50.00 per hour. 3. William R, Hough & Co. a. Fee, $5,000,000 bond issue R $10,000 plus expenses. h, Annual retainer. $7,500 per .year, or $100 per hour for Mr. Hough and'$75.00 per hour. for 14r. Blackwell. 4. The L,eedy Corporation -a, Fee, $5,000,0.00 bond issue ,-,$15,000, b. Annual retainer: $.12,000 per year, .figured at $60,00. per hour. If the bond issue is sold, the the firm would charge. the County th.e *fee outlined above If no Bonds were sold, the firm- would be paid as well. If a bond issue was sold, the firm would credit the'County 50% of the money charged on an hourly, basis. As shown in these Minutes, itis the recommendation recomendation of the Finance Advisory Committee to the'Hoard of County Commissioners that they consider employing William R. Hough.& Co. to be the County's Financial Advisor. If the Board of County Commissioners approves the Committee's :recommendation, William R, Hough.&'Co, will be prepared to submit a cont'rac.tual agreement between themselves and the County, a Detailed brochures of the four (4) companies that were interviewed are available in the -County Commission office. 94 • BOOR 52 F Gt.1 / S Nnu 17 1982 BOCA 52 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to accept the recommendation of the Finance Advisory Committee to employ William R. Hough & Co. as the County's Financial Advisor. Commissioner Wodtke asked if this is with the understanding that this firm will not do any business with the county, and the Chairman stated that is absolutely laid out in great detail. They will function strictly as a financial advisor and cannot participate in any way in buying or selling, etc. Commissioner Wodtke noted that Leedy Corporation proposed $60.00 an hour on retainer, and if we sold a bond issue, the firm would credit the County 500 of the money charged on an hourly basis. Chairman Scurlock stated that actually there is a fee curve and everybody took a different approach to get to that same point which ranged between $21,000 and $25,000. Commissioner Wodtke asked whether we are committed to a dollar amount for a year, if we decide on Hough, -and -- -;- - Chairman Scurlock explained that the action we are taking tonight is to authorize staff to cooperate with the Financial Advisory Committee and work up a formal agreement and then come back to the Commission with a formal document for final action. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 0, Com- missioner Lyons having left the meeting. RECOMMENDATION RE CHANGE IN MOBILE HOME ZONING ORDINANCE The Board reviewed recommendation of the Mobile Home Advisory Board, as follows: 95 Telephone: (305) 587-8000 ` October 18 , 1982 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street., Suite N-158 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Gentlemen: Suncom Tel&.Aane: (305) 429-1012 Ordinance 81-3"5 of I-ndi an Ri ve'r County created the Mobile Home Advisory Board, and Section 5 thereof sets forth the duties of the. members of the Board. Included in these - duties are the requirements that the Mobile Home Advisory Board hear complaints and grievances related to Mobil.c Homc living, anti that. it issc;,e its findings,-cnnclusions and vacommendatiops thereon to the. Board Of i'04nty Ccsw cissioner. Q:F.,Indi,an 3i.ve. r. County, FIND MGS 1., Cnmpl a i n ks have been received by the Mobile Home Advi sr: y Board to the effect that recreational facilities v,ithin some mobile home parks have not -heE,n .provided in a timely manner as proatised by devc1opers, 2. St. Lucie County presently has an Ordinance affecting mobile home parks which reads as follows: i1H, larks may be constructed in phases. No phase shall contain 'less than ten (10) acres. A Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued'by the Building and Zoning Department for each phase, subject to the following; (1) The St. Lucie County Health Department has given wri tt�n 'approva=l, of tht water and sewerage disposal systems as constructed; (2) The County Engineering Department has given its written ap•prova-1 -of the -drui nage and street systems as constructed; (3) All recreation facilities shown on the approved plans, .shat 1. be completed before any; I;erti fi ca to Of Occupancy -is issued- for any phase; (4) All other improvements -for each pharse shown on the approved plans shall he comp-l;pted before Certificate of Occupancy is issued -fol, that phase." RECOMMENDATION: We hereby recommend that the Board ,of C0-!0ty Commissioners +_F Indian River County, Florida adopt an Ord.inance.,�to the saM ,offect .as ,provi-dek ;i n -5-t...—Lurie Cdonty, If further information is required, the members or the Mohile Home Advisory Board place themselves at your disposal. Very truly .voµrs, , iNOBILF 'HOME NOVISOk'i BOARD Edward S.. 11avi s : X11 ;�. Chairman N O V 17 1982 F, Nnu 17 1982 ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Lyons having left the meeting, the Board by a 4 to 0 vote, agreed to refer the recommendation of the Mobile Home Advisory Committee to the Planning & Zoning staff for analysis and a report back to the Board. PHASE 1, JOE S. EARMAN ISLAND PARK Commissioner Bird reported on a presentation made to the Parks & Recreation Committee in regard to Phase I in the proposed development of Joe S. Earman Island Park, which would include clearing some trails, installing signs, picnic tables, grills, portable toilets, and two wood boat docks, for an estimated cost of $7,220 to be acquired from Florida Navigation District and the Boating Improvement Trust Program. He noted that Engineer Don Finney has done a beautiful color rendering of the plan and he would like to get the Board's ruling. Motion made by Commissioner Wodtke to approve the recommendation made by Engineer Finney re constrUctid "vf--- Phase I, Joe S. Earman Island Park, died for lack of a second. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he had looked at this plan, and personally felt it looked very busy. His primary concern was that we do not develop these islands beyond our capability of maintaining them from a standpoint of budgetary consideration - we need to provide for garbage collection, etc. - and he would like to see more emphasis on a passive development rather than so many structures. Commissioner Bird stated that he really would like to have the Commission review the plan, and he suggested that this matter be tabled to the next meeting. W 96 W It was agreed to table any action on construction of Phase I, Joe S. Earman Island, until a later agenda. 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. 83023 - 83449 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 7:15 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: A-x� LL -,422 Clerk NOV 17 1982 97 -