Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/5/1983Wednesday, January 5.,-.1983 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, January 5, 1983, 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, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Coordinator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Pastor Tom Bates, First Church of God, gave the invocation, and Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING Chairman Scurlock announced that today is the annual organizational meeting of the Board and turned the gavel over to Attorney Brandenburg to preside over the election of a new Chairman and Vice Chairman. Attorney Brandenburg explained procedures, noting that any member can nominate any other member and after the nominations are closed, there will be a roll call, vote taken in alphabetical order. Vice Chairman Fletcher announced that he will not be a candidate for either Chairman or Vice Chairman due to the pressure of personal commitments. Attorney Brandenburg opened up the nominations. Commissioner Lyons nominated Mr. Scurlock for Chairman, noting that we have.had a very good year as far as the organization of the Commission is concerned, and he would JAN5 19 3 UbX �4WE 475 JAN 51983 52 476,'' like to see it continue under the same guidance for another year. Attorney Brandenburg asked if there were any further nominations. Commissioner Wodtke discussed rotation of the Chairmanship between all members of the Commission and nominated Mr. Bird. Attorney Brandenburg determined that there were no further nominations and then asked for a Roll Call vote as follows: Commissioner Bird - Bird Commissioner Fletcher - Bird Commissioner Lyons - Scurlock Commissioner Scurlock - Bird Commissioner Wodtke - Bird Attorney Brandenburg acting as Chairman declared Mr. Bird the new Chairman. Commissioner Fletcher explained that he had voted for Mr. Bird because this is a very diverse county and he felt the people in the county are entitled to have the chairman- ship shared by each.member of this Board. He believed that Mr. Scurlock has done an excellent job as Chairman. Commissioner Wodtke concurred that Mr. Scurlock has done a very good job during the past year. Attorney Brandenburg opened the nominations for the Vice Chairmanship. Commissioner Fletcher nominated Commissioner Scurlock. There were no further nominations, and Attorney Brandenburg declared Commissioner Scurlock Vice Chairman by acclamation. Chairman Bird took over the gavel from the Attorney and thanked everyone for their expression of confidence. He congratulated former Chairman Scurlock on a job well done. 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 17, 1982. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- mously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 17, 1982, as written. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA The Chairman asked if there were any additions to today's agenda. Commissioner Lyons reported that there are two meetings he believed would be worthwhile attending - the Jacksonville meeting of the State Association of County Commissioners and a Tampa meeting of the DER on water rules. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously added the two emergency items to the agenda as described above. Finance Director Barton noted that Item 6C under Clerk to the Board is technically a North County Fire District item. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously agreed to move Item 6C from the Clerk to the Board agenda and put it under North County Fire.District matters. 32 A(CE477 JAN 5 1983 2 FAUt473. Administrator Wright requested that Item 16, which related to a request by the Sheriff regarding his budget, be deleted from the agenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously deleted Item 16 from the agenda. Chairman Bird announced that he would give an update on the "Save Our Coast" Program under his matters. CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Budget Amendment - Lease Agreement Sheriff's Department The Board reviewed the following memo: December 8, 1982 `-�To: Board of County_ Commissioners r From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Subject: Lease Agreement Sheriff's Department The following budget amendment is necessary as no funds were budgeted for this expenditure. We were not notified of this carmitment until after budgets ( see attached letter). Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease Rent- Buildings 001-220-519-34.42 23,112 B.C.C. Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 23,112 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment as recom- mended by the Finance Director. B. Approval of Budget - South Beach Water Project, Phase 1 The Board reviewed the following memo: 4 To: Board of County Commissioners December 13, 1982 From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Re: Budget for South Beach Water Project, Phase It is necessary to re-establish the budget for the South Beach Water Project, Phase I for the 1982-83 Fiscal Year. Based upon the South Beach Water System Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate dated September 30, 1981 that was prepared by Sverdrup & Parcel, 1 recommend the following budget be adopted: Account Number Description Increase ' Decrease 708-230-533-33.13 Engineering Services 67;058. 708-230-533-33.14 Legal and Administrative 19,239 708-230-533-66.51 Construction in Process 463,650. 708-230-533-88.11 City of Vero Beach 110,704. 708-230-533-99.91 B„C.C., Contingencies 63,8651 708-000-389-40.00 Cash Forward, Oct. 1 724,516. To: Fran: C.� Re: ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved budget for the South Beach Water Project, Phase 1, as set out above. C. Budget Amendment Lightning DamacTe to Radio Tower The. Board reviewed the following memo: December 28, 1982 Board of County Commissioners Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director Budget Amendment for Lightning Damage During a recent storm, a lightning bolt struck the Sheriff's radio trans- mitting tower and caused the tower and radio equipment to be damaged. Our insurance company gave us a check for $14,392.45 to pay for the repairs that were made to the radio tower and equipment. I recommend the following budget amendment be adopted to budget for the unanticipated revenue and expenditure. Description Account Number Increase Decrease Insurance Proceeds 001-000-364-32.00 Other Canmunication Serv. 001-220-519-34.19 i4,393 ,393 5 ,79 JAN 51983 J JAN 51993 4F, ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the above budget amendment as recom- mended by the Finance Director. E. Approval of Annual Financial Report of Units of Local Government (Board of County Commissioners - 1982 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Annual Financial Report of the Board of County Commissioners and authorized the signature of the Chairman. Copy of said Report is on File in the Office of the Clerk. COWSENT AGENDA A. Agreement with State for Library Funding ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously approved the Agreement with the State Division of Library Services re library funding for fiscal year 1982-83 and authorized the signature of the Chairman. Said Agreement will be made a part of the Minutes when fully executed and received. B. Request for Release of Easement Wabasso Manor Addition The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: 11 TO. The Honorable Members of the DATE: DecemberFILE: 16. 1982 ER -82-10-02-U1 Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright County Administrator SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: - BY LARRY LEWIS, JAMES CHASTIAN, VAAND BERTRAM LEWIS, JOINT OWNERS SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 4 & 5, *trick Bruce King BLOCK 4, UNIT 1, WABASSO MANOR ADDITION FROM: REFERENCES: Betty Davis Zoning Inspector This is in response to a Release of Easement request by Mr. Larry Lewis, Mr. James Chastian and Mr. -Bertram Lewis; joint 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. Larry Lewis, Mr. James Chastianand.Mr. Bertram Lewis to release the rear lot 10 foot easement of lots 4 & 5, Block 4, Unit 1, Wabasso Manor Addition. 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 not be adequately handled by the existing front and side swales. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: After site inspection by Zoning Inspector Betty Davis, it is the Zoning Department's opinion that to release the rear lot 10 foot easement of lots 4 & 5, Block 4, Unit 1, Wabasso Manor Addition, would leave no adequate means for drainage of this area. However, if the easements are released, the petitioner will be allowed his request to utilize these 2 lots as one larger parcel. RECOMMENDATION: In concurrence with the recommendation of the R/W Department, staff recommends that the rear lot 10 foot easement of lots 4 & 5,81ock 4, Unit 1, Wabasso, Manor Addition be retained for drainage and utility purposes. DISTRIBUTION: Prepared for the County Administrator's review and distribution to the Board of County Commissioners for action at the January 5, 1983 regular meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously approved staff recommendation and agreed to retain the rear lot 10' easements of Lots 4 & 5, Block 4, Unit 1, Wabasso Manor Addition, rather than release them as requested. 7 - JAN 5 1983 2 JAN 5 1983 �Aa 4_82 C. Request for Site Plan Extension - Doran (Floravon Shores) The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 27,1982 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright SUBJECT: Request for Extension of County Administrator Site Plan Approval From Donald Doran FROM: Patrick Bruce King,ICP REFERENCES: Letter from Donald Doran Director, dated 12/17/82 Community Development On February 23, 1982, the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the site plan application submitted by Donald Doran to construct 136 multi -family units on 17t acres located on the east side_ of U.S. Highway 1, south of Floravon Shores Subdivision. Construction has not begun due to monetary constraints caused by the current recession. The Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant an extension of the site plan approval expiration date as provided in Section 23(h) of the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Mr. Donald Doran be granted a one .year extension of the approved site plan for the construction of &iLulti-family condominium development on the property located at 10920 U.S. Highway 1. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously granted a one year extension of site plan approval to Donald Doran as per memo dated December 27, 1982. D. Agreement between Department of Community Affairs and Civil Defense - (Disaster Preparedness) ON MOTION by_Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- mously adopted Resolution 83-1, authorizing 0 � � r execution of the Emergency Management Assistance Maintenance and Services Agreement between the State Department of Community Affairs and Civil Defense. Resolution 83-1 follows, and said Agreement will be made a part of the Record when fully executed and received. s 9 JAN _mac ; -mu,483 5 1983 JAN • 51983 484, RESOLUTION NO. 83-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MAINTENANCE AND SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CIVIL DEFENSE. WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs has announced that Indian River County's Emergency Management Assistance and Maintenance Services Program allocations for Federal fiscal year 1983 have been approved and the program will become effective upon execution of the attached contract by Indian River County, and WHEREAS, the contract specifies that the State of Florida will provide a maximum sum of $12,834.00 and the County will provide another $12,834.00 for a total of $25,668.00, and WHEREAS, the contract provides that the liability of the County under the agreement shall not exceed the total of the funds received by the Grantee for this purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Chairman and the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners are authorized and directed to execute the attached agreement. 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 Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner A. Grover Fletcher Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 5th day of January, 1983. Attest:0� -, ,on.�j FREDA WRIGHT, Clk APPROVED, AS -'TO Z/ FORM AND -LEGAL; ,S%CFF n r, Bye _ h_ /' 0f -�,, n, , DO"ARD Or COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By - i x. RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Ccinty Attorney E. Reports Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund - November, 1982 - $27,840.44 Report of Juveniles in Jail, November, 1982 Traffic Violation Fines by Name,'November, 1982 CHANGE OF PRECINCT LINES Supervisor of Elections, Rosemary Richey, came before the Board to review proposed changes in precinct lines, explaining that due to the recent redistricting by the State, there now are some people who have to vote on paper ballots, and it is not working out well. Under The Florida Statutes, changing the precinct lines requires the approval of at least four Commissioners plus the Supervisor of Elections. Mrs. Richey continued that previously Precinct 44 extended out to the County line, as well as Precincts 32 and 33, and she would like to make the portion of those precincts west of I-95 into Precinct 35. This will affect only about 38 people and does not change the Commission District lines. She also wished to change Precinct 4 to 45. Some discussion ensued in regard to precincts as related to Commission Districts, and it was noted that the change of precinct numbers a's related to the districts would affect only2 people. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the precinct changes recommended by the Supervisor of Elections as set out above, creating Precinct 35 and changing Precinct 4 to 45. 10 Ong .52 PAGE,' 858 - JAN 5 1983 PAGE PUBLIC HEARING -AMENDING BUILDING CODE RE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 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�r/G l� in the matter of��// in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of /_J��. �� I/r/ 57 r� Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, 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 subsc (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Ind A.D. 190 vVuniy, riulwal NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER COUNTY ORDINANCE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County will conduct a public hearing on January S, 1983, at 9 a.m. in the Commission Chambers at the County Ad. ministraflon Building; 1848 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida to consider adoption of an ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4-32 OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE; PROVIDING FOR IN- CREASE IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD .OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TO SEVEN MEMBERS; INCREASE IN THE QUORUM REQUIREMENTS TO FOUR MEMBERS, INCORPORATION IN THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he or she may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony in ;evidence on which the appeal is based. Dec: 13.1982. Attorney Brandenburg commented that this increase in the membership of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was requested by the Board and it changes the quorum requirements. Commissioner Scurlock believed there is some confusion in regard to the two appeals boards. 11 The one under discus - i sion is the one that looks at the technical aspect of the Building Code, i.e. if an individual wants to contest one of the Building Director's decisions re materials, etc., they go to this Board; if they wish to contest a zoning matter, they go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Discussion followed as to the advisability of distinguishing between these Boards by referring to the subject board as the Building Board of Adjustment & Appeals. Building Director Esther Rymer informed the Board that the reason they wish the membership increased is that they are having trouble getting a quorum with only five members. She noted that the City Board has seven members and it works well. Commissioner Lyons hoped this group could make some recommendations that would help keep the Building Codes up to the times. Mrs. Rymer noted that they do review the Code and recommend adoptions when there are any Code changes. Considerable discussion ensued regarding criteria for appointing the members serving on this board, and Attorney Brandenburg commented that the way the County adopted it, there are no background requirements for any of the members. Building Director Rymer noted that the membership of the City Board calls for an architect, engineer, general contractor and other members of the building industry, and she recommended that the County have the same criteria. Commissioner Fletcher noted we generally have some lay persons on other boards and felt this board should also. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that this board really requires technical professional expertise in order to deal with the matters being appealed, and Mrs. Rymer agreed, pointing out that this board not only interprets the Building Code but suggests alternate methods to meet Code. She noted that the building industry in general provides a wide area from which to choose. 12 PAGE.487 JAN 5 1983 J AN 5 198-3 488 Commissioner Fletcher continued to debate the need for a lay person to reflect a non-professional's opinion, and 0 Chairman Bird noted that the issue before the Board right now is to add two more members, and he felt we can get into the other question at the time we decide who those members are to be. Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the proposed modification which would add a new sentence in Section 1 under the paragraph headed Board of Adjustment and Appeals - Appointment: "Membership of the Board shall consist of at least one architect, one engineer, one general contractor, and four members with extensive experience in the building industry." Commissioner Fletcher questioned the use of the word "extensive." The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, to adopt Ordinance 83-1 with the modification out- lined by the Attorney; also changing the name of the Board to the Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals and deleting the word "extensive." Commissioner Wodtke suggested that we might have as one of the seven members, the Chairman of the other appeals board, i.e., the chairperson of the Board of Adjustments (Variance Board) would serve as one of the seven members of 13 the Building Code Adjustment Board, and this person would not necessarily be a technical person. Commission Lyons concurred with the idea of a representative of the Board of Adjustment, but did not feel we should specify the Chairman as that Board might have someone they feel would bemorequalified than another. Commissioner Scurlock agreed to include in his Motion that one of the members would be a representative of the Board of Adjustment. Discussion continued re the fact that this actually is a legislative board which makes rulings, and for that type of Code interpretation, professional people would be better qualified. Chairman Bird requested that the Motion be repeated. Motion was restated as follows: ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-1, increasing the number of members on the Board to seven; officially changing the name of the Board to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals; eliminating the word "extensive;" and specifying the make-up of the Board to consist of an architect, an engineer, a general contractor, and four members with experience in the building industry, one of said `members to be a representative of the Board of Zoning Adjustments. 14 JAS! , 5 1993 M INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 83-1 2 Fm 49 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 4-32 OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE; PROVIDING FOR INCREASE IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS TO SEVEN MEMBERS; INCREASE IN THE QUORUM REQUIREMENTS TO FOUR MEMBERS; INCORPORATION IN THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1 Subsection 111.1 of Section 4-32 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida is hereby amended to read as follows: BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS/ APPOINTMENT. There is hereby established a Board to be called the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. All references within the Standard Building Code to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be construed to be a reference to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Board shall consist of seven (7) five -f5* members. Said Board shall be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida by resolution. The membership of the Board shall consist of at least one architect, one engineer, one general contractor, and four members with experience in the building industry. One member of the Board shall be a representative of the Board of Zoning Adjustments. SECTION 2 Subsection 111.3 of Section 4-32 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County is hereby amended to read as follows: QUORUM. Four (4) Three -f3+ members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. In varying the application of any provisions of this Code or in modifying an order of the Building Official, affirmative votes of the majority present, but not less than four (4) three -t3* affirmative votes shall be required. A Board member shall not act in a case in which he has a personal interest. -1- CODING: Words in struek-thredtype are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions. SECTION 3 INCORPORATION IN CODE. The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY. If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 5th day of January , 1983.. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this d7t day of , 1983. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this raE iC day ofc?2je,,c,a , 1983, at / ® --06 A M_ /P.M. and filed in the off i a of the Jerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED TO FORM AND LEGAL IC By f" CHRIST9FHSR4J. PAULL Assistant County Attorney -2- CODING: Words in type are deletion roan . pn-c l JAN 5 1983 existing law; words underlined are additions..-, JAS 5 1983. Brox PRELIMI14ARY PLAT APPROVAL - PINE TREE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBD. The Board reviewed the following staff memo: TO: The Honorable Members. of DATE: December 15,1982 FILE: .the Board of County SRC -82 -SD -06,#237 Commissioners_ TIROUGH: Bruce King, AICP SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR PINE TREE INDUSTRIAL PARK Community Development Dirapftor SUBDIVISION (TENCO INDUSTRIAL) FROM: Clare Zimmerman A& REFERENCES: Staff Planner It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their meeting on January 5, 1983. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The subject property, a proposed industrial subdivision, ± 14 acres in size, is located on the west side of 90th Avenue, south of State Road 60. The property is zoned T11-1, Light Manufacturing and lies within an Industrial/Commercial Node. The land use designation of the area surrounding the node is MD -1, Medium Density residential. This subdivision was reviewed by the Tech- nical Review Committee on September 7, 1982. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Each of the ten lots is ± one acre in size and will have individual wells and septic tanks. The Public Works Division has requested that the swale along 90th Avenue be sodded. This will require the applicant to get a permit from the Public Works Division because it involves work being done in a County right-of-way. The applicant has agreed to this request and has shown it on the plat. All other comments or re- quests made by the Technical Review Committee have been addressed by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant preliminary plat approval to the Pine Tree Industrial Park Sub- division. MOTION WAS 14ADE by Commissioner Scurlock SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to accept the staff recommendation for preliminary plat approval for Pine Tree Industrial Park Sub- division. 15 Discussion encused as to whether the cul de sac is of sufficient size for a semi to maneuver. Commissioner Fletcher noted that this road is dedicated to the County, and Mr. King stated that the engineering has been reviewed, etc., but right now our standards for subdivisions are oriented to residential rather than industrial. Commissioners Scurlock and Lyons agreed to reword their Motion as follows: ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Scurlock SECONDED BY Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously granted preliminary plat ap- proval of Pine Tree Industrial Park Subdi- vision with the understanding the County Engineering Department will verify that the radius of the cul de sac is sufficient to handle a semi -tractor trailer without damaging the road edge. DISCUSSION RE CRITERIA FOR REQUIRING LOT CLEARINGS Community Development Director King reviewed the criteria used by staff to determine the need for lot clearings and also the clearings recommended as set out in the following memos: JAN 5 1983 16 52, -PAGE 493 J JAN 5 1983 c 52 ppur_ 494 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 30, 1982 FI LE: the Board of County Commissioners Through: BJECT: Decision Criteria for Lot Clearings FROM: Bruce King, AIS QA ..rector D• `""7 REFERENCES: Caamm nity Development Division Per Michael Wright's request, the purpose of this memo is to explain to the Board the specific criteria utilized in determining which lots should be recommended for clearance in accordance with Chapter 13, Indian River County Code of Ordinances. As you know, the Board previously has not been involved directly in the lot clearing process. However, the Cmmmnity Development Division staff was advised by the County Attorney's Office that our current operations in regards to lot clearings did not comply with the current ordinance requirements. Therefore, operational changes were implemented to bring the lot .---Clearing process under compliance. Under Chapter 13, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized and empowered by resolution to require lands within the unincorporated area of the County. to be cleared of weeds, debris, and any noxious material which tend to be a breeding place or haven for snakes and vermin or which tend to create a fire or traffic hazard or which to tend to create a nuisance or other unsightly or unsanitary condition provided that the land in question is located within 150 feet of a road intersection or within 200 feet of the nearest inhabited dwelling unit. In compliance with this Chapter, it is necessary for the Board of County Commissioners to declare each and every lot to be cleared under said Chapter a public nuisance and to direct staff to transmit written notification of such declaration to the property owner and further notify the property owner that his land must be cleared in accordance with Chapter 13. In an effort to simplify and expedite this process, a standard resolution was drafted by the County Attorney's Office which will accommodate any number of necessary lot clearings. Therefore, in the Alternatives and Analysis section of each lot clearing agenda item, a specific description of the existing conditions for each lot will be Presented as well as a staff recommendation as to whether or not the at in question is creating a public nuisance. It is the intend of the staff recommendation to minimize the unnecessary clearings of land which do not create a public nuisance. The criteria utilized in determining when a particular lot should be recommended for clearance is as follows: 1) If a lot contains weeds or other materials which obstruct visibility at a road intersection 2) If a lot contains weeds, debris, or other noxious material at a minimum 24 inches in height and said lot is located in an area where the surrounding lots are at a minimum 50% developed 3) In areas where development is less than 50% completed, if the lot contains weeds, debris or other noxious material which at a minimum is 24 inches in height and also exemplifies a direct, mediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. 17 The above criteria are utilized to evaluate each and every lot clearing conplaint that is received by the zoning personnel in the Camun i.ty Development Division. Per the recce n ation of the County Attorney's Office, each property owner of potential lot clearings as well as the complainant, if applicable, was notified of the date and time of the related public hearing. Should the Board decide to amend the staff's recd mpndation by adding or deleting any of the lots being considered for clearance, then those changes need only be made to the list reflected in Exhibit "A" which is attached to the Resolution. Should any member of the Board wish to discuss this process further, please do not hesitate to give me a call. cc: Michael Wright, County Administrator Gary Brandenburg, County Attorney PBK/jh TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: December 8, 1982 FILE: Board of County issioners 6 THROUGH: Dewey Walke>/ Zoning Depaetmen Manager DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE SUBJECT: LAND CLEARANCE � / r atrick Bruce King FROM: Betty Davi s .odoe REFERENCES: Zoning Department Inspector finis is in response to Land Clearance requests made by citizens of Indian River County and/or the County Zoning Department for the clearance of lands in violation of Chapter 13, Indian River Countv Code of nrtiinanroc DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The attached resolution has been prepared in correlation with Section 13-1, Indian River County Code of Ordinances as required for the atthorization for clearance of lands in violation of Chapter 13, to promote tthe health, safety and welfare of the public. This department has conducted an investigation and review of each of the proper- ties listed below, to identify those lands which are creating a public nuisance, and to relay to this Board the department's findings and recommendations. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners; however, if this Board does not affirmatively uphold the Zoning Department's recommendation, it is requested that Exhibit "A" be amended as deemed necessary for adoption. 18 Fib JAN 5 1983 pbE,� 1. Kim, John & Sonia Lot 15, Blk. 9, Unit #1, Vero Shores Parcel #31-33-40-00005-0090-00015.0 16 Vero Shores is a subdivision which is presently 85% developed; the property is very badly overgrown; the underbrush is over 4 feet high and large pepper trees are growing 8 to 10 feet over into the adjoining property owner's yard. It is the staff's opinion that this lot is creating a public nuisance and should be cleared. 2. Pietro, Albano & Teresa Lots. 12 and 13, Oceanaire Heights, Unit #1 Parcel #23-31-39-01-0020-0012.0 The above lot located in Oceanaire Heights Subdivision, which is presently 37% developed, is a very densely overgrown lot with pepper trees and under- brush growing onto the complainant's property. The complainant is an elderly lady who lives alone; she does not get around well and has had numerous problems with snakes on her patio, and the berries from the pepper trees. growing up to the side of her house, fall into her airconditioning unit. It is the staff's opinion this lot is creating a public nuisance and should be cleared. 3. Edmonds, Edwin Y Lots 6 & 7, Blk. 1, Townsites of Roseland Subdivision Parcel #21-30-38-00005-0010-00006.0 The above lot located in Townsites of Roseland Subdivision, which is presently 46% developed, is a lot that is overgrown and has an extremely large dead tree located directly adjacent to the complainant's residence, which is the only thing he feels is endangering the health and safety of his family. It is the staff's opinion that this tree is creating a public nuisance and should be removed." 4. Bell, Catherine N. Lot 1, Blk. 6., Floraton Beach Subdivision, Unit #1 Parcel #22-33-40-00001-0002-00001.0 The above lot located in Floraton Beach Subdivision, which is 67% developed, is a very heavily overgrown lot; the pepper trees hang into the neighbor's property as well as hinder the visibility at -the corner of Sea Grape Drive and Reef Road. This is also a breeding ---place for mosquitoes, snakes and rodents. It is the staff's opinion that this lot is creating a public nuisance and should be cleared. 5. Rollins, Wayne Lots 1 & 2, Blk. E, Floraton Beach Subdivision, Unit #1 Parcel #22-33-40-00001-0005-00001.0 and 2.0 The above lots located in Floraton Beach Subdivision, which is presently 67% developed, are very overgrown with large pepper trees and underbrush. These lots are located adjacent to numerous residences and are creating a breeding place for mosquitoes, snakes and rodents. It is the staff's opinion these lots are creating a public nuisance and should be cleared. 6. Henderson, Charles S. & Anita , • Lot 1, Blk. D., Floraton Beach Subdivision Parcel #22-33-40-00001-0004-00001.0 19 The above lot located in Floraton Beach Subdivision, which is 67% developed, is overgrown with pepper trees and underbrush, but is not located directly adjacent to a developed lot. It is the staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance, and should. not be cleared. 7- Gorka, Joseph C. & Dorothy Lot 2, Raintree Corner Subdivision Parcel #9-33-30-00016-0000-00002.0 The above lot located in Raintree Corner Subdivision which is presently 27% developed, is a overgrown lot, but is not located directly adjacent to a developed lot. It is the staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance and should not be cleared. 8- Wynns, Jr., L. P. & Dena C. Lot 4, Raintree Corner Subdivision Parcel #09-33-39-00016-0000-00004.0 The above lot located in Raintree Corner Subdivision, which is presently 27% developed, is a overgrown lot but is not located directly adjacent to a developed lot. It is the staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance and should not be cleared. 9. Clark, Xavier F. & Eileen Lot 5, Raintree Corner Subdivision Parcel #9-33-39-00016-0000-00005.0 The above lot located in Raintree Corner Subdivision, which is presently 27% developed, is an overgrown lot with underbrush 3 to 4 feet high. It is the staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance and should not be cleared. 10. Matherly, James E. & Katherine Lot 8, Raintree Corner Subdivision Parcel #9-33-39-00016-0000-00008.0 The above lot located in Raintree Corner Subdivision, which is presently 27% developed, is an overgrown lot with brush 4 to 5 feet high. It is the staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance and should not be cleared. 1.1. McKechnie, John & Mary R. Lot 9, Raintree Corner Subdivision Parcel #9-33-39-00016-0000-00009.0 The above lot located in Raintree Corner Subdivision, which is presently 27% developed, is an overgrown lot with brush 4 to 5 feet high. It is the staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance and should not be cleared. 12. Regner, Charles J. & Regina Lot 14, Raintree Corner Subdivision Parcel #9-33-39-0001E-0000-00014.0 The above lot located in Raintree Corner Subdivision, which is presently 27% developed, is an overgrown lot with brush 3 to 4 feet high. It is the staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance and should not be cleared. , 20 JAN 5 198 P�UE 13- Fodi, Joseph A. Lot 16, Raintree Corner Subdivision Parcel #9-33-39-00016-0000-00016.0 The above lot located in Raintree Corner Subdivision, which is presently 27% developed, is an overgrown lot with brush which.is 4 - 5 ft, high. It is staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance and should not be cleared. 14- J & T Construction, Inc. Lot 7, Blk. 5, Rivera Estates , Parcel #5-33-39-0004-0050-00007.0 The above lot located in Rivera Estates, which is presently 50% developed, is overgrown with brush approximately 3 - 4 feet high. It is.staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance and should not be cleared. 15. Braddock, G. Holmes & Ruth Lots 1 & 2, Blk. 19, Townsite of Roseland Subdivision Parcel #21-30-38-00005-0190-00001.0 The above lots located in townsite of Roseland Subdivision, which is presently 46% developed, has numerous dead pine trees left from a past fire. It is staff's opinion these lots are not creating a public nuisance and should not be cleared. 16, Bauman, Emma & Severo Galinato Lot 3, Blk. 19, Townsite of Roseland Subdivision Parcel #21-30-38-00005-0190-00003.0 The above lot located in Townsite of Roseland Subdivision, which is presently 46% developed, has numerous dead nine trees left from a past fire. It is staff's opinion this lot is not creating a public nuisance, and should not be cleared. 17• Kretschmer, Helen; Johnson, Rene; Johnson, Florena; Wise, Glover; Dick, Shirley; c/o Lambert, Richard Lot 10, Blk. 19, Townsite of Roseland Subdivision Parcel #21-30-38-00005-0190-00010.0 The above lot located in Townsite of Roseland Subdivision, which is pre- sently 46% developed, has numerous dead pine trees left from a past fire. It is staff's opinion the lot is not creating a public nuisance, and should not be cleared. 18. O'Connell, Merle Creary Lotsl & 2, Blk. 2, Townsite of Roseland Subdivision Parcel #21-30-38-00005-0020-00001.0 The above lots located in Townsite of Roseland Subdivision, which is pre- sently 46% developed, are presently overgrown with pepper trees. It is staff's opinion the lots are not creating a public nuisance, and should not be cleared. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of the attached Resolution with Exhibit A, containing those lots that have been described above as creating a public nuisance and that the Zoning Department hereby be directed to notify the owner or owners to abate the condition within fifteen days thereafter. 21 M Commissioner Fletcher expressed concern in regard to the correspondence sent by the County staff to lot owners in regard to clearing of lots. He believed the power to require someone to clear a lot is reserved to the Commission. Attorney Brandenburg stated that it is, and the letter should merely state that this matter is going to be considered. Mr. King confirmed that the letter now circulating basically just identifies that there is going to be a hearing today. Considerable discussion ensued on the Board's feelings as to the conditions which would determine the need for clearing of lots. It was generally felt that in many instances the natural growth is both attractive and desirable for the continuation of the wildlife in the area, but it was agreed there is a need for specific criteria where such growth impacts an intersection or creates a traffic hazard. Commissioner Wodtke felt that a worse problem is where lots within subdivisions are overrun with debris, old automobiles, appliances, etc. It was felt this should be sent back to staff for further work and more specific criteria, but that the Commissioner could act on the recommendations re lot clearing presented today. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Charles Regner, Joseph Fodi, and Xavier Clark, all owners of lots in Raintree Corner Subdivision, came before the Board and indicated there is only one individual in the area who is objecting to the uncleared lots. They were informed that staff is not recommending that their lots be cleared. 22 JAN 5 1983 b: tp� ��pg JAN . 5 983 Some discussion ensued regarding possible deed restrictions in the subdivision, and Planner Davis believed there are deed restrictions but the difficulty is in enforcing them and the complaintants apparently are trying to get the County Commission to enforce their deed restrictions. Catherine Bell of Floralton Beach, 707 Shore Drive, next appeared before the Board and stated she had not been aware that anyone disagreed with the conditions of her lot until she received the letter from the County staff. Mrs. Bell agreed that there are large pepper trees on her lot, but felt a lot of the problem is due to the fact that others have been dumping their debris on her lot. She further noted that she pays a maintenance fee to her property owners association and feels they should take care of this matter for her. Planner Davis stated that Mrs. Bell's situation with dumping on her lot is not uncommon, but the main problem with this particular lot is the corner visibility; you cannot see down Reef Road to the east because of the pepper trees. Commissioner Fletcher felt if there is something blocking the view of the intersection, this is a viable request for clearance of at least that portion that is creating a hazard to the intersection. The Board agreed that there is no reason to clear Mrs. Bell's lot completely, but the visibility problem must be addressed. They advised Mrs. Bell to contact her property owners association. In further discussion, it was felt the current ordinance is not specific enough to let us do the job that makes sense for the particular location, and Chairman Bird stated that he personally would not vote for the Resolution recommended by staff. 23 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- mously agreed to defer action and ask staff to prepare for a workshop session with the Board on the section of the Code dealing with the lot clearing process. ACCEPTANCE OF PACKAGE SEWER PLANT FROM HERITAGE VILLAGE Administrator Wright reviewed the following memo; r' TO: Board of County - DATE: December 13, 1982 FILE: Y - Commissioners Through: SUBJECT: Donation of 25,000 gallon Michael Wright, Administrator per day sewage treatment plant from Heritage Village to Indian River -County Utilities Department FROM: Trr ncePinto, REFERENCES: Utilities Dept. Director The Angeles Corporation, which is owned by Heritage Village, is interested in donating the above extended aeration sewerage treatment plant to Indian River County. We have several locations where this plant might be used"' in the future. One of these is Blue Cypress Dake. They have determined that the depreciated value of thy.s plant has a donation value of $16,200.00 They ha %m asked the Board of County Commissioners to pass a resolution accepting this plant with the above donation value. I believe this plant will be worth, at least this amount for future use in Indian River County._ The Administrator confirmed that Blue Cypress Lake is the location that they have in mind for this plant. He believed that Road & Bridge would be able to handle moving the package plant to this site and that any expenditure of funds to outside sources would be minimal. JAN 5 -1983so 52 14 JAN .5 1993K ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED _ by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously adopted Resolution 83-2 accepting the package sewer plant and authorized the Chairman to write a letter of thanks. 25 RESOLUTION NO. 83-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF A.25,000 GALLON PER DAY SEWAGE. TREATMENT PLANT. WHEREAS, the Angeles Corporation, which is owned by Heritage Village, has approached the County with an interest in donating a 25,000 gallon per day extended aeration sewage treatment plant to the County, and WHEREAS, Indian River County Utility Department has examined the treatment plant and has determined that the County can put the equipment to good use and that the plant may be capable of being used at the Blue Cypress Lake Recreation Area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Indian River County accepts the donation of a 25,000 gallon per day extended aeration sewage treatment plant from the Angeles Corporation, and 2. Indian River County expresses its appreciation for the thoughtful donation by this corporation in an attempt to reduce overall governmental costs. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Scurlock; and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. - Aye Commissioner A. Grover Fletcher - Aye Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons - Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.- Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 5th day of January, 1983. Attest: FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk APPROVED�S TO AND LEG SURF, By: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By - RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman . BRANDENBURG, County Attorney JAN 5 1983E JAN 5 1983 ONE-TIME INCREASE IN NACo DUES Book �3 �r4i�t 504 The Board reviewed the following memo from the Corm,ission Secretary: TO: Board of County DAA. December , Commissioners FILE: FROM: Liz Forlani SUBJECT: Letter cc11/22/82 REFERENCES: The County pays to National Association of Counties (NACo) a County Member Service Fee'based on the County's population x a Cost per Person + a Processing Fee which totals out to $457.00. This fee is for a 12 month period ending April 30,1983. The State Association of County Commissioners is requesting a one-time special service fee to NACo in the amount of 50% of their annual dues. Indian River County's share would be $228.50. They have stated that the Counties participating will be given credit for this amount in the future. The SACC has also informed us that an increase in NACo' s Member Service Fee of 15% has been voted on and approved and will take effect at renewal time - April 30, 1983. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to authorize payment of the one-time special service fee to NACo in the amount of $228.50. (Commissioner Fletcher was not in favor of paying the requested fee. Commissioner Lyons believed that the NACo is one more arm of the County to help with the federal end of our business, and he felt we need all the help we can get. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. 26 PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING ZONING CODE (DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE) The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VER011EACH PRESS -JOURNAL NOTICE OF INTENTTO CONSIDER COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 71-3, KNOWN AS THE Published Daily INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - -ZONING ORDINANCE, The Board of County Commissioners of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida Indian River County will conduct a public; hearing on January 5, 1983, at 10:30 A.M. in the Commission Chambers at. the.. County Ad - COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA ministration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero' Beach, Florida, to consider the adoption of an Before the undersi ned authorit g y personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath ordinance entitled ; �,,{, .. . says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published AN LORDINANCE. OF THE BOARD OF at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN' RIVER. COUNTY, FLORIDA: AMENOING /f ��' 711�1 KNOWN AS D ORDINACOUNTY a //,� RIVER ZON NG ORNCE NANCE,� PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS TO SECTION Il 2t PERTAINING TO THE MODIFICATIONI � A in the matter of ne_Z,2� Q festa ✓� OF THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE TO! EXCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; DRIVEWAY UNDER CERTAIWi PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter, he -she will need a� in the record of the proceedings, and for such'pur- Court, was pub- poses, he=she may need to ensure that a ver- batim record of. the proceedings Is made, fished in said newspaper in the issues of-QQJ� �a�� o� which record includes the testimony ink evidence on which the appeal is based. Dec.15, 28,1982 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 avy person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. o� �J.• 1 C�' Sworn to and snbscrib b e me s day of A.D. 19 a 04-� f,,,► r,`1 ness MaAgeo �o (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Count lorida) Community Development Director King reviewed the following memo, stating that basically this ordinance amendment is intended to alleviate the problem of driveways which extend into side yard requirements by exempting them from the definition of structure. 27 JAN 5 1983 , 5.2 PAmt 05 JAS 19; F�r0 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 21, 1982 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment: .Definition of Structure FROM..Bruce King, AICP 6� Director REFERENCES: Community Development Division It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the County Commission at their regular meeting of January 5, 1983. DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS Several months ago, an operational problem with the application of the definition of "Structure" and how it relates to driveways was identified by several local developers. Under the current definition of "Structure", semicircular driveways which extend into side yards are prohibited. Due to the smaliers�sized:.ldts••-pewmittdd,�wi:thin several zoning districts, this problem frequently arose. Therefore, the Community Development Division staff evaluated possible amendments to the current definition in order to resolve this problem. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS On November 10, 1982, the original amendment to this def.'-.nition was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for public hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a recommendation to amend this definition. However, subsequent to this recommendation, Mr. Peter Robinson, representing Treasure Coast Builders Association, identified several problems with the proposed zoning ordinance amendment. There- fore, the consideration of this amendment by the Board of County Commissioners during their regular meeting of November 17, 1982, was continued until the first meeting in December. Subsequent to this continuance, the Community Development Division staff re-evaluated the problem and drafted a revised amendment which is attached for your review. This amendment has been reviewed by Mr. Peter Robinson and other county divisions, as well as the County Attorney's office. Subsequent to Mr. Robinson's review and initial approval, a letter dated November 29, 1982, was received from Mr. Robinson which identified several concerns. On December 21, 1982, these concerns were discussed by Jim Davis, Gary Brandenburg and myself to ascertain if any modifications to the ordinance amendment were desired. It was our consensus that the attached ordinance would best serve the County's needs based upon the present organizational structure. The intent of the attached zoning ordinance amendment is to eliminate the need to obtain a variance for driveways located within the side yard requirement and which do not reduce the effective setbacks between residential structures. The proposed amendment maintains the integrity of side setbacks in order to protect the safety and welfare of adjacent properties. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Appendix A, Zoning, Section 2, Definitions, of the Indian River County Code of Ordinances. 28 Commissioner Scurlock commented that he had a number of people in the building industry come to him with a problem where they had to get a variance for this purpose, which cost them both time and money. This has been especially prevalent in The Moorings where most of the garages have a side entrance. Commissioner Fletcher had a problem with this criteria applying to new subdivisions. Chairman Bird felt if it is good for existing subdivisions, it is good for future subdivisions, and Commissioner Scurlock agreed that if it makes sense for one, it makes sense for all. Commissioner Fletcher's preference was to see the lot sizes increased to allow more than 2' in between driveways and the lot line because he felt the proposed change will provide developers an opportunity to see how tightly they can pack things together. Mr. King noted that the change does not really have a direct impact on the platting requirements, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that if a driveway is not paved, the builder can locate it wherever he wishes. Mr. King brought up the five conditions specified for exemption, and Commissioner Scurlock stated that he only disagreed with the wording in Item d - "is not used to store or park any vehicles." Chairman Bird commented that he went out in the field to see how these driveways had been done and felt it was rather attractive since it allows more green space in the front of the house; he did not see any problem aesthetically or otherwise. Commissioner Lyons questioned the statement that the driveway shall not be considered a structure if it is a minimum of 5' from the nearest side lot line at the point of intersecting the right of way, and Mr. King explained that 29 JAN 1 3 rtc r 7 -7 JAS 5 1983x PA,- f. 58 when a driveway transverses across the front property line, it can be no closer than 5' to the side lot line, but as you go back, it is allowed within 2' of the side lot line. Commissioner Fletcher felt this could be construed that the driveway would have to be constructed 2' from the side lot line and felt it should read "at least 2 feet" rather than "not less than." Chairman Bird asked if the questions raised by Peter Robinson of the Treasure Coast Builders Association have been resolved, and Mr. King noted that Mr. Robinson's basic proposal would have resulted in a total administrative process which would require someone to inspect every driveway permit to be issued in the county. Rather than increase the administrative workload to this extent, it was the consensus to amend the proposed ordinance so that a driveway permit would be issued based on meeting certain conditions. Chairman Bird asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission, stated that this Commission is very supportive of the proposed ordinance as it stands; they would like to see some of the administrative load removed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED BY Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, to adopt Ordinance 83-2 amending Ordinance 71-3 (definition of structure), SECONDED by Commis- ioner Fletcher for purposes of discussion. 30 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 83-2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 71-3; MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE TO EXCLUDE RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS UNDER CERTAIN PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1 Ordinance No. 71-3 Section 2, paragraph referenced as "Structures" is hereby amended to read: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires a permanent location on the ground or is attached to 4_ something having a permanent location on the ground. Provided, however, that paved driveways serving as the primary access to a dwelling unit shall not be considered a structure if the driveway is: a. A minimum of five (5' ) feet from the nearest side lot line at the point of intersecting the right-of-way, b. Constructed not less than two (21) feet from the side lot line, c. Constructed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of stormwater runoff to adjacent property, unless stormwater is directed to legal positive outfall, d. Constructed upon any portion of the side yard and it serves as a means of ingress and egress to a side or rear yard facing garage or carport, and is not designed to store or park any s vehicles upon that portion within the side yard. e. Constructed to extend into any county or private right-of-way.or utility easement if the builder shall have first received a right-of-way or utility permit from the Public Works Division or the Utilities Division, respectively, provided that no concrete or asphalt driveway shall be constructed in any right-of-way where the street is unpaved. -1- J A N 5 1983 503 EAUK 52 Fnir 51LI SECTION 2 INCORPORATION OF ORDINANCE IN COUNTY CODE. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 3 SEVERABILITY In the event any section, paragraph or phrase of this Ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdic- tion, such section, paragraph or phrase shall be deemed a separate provision of this Ordinance and shall not affect the validity of other parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this Ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County. Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida this 5th day of January, , 1983. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS ERS By RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 2,y =4(. day of , 1983. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Depar }eta of State received on this •2 Ir T.. day of�� 1983, H &,,,M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. LEGAL SU"I By TO BRANDENBVRG, County Attorney M Attorney Brandenburg requested that a typo be corrected in Paragraph e. so that it would read "constructed to extend into any county or private right-of-way or utility easement 'if' the builder...." Commissioner Lyons still had trouble with the statement in Paragraph d regarding not storing or parking any vehicles. He did not wish to get involved in neighborhood arguments and felt it is preferable to park vehicles in driveways rather than all over the lawn. Commissioner Lyons proposed an amendment to the Motion on the floor which would strike the word "exclusively" and also the phrase "is not designed for or used to park any vehicles, etc." in paragraph d,*which amendment was seconded by Commissioner Fletcher. Mrs. Eggert stated that the concern of the Planning & Zoning Commission was that the driveway not be built to look like anything except a driveway; they do not feel a parking pad would be a non -structure type of thing. Commissioner Wodtke noted that, in other words, if someone came in with a parking pad designed, they would have to get a variance. Commissioner Bird talked about situations where you need an area to be able to enter into a garage on an angle, and Mrs. Eggert believed there is a difference between a turn -around area and a parking pad. Commissioner Lyons and Fletcher withdrew their proposed amendment to the Motion. Commissioner Lyons then suggested leaving out the word "exclusively" as well as the words "or used to" which would eliminate the possibility of being caught in the middle on the use question. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would agree to amend his Motion to include that language. 31 J A N BOOK P��r 1983 Engineer Robert "Flip" Lloyd argued that the wording should apply to either side or rear yards as you may have to come in on a side yard to enter a rear entrance garage. After some discussion, the Board agreed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Fletcher voted in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, agreed to amend the Motion to adopt Ordinance 83-2, reword- ing Paragraph d by striking the word "exclusively" and adding and deleting other words as discussed to provide that it will "serve as a means of ingress and egress to a side or rear yard facing garage or carport and is not designed to store or park any vehicles upon that portion within the side yard." THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. 32 BID #160 - AUTO FOR HUD The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 22, 1982 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright County Administrator L.�. FROM: Carolyn Goodrich Purchasing Department Manager SUBJECT: IRC BID #160 New 1982 or 1983 4 Door Automobile REFERENCES: 1. Description and Conditions The Board approved the purchase of an autsmbbile at the September 22, 1982 meeting. Bids were received December 21, 1982 at 10:00 A.M. for IRC BID #160 New 1982 or 1983 4 Door Automobile. 20 Bid Proposals were sent out, 9 were received. 2. Alternatives and Analysis The low bidder was Sunshine Dodge, Inc., 840 S. U. S. 1, Melbourne,. F1. in the amount of $6,713.15. This vehicle meets or exceeds the specifications. Delivery time is 45 - 60 days. 3. Recommendation and Funding It is recommended that IRC BID #160 be awarded to Sunshine Dodge, Inc. Funding is budgeted in Account #108-222-564-66.42. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he wished to put a moratorium on the purchase of any new vehicle and he did not plan to vote for any more passenger type vehicles this year. Administrator Wright reported that this vehicle is for the Section.8 housing group and is not being purchased with our money, but HUD money. Commissioner -Fletcher noted that we loaned money to the Housing Authority. _Chairman Bird made the point that the bidding specifics ask for bids on either new 1982 or 83 vehicles, and he did 33 JAN 5 1983 p��r513 J A N 5 1983 0 52 fr E 514 not feel 1982 and 1983 vehicles are equal in value because of the instant depreciation of the 1982 vehicle. Purchasing Manager Goodrich stated that in this particular case all the cars are 1983s, and Administrator Wright noted that when we buy the vehicle we run it until its value is entirely exhausted in any event so he did not feel the depreciation factor is important. Commissioner Scurlock felt that the bids should identify for whom the vehicle is intended, MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to reject all bids and not purchase the vehicle. Commissioner Fletcher's reason for his Motion was that we have loaned money to the Housing Authority; he did not feel that the purchase of a vehicle is an absolute requirement and felt they should reimburse the county with this money instead. Charles Block, member of the Housing Authority, believed that this automobile is being bought with funds that are going through the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program, which is not under the Housing Authority's control; if these funds are not approved for purchase of the vehicle, the money will just go to another county. Discussion followed on the fact that the Housing Authority is an entirely separate entity, and Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would rather not reject these bids until we are sure that they should come before us. Purchasing Agent Goodrich reported that Mr. Regan, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, had said that the bids should go this route. Argument continued as to whether this should be before 34 � � r the Board or not, and'it was felt Mr. Regan should be present to clarify the matter. The Chairman asked Commissioner Fletcher if he wished to withdraw his notion, and he did not. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,.SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote tabled further discussion on the bids until Mr. Regan could be present. REVIEW OF IMPENDING BUDGETS CUTS AFFECTING MENTAL HEALTH CENTER John Ashcraft, Executive Director of the Indian River Community Mental Health Center, informed the Board in detail of the reductions they have been forced to make in their staff and services as a result of the District Mental Health Board's budget errors. Accommodating this budget error has hurt them, and the anticipated State cuts would hurt them even further. They, therefore, have asked the District Board, in light of the fact that there is such a disproportionate allocation of funds, to hold them harmless from any State cuts. Mr. Ashcraft then discussed the disparity in the funding of the other counties compared to Palm Beach County, which he believed could amount to as much as $5.00 per capita. He informed the Board that part of this disparity `is due to "earmarked" funds for Palm Beach County, which are designated via appropriations bill proviso language. Mr. Ashcraft reported that he has researched the records in Tallahassee, and it does not appear that those funds have been earmarked since 1980. An allocation to the four county area of a fair share of those funds would result in an increase to serve their patients. 35 JAN 5 1983 `r.52%6. �� RFK � fA�r J 5 198.3 In regard to the proposed psychiatric hospital - the state turned this down because it had no criteria for determining psychiatric bed need. Mr. Ashcraft informed the Board that they have filed an appeal, and as soon as the State promulgates the needed rules, they will reopen the chance to evaluate. Mr. Ashcraft believed we can demonstrate a very great psychiatric bed need in this four county area. Mr. Ashcraft continued to emphasize that the District Board continued to act according.to outdated proviso language re earmarked funds, and reported the four county's attorneys have agreed to meet with the Health Council and see what legal recourse there might be. Okeechobee County passed a Resolution asking their legislative delegation to ensure that all state funds designated for District 9 be for the entire district. Mr. Ashcraft, therefore, requested that Indian River County consider asking their legislative delegation to assist in development of a statewide formula for funds to be allocated in conjunction with need based on population. Discussion continued on language for such a resolution, and Mr. Ashcraft felt the content would be to request that all state funds designated for the District be for the use of the entire District. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to instruct the County Attorney to meet with Mr. Ashcraft to draw up an appropriate Resolution as dis- cussed. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that Palm Beach has 12 votes, and the entire year is spent fighting for funds, allocation, etc. He felt it would be much more beneficial 36 if all this energy could be expended on patient care and treatment and stated that he would like to have a Resolution suggesting disbanding the District Board entirely. Mr. Ashcraft felt the issue of disbandment of the District Boards is likely to resurface in Tallahassee, and it was his opinion such disbandment would be a substantial improvement. Commissioner Wodtke commented that the cap originally created for a budget for operation of the District Board was $200,000 and he believed that it is considerably over that figure now for Palm Beach County alone and this money could be much better used for treatment of patients. Discussion continued in regard to possible disbandment of the district boards, and Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would add to his Motion authorization for Attorney Brandenburg to attend the joint meeting of the attorneys of the countys involved and also work with Mr. Ashcraft to draw up an appropriate resolution to be brought back to the Board. Commissioner Lyons agreed to the addition. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, including the above addition. It was voted on and carried unanimously. CONTINUATION - BID #160 HUD Ed Regan, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, was present, and was asked whether it was required that the Housing Authority come to the Commission for approval on these bids. Mr. Regan explained that the control arrangement on Section 8 Rental'Assistance is between the County and HUD so that any interaction re funds has to receive Board approval. He continued that HUD has authorized a budget for an additional 64 units of rental assistance, which results in 37 J 5 1.983 x :. �E 51 7 JAN 5 1993 more responsibility and more workload, and they sent an authorization to purchase an automobile with the understanding that the Director of the Housing Authority is participating in the workload of that organization. This car would'be used by the Program Manager of the Section 8 Program, Mr. Regan and members of the staff. They have one car at present, and Mr. Regan stated that he has been using his own car. Commissioner Fletcher asked if Mr. Regan could get paid expenses for the use of his own car, and Mr. Regan stated that there is no mileage provision in the budget. He noted that if they do not draw these funds down, they cannot be used for any other purpose. Discussion continued re justification of the need for the car, and Mr. Regan reported that the case load is up to 180 and the vehicle is used for inspections of the housing units and to encourge landlords to bring the units up to the required standard so they can be in this program. They do take some handicapped to look at the apartments, and they make probably 4 trips a day with multi stops on each trip. Administrator Wright submitted that this car is a budgeted item; the Housing Authority has recommended it; it is federally funded; and Mr. Regan feels it is necessary. The Administrator agreed with Mr. Regan and recommended accepting the low bid. In further discussion, it was noted that the Board is still paying for it indirectly, and Commissioner Wodtke wished to know if the car can be used only in the Section 8 program or if it can be used by the Housing Authority. Mr. Regan stated that it can be used for general Housing Authority activities. Commissioner Wodtke felt if there is a demonstrated need and workload and the funds are available, we would be smart to accept them. 38 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to reject all bids. It was voted on and failed 1 to 4, with Commis- sioners Scurlock, Lyons, Wodtke, and Chairman Bird voting in opposition. Attorney Brandenburg noted that an affirmative Motion is needed to award the bid, ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, awarded Bid #160 for a 1983 4 -door automobile to the low bidder Sunshine Dodge in the amount of $6,713. 1. One 11) Nev 1982 or 1983 4 Door 7 850 51 �Niss Automobile 1 ea. Olds r to 4y 1 Aon a� 14, p� UNI PRICE UNIT PRICE UNR PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNI 7,504 69 7,128 00 7,420 97 6,850 00 6,713 15 7,180 19 8,070 17 P1y-1 th 'Mrctm v Chev. 92596 00 Dodge Ford Chev. Horizon Lynx Caval er °CoOmni Escort Citat 30-45 6-8 40 145 45-60 30-60 in 99.1"1 1 94.2"1 101.21' 194.2"1 199.1"1 94.2" 104.9' NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT The Board of County Commissioner recessed at 11:35 o'clock A.M. in order that the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. 39 JAN 2 FrGE5 9 5 1983 J 1' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2145 -14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32980 v BID TABULATION Q BID NO. DATE OF OPENING`'. IRC @16U cember 21 1982 t; q-0 TITLE One (1) Rev 4 Door ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNI PRICE UNI PI 1. One 11) Nev 1982 or 1983 4 Door 7 850 51 �Niss Automobile 1 ea. Olds r to 4y 1 Aon a� 14, p� UNI PRICE UNIT PRICE UNR PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNI 7,504 69 7,128 00 7,420 97 6,850 00 6,713 15 7,180 19 8,070 17 P1y-1 th 'Mrctm v Chev. 92596 00 Dodge Ford Chev. Horizon Lynx Caval er °CoOmni Escort Citat 30-45 6-8 40 145 45-60 30-60 in 99.1"1 1 94.2"1 101.21' 194.2"1 199.1"1 94.2" 104.9' NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT The Board of County Commissioner recessed at 11:35 o'clock A.M. in order that the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. 39 JAN 2 FrGE5 9 5 1983 J � JAN5 1993 ��K , The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 11:45 o'clock A.M. with the same members present. APPROVAL OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote approved out -of -County travel for any County Commissioner and appropriate members of staff to attend the 1983 Mid Year Legislative Conference of the State Association of County Commissioners to be held in Jacksonville February 9-11, 1983. Commissioner Lyons noted that he is a member of the Environmental Resources Committee and would like to attend a seminar to be held by the DER. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- mously authorized out -of -County travel for Commissioner Lyons to attend a seminar to be held by the Department of Environmental Regu- lation at the Tampa Airport January 21, 1983, regarding their 1983 legislative program as well as revisions to their ground water rules. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS A. EMS Council Chairman Bird stated that we are being asked to appoint a representative and an alternate; this is a newly established board. 40 Commissioner Lyons agreed to serve as the representative and Commissioner Fletcher as alternate. The Chairman instructed that the record show that the Board unanimously agreed that Commissioner Lyons will serve as representative to the EMS COuncil and Commissioner Fletcher as his alternate. B. Extension Overall Advisory Committee Commissioner Lyons commented that we agreed to appoint several people and so far he has been unable to find any volunteers. In further discussion, it was agreed to defer action until the next meeting after Ms. Wakefield's request can be reviewed. C. Economic Opportunities Council ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to continue incumbents Harold Winkler, Carol.Hayslip, and Barry Sesack, for another year on the Economics Opportunities Council. D. Board of Zoning Adjustments ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously reappointed incumbents Rita Thomas (District 1) and Fred Plair (District 3) to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. E. Planning & Zoning Commission ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani- mously reappointed Carolyn Eggert to the 41 JAIL 5 1983 . Z SA E. :. JAN 5 1983'° Planning & Zoning Commission for a-4 year �A✓,h✓ f�N Ur ��'� term representing District 2, with many thanks for her dedication to this Commission. Commissioner Wodtke reported that he has not had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Tippin about reappointment to the Planning & Zoning Commission and will try to get in touch with him during the lunch hour. It was agreed to defer this appointment temporarily. F. Board of Trustees of Law Library ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously reappointed Commissioner Lyons as their repre- sentative to the Board of Trustees of the Law Library. G. Board of Directors of Indian River Co. Library Assoc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously reappointed Commissioner Lyons to the Board of Directors of the Indian River County Library Association. H. North County Fire District Board of Fire Commissioners Election of a new Chairman of the North County Fire District Board will be taken up at the meeting of that Board. 42 I. North County Fire Advisory Board ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously reappointed Commissioner Fletcher as their representative to the North County Fire Advisory Board. J. Indian River County Council on Aging ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unani- mously reappointed Commissioner Lyons as their representative to the Indian River Council on Aging. K. South County Fire Advisory Committee Discussion ensued, and it was noted that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners serve on this Committee, and no Motion is necessary. Discussion continued regarding the fact that Dr. Eddie Hudson has missed several meetings and it was agreed that he should be contacted to see if he still desires to serve on this committee. L. Vero Beach Recreation Committee It was noted that Chairman Bird is the incumbent on this committee,' and Commissioner Fletcher indicated that if the Chairman had any problems continuing, he was interested in this area and would be glad to serve. Chairman Bird stated that he would like to continue with -his work on the County Parks and'Recreation Committee, but would be glad to have Commissioner Fletcher serve on the Vero Beach Recreation Committee. He felt it would be beneficial to have someone from the North County area on this committee. 43 1A �9 took FnE 523, JAN 5 1983 PA -F 52.4. . ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously appointed Commissioner Fletcher to serve on the Vero Beach Recreation Committee. M. Vero Beach Bicycle Path Committee ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke,*the Board unanimously reappointed Chairman Bird to serve on the Vero Beach Bicycle Path Committee. N. Drainage Technical Advisory Committee ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously reappointed Commissioner Scurlock to serve on the Drainage Technical Advisory Committee. O. Liaison between County & Civil Defense ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously agreed that Commissioner Wodtke would continue to serve as the County's liaison with Civil Defense. P. Local Energy Management Officer ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously reappointed S. Lee Nuzie to serve as the Local Energy Management Officer. 44 � � r Q. Regional Energy Action Committee ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously reappointed S. Lee Nuzie to serve on the Regional Energy Action Committee. R. Mental Health District Board No. 9 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to reappoint Thelma Fitzgerald to Mental Health District Board No. 9. It was noted that Pars. Fitzgerald did vote contrary to the majority vote of the Commission at one of the District meetings recently, and it was felt that possibly Mrs. Fitzgerald had not been made aware of the Board's feelings and that she.should be made aware of them in the future. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. S. Transportation Planning Committee Discussion ensued in regard to the Vice Chairman sitting as Chairman of the Transportation Planning Committee, and 'Vice Chairman Scurlock inquired if the Board wished to transfer this responsibility and let Commissioner Fletcher continue to serve as Chairman of this Committee. Former Vice Chairman Fletcher stated that he has enjoyed serving as Chairman of this committee, but felt it should be moved around among the Board members. 45 JAN 5 1983 ' �,.. 2 .5 JAN 5 1983 T. Finance Advisory Committee Commissioner Scurlock advised that he would be happy to continue to serve on the Finance Advisory Committee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously reappointed Joseph Minotty and Harold Putnam to the Finance Advisory Committee. The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 12:07 o'clock P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:40 o'clock P.M. with the same members present. COUNTY INITIATED REZONING - (HERNDON PARCEL) FELLSMERE 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: 46 Community Development Director Bruce King reviewed staff memo, as follows: 47 c 52 ma 527 NOTICE —PUBLIC NEARING Notice of hearing lo consider the following VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Proposal initiated byMle Indian River County Commission torezmteland from: C-1, "COmmerriat District" to A, Published Doily "Agricultural Distract." The subject property is located on the north side of 97th Street, west of the Fellsmere city iianits. Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida The subject property is described as: West 1/3 of Tract 1,10A and East 32' of Tract 1429A, Township 31 South, Range 37 East, Feilsmere Farmsa=ampany Subdivision, and COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA recorded in Plat -30ok 2, Page 2, Public Recordsof St. Lucie.County, Florida. Said lands Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath now lying and being In Indian River County, says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published Florida. I . at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being Anil] LSO East �/s of Tract,1463 l less East 701 and less. North 1531, Township 31 South, Range 37 East, a L� Felismere Farm's Company Subdivision, and recorded in Plat Book2,f age 2, Public records: of St. Lucie County, Florida. Said land now /� in the matter of zy_( ^e7lex7 0, /�j �!% lying and .being., in Indian River County,; Florida. A public hearing at which parties in Interest `� and citizens shall have an opportunity to be Z! heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian , River County,! Florida, in the County Commission Chambers! in the Court, was pub- of the County Administration Building, located' at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on lished in said newspaper in the issues of �`J+ �% Wednesday, January 5,1983,at 1:30 P.M. If any person decides to appeal any decision! ,LJ�. r ,r– made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such pur-i poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim; record of the proceedingr) is made, which In -1 cludes testimony and evidence upon which the. Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at appeal is based: Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore Indian RiverCounty Board of county Commissioners been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been By:-s-DougC. Scurlock Jr. entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- Dec.15, 28,1992. 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 subscribed before me this A.O. 19 �. �:• ' �dayof_J�- (Bus ness Man ge At (Clerk of the Circuit Court; In Ian Rive ount , lorida) (SEAL) •fN.. . Community Development Director Bruce King reviewed staff memo, as follows: 47 c 52 ma 527 T 2 na 598 _10: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 29, 1982 FILE: IRC-ZC-82-10,#00 the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: O Patiick Bruce King, AI COUNTY INITIATED ACTION TO REZONE TWO PARCELS TOTALING + 5.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 97th STREET, WEST OF THE FELLSMERE CITY LIMITS FROM: Janis Johns REFERENCES: Staff Planner It is requested that the data consideration by the Board of regular meeting on January 5, DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: herein presented be given formal County Commissioners at their 1983. At the public hearing of July 27, 1982, for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Board of County Commissioners voted not to establish a commercial node west of the city of Fellsmere, in the general area of 97th Street and to maintain the area as an RR -1 District (maximum 1 unit/2.5 acres). Mr. & Mrs. Dan Herndon and Frank E. Wilson own a 3.4 acre parcel and a 1.7 acreparcel respectively, which are both zoned C-1, Commercial. This zoning district does not conform'to the Land Use Map. Rezoning the parcels to A- Agricultural will allow both properties to be developed into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and -the Indian River County Zoning Ordinance. On'November 10, 1982 the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to recom- mend approval of the County initiated rezoning of the two parcels described previously in this.analysis. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Environment - The subject property is not in an environmentally sensitive area. It has a Flood Zone "A" designation, indicating "areas of 100 Year Flood: base flood factors.not determined."l Utilities: No municipal or county water or sewer facilities are available to the area, but the zoning requirements will insure a lot of suffi- cient size to accommodate individual well and septic systems. Traffic & Transportation: The Herndon parcel is located on the north side of 97th Street. Mr. Wilson's property has access to 141st Avenue, along an aban- doned railroad right-of-way. The level of traffic generated from these parcels is not anticipated to significantly impact the road- way system. Land Use: The Herndon property has a cypress fence along the 97th Street frontage. The parcel contains a residence and a barn. There is a single family residence west of this property and another single family residence at 141st.Avenue and 97th Street. The Fellsmere City Limits are approximately 400' east of the subject property. A mobile home park is located opposite this parcel on the south side of 97th Street. 1 National Flood Insurance Program Map revised Jan. 23, 1981 The Wilson property is vacant, as are the surroundi-ng parcels. This area is essentially rural in character. The proposed re- zoning would provide three major benefits: 1. It would allow Mr. Wilson to build a single family residence on his property or sell his property for residential use. 2. It would allow Mr. Herndon to establish his proposed feed store on his property. 3. It would bring both parcels into conformance with the Com- prehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing discussion, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyon -s, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-3 rezoning 5.1 acres north of 97th St., Fellsmere, from C-1 to A R 1 N 49 a y ��'/ /��q/{y JAN 5 INV i'11 5� fn,(i�� �CV JAN 5 198-3 eovk PASU S'30 ORDINANCE NO. 83-3 i WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto hold a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in,'Indian River County,.Florida, to -wit: West 1/2 of Tract 1430A and East 32' of Tract 1429A, Township 31 South, Range 37 East, Fellsmere Farms Company Subdivision, and recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 2, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. Said lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. AND ALSO East 1/2 of Tract 1463.less East 70' and less North 1531, Township 31 South, Range 37 East, Fellsmere Farms Company Subdivision, and recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 2, Public Records of St. Lucie, County, Florida. Said lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from C-1, Commercial to A, Agricultural. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 5th day of January ,1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVERR COUNTY RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 12t1day of January , 1983. COUNTY INITIATED REZONING - PINE LAKE ESTATES The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -reit: 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/iGF' in the matter in the Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues ofd _ 0/'! l !i7—C 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. NOTICE-- PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the following, Proposal initiated by the Indian River County Commission to rezone land from: A, "Agricultural District," and R-1, "Single', Family. Residential" to R-1 E, "Country Estate, District." The subject properly Is located on the south side of State Road 512, between 104th i and 106th Avenues. The subi act property is described as: The following thirty-six (36) lots which are contained in Pine Lakes Estates, unit 1, ani unrecorded plat: Lots 5, 6, 17, 18, 25, 27 and 28j in Block A; Lot 20 in Block 'B; Lots 15, 16, 17I and 18 In Block C; Lots 12,13,14,15,16,17 IS 21 and 22 in Block D; Lots 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12,' 15 and 16 in Block E; Lots 4, 5 and 6 in Block H and Lots 6 and 7 in Block F. Located in they Southwest one-quarter of the Southwest one. quarter of Section 21, Township 31 South,', Range 38 East, and the North one-half of the' Northwest one-quarter of the Northwest one-' quarter of Section 28, Township 31 South', Range 38 East. ; A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of Countyi Commissioners of Indian River County,; Florida, in the County Commission Chambers, of the County Administration Building; located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on, Wednesday, January 5, IM, 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 new to ensure that a verbatim' record of the proceedings is made, which In-' ciudes testimony and evidence upon which the: appeal Is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Doug C. Scurlock Jr. Dec. 15, 28,1982. Sworn to and subscribed beforepe this day of A.D. 19� i�. L: [ ' �.•• A�v u 'Hess M Hager) czi (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian iv un ✓ Cr 1/;') Op a`4; (SEAL) ri�lS^ CL! C?, O �� t • � y f Nrr� i n y Pir. It_t.ag reviewed staff memo: 51 JAN 5 1983 ANK 54 fta'E 531 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 27,1982 FILE: of the Board of County IRC-82-ZC-25,#46i. Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: atrick Bruce King, I FROM: Janis Johnso Staff Planner SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REZONING OF 37 LOTS IN PINE LAKE ESTATES FROM A, AGRICULTURAL TO R-lE, COUNTRY ESTATES DISTRICT REFERENCES: It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on January 5th, 1983. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On August 18, 1982, the Board of County Commissioners voted to approve the rezoning of 156 lots in Pine Lake Estates to R-lE, Country Estates. At that meeting, the Board of County Commissioners voted to initiate a rezoning of 37 lots in Pine Lake Estates; four lots presently zoned R-1, Single Family (maximum density 6.2 units/ acre) and 33 lots presently zoned A, Agricultural (maximum one unit/ 5 acres) to R-lE, Country Estates (maximum 1 unit/acre). On November 10, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanim©u.sly tecommended.. approval of the County initiated rezoning. Pine Lake Estates is an unrecorded plat which is located on the south side of Fellsmere Road (State Road 512) immediately west of 104th Avenue. The majority of the lots in the subdivision are 70' x 1301. The Land Use Designation for the area is LD -1 (maximum 3 units/acre). Pine Lake Estates comprises approximately 57 acres of land including the roads. If the rbzoning request is approved, approximately 38 lots could be created which conform to the R-lE zoning requirement. Vero Lake Estates lies immediately to the east and west of Pine . Lake Estates. Vero Lake Estates contains thousands of small lots of approximately 75' x 1301. The area to the north of the subject property on the north side of State Road 512 is unplatted. Sparse development has occurred since the platting of Vero Lake Estates, which began in April of 1956.. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Environment - The subject property is not in a flood hazard zone and does not contain any environmentally sensitive, lands. Utilities - The area is not presently served by municipal or county water and sewer services; however, the lot requirements of the R-lE, Country Estates District would allow individual septic systems and wells on each lot. Land Use - The R-lE, Country Estate Zoning District would be in compliance with the densities allowed under the LD -1, Low Density Districts of the Comprehensive Plan. The area around Pine Lake Estatescontains scattered single family homes and large tracts of undeveloped land. The internal road systems serving Pine Lake Estates are unimproved. Development of the land in single family, large lots would be in keeping with the rural character of the surrounding areas. 52 RECOMMENDATIONS; The requested rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and would allow a level of development consistant with the overall character of the surrounding area, therefore, staff recommends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Community Services Director L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, speaking as a private citizen, informed the Board that he is owner of Lots 6 and 7 in Block F of Pine Lake Estates, and he wished to be sure that it shows in the record that current property owners will be grandfathered in so they will be able to build on their 70' lots after the rezoning. Mr. King stated the rezoning would present no problem in this regard, but he believed the Health Department requires a distance of 75' between a well and a septic tank. This would not present a problem, however, if a lot owner of record wished to build one house on his two lots combined. He noted that the R-lE setbacks would apply. Commissioner Fletcher was concerned that basically we are rezoning an unplatted subdivision in which the roads are not maintained by the County, and he wished to know if we have an opportunity to warn lot owners of.the status of the roads. Attorney Brandenburg stated that if they were coming in to be platted, we could require certain things, but that is not the case and he did not believe the Board has an opportunity at this time to require that type of deed restriction. Mr. Thomas commented that he is agreeable with the road situation. Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that existing lot owners of record can obtain a building permit. 53 JAN 5 1983 K fA"E 533 L P Mr. King reported that concern also was expressed by people in Pine Lake Estates owning five acre parcels, who wished their property to remain Agricultural, but those parcels are not included in this rezoning. Discussion ensued as to the following letter from Robert Graessel complaining about a letter written to him by Mr. Trout of Mid -Florida Real Estate, Inc., which is also t made a part of the record: Mr. Donald Scurlock Board of County Commissioners County Administration Bldg. 1840 25 Street Vero Beach, FL. 32960 - UW& -f Sir: - Mei.. Robert P. J. Graessel 491 gest 33 Place Hialeah F1. 33012 As I will be unable to attend the rezoning hearing on January 5, 1983 regarding the rezoning, and changing the zoning map of Pine Lake Estates Unit 1, located on the south side of State Road 512, between 104 and 106 avenues, in Indian River County, I am in strong opposition to the change from A -Agricultural to R -1E Country Estate District. My intention in obtaining this property was not as an investment for profit, but for near future resettlement upon retirement. An affirm- ative decision would place my wife and I in an awkward position, which would have an adverse effect, on my retirement plans. I also do not appreciate the scare tactics used by the Mid -Florida Real Estate Inc. (Copy of letter enclosed) This letter, dated Oct 4, 1982, more than one month prior to the November 10,1982 hearing informed me the land had already been rezoned, and my property does not meet the requirements of the zoning change to R -IE. It would appear the January 5,1983 hearing would not be necessary. I have a very respectful view of the board of county commissioners, and hopefully they will respect my desired future plans. I appeal to you to consider what appears to be a squeeze for profit scheme with little or no regard for the feelings and future plans of honest people. Please do not grant this zoning change request. p ; R Sincerely Yours, Robert P. Graessel 54 Florida Real Estate Inc. SEBASTIAN OAKS 1331 NO. CENTRAL AVE. SEBASTIAN; FL. 32958-0867 305-589-4377 October 4, 1982 W.'& Mrs. -Robert Graessel C/o Richard M. Harris -75 N. Royal Poinciana Bvd. Miami Springs, Florida 33166 r This is to inform you that the un -recorded subdivision of Pine Lake Estates, Indian River County, Florida has been re -zoned from agriculture to residential "RIE" Country Estates. For a building permit to be issued under the "RlE" zoning a minimum of 1 acre of land is a requirement with no side line being less than 150 feet in length. It is unfortunate that your land does not meet this requirement; however, I have a suggestion that you should give serious consideration, if you wish to sell at a good price. Mid -Florida Real Estate, Inc., represents one owner whom has 161 lots in Pine Lake Estates. We have packaged those lots in one acre tracts that meet the "R1E" minimum size requirements and are advertising the tracts for sale in various Real Estate Publications. Since there are no improvements and the sand roads under this zoning will remain private and be maintained by the owner, we have priced each tract at about $2,000.00 per lot - tracts being $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 for 1 to 5 acres. Should you wish to sell your land, sign the enclosed "Listjng-Contract" and return in the enclosed envelope. This will enable us to package your land with that of others to meet the zoning requirEnteuts of ours acre +. If you do not wish to sell but would like to buy additional lots or a tract in Pine Lakes, write or call us for more information. Sincerely, as � �ro-ab Russ Trout REALTOR -Associate In further discussion it was pointed out that the statement made by Mid -Florida Real Estate in regard to the rezoning is not entirely correct. Commissioner Scurlock believed this letter verges on the fringe of fraud, and felt it is incumbent on the Commission to at least refer this to the Real Estate Commission. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he had felt as a result of this rezoning we would limit the density potential in this area, and Mr. King explained that it depends on the situation. Mr. Golien has bought a number of these lots and intends to record a plat in accordance with the R -1E zoning which would require lower density. Owners of record, however, can build on their lots. There is a good chance that density will be lowered somewhat. 55 SAN 5 19 3 BOOK 2 -m-F I I JAN 5 1993 �� parrs Mrs. Eggert commented that this is just a clean up of the area and hopefully will bring the density down quite a bit. The Chairman asked if anyone further wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 83-4 rezoning 36 lots in Pine Lakes Estates to R-lE as advertised. 56 ORDINANCE NO. 83-4 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in rder that the following described property situgted in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The following thirty-six (36) lots which are contained in Pine Lakes Estates, Unit 1, an unrecorded plat: Lots 5, 6, 17, 18, 25, 27 and 28 in Block A; Lot 20 in Block B; Lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 in Block C; Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 18, 21 and 22 in Block D; Lots 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16 in Block E; Lots 4, 5 and 6 in Block H and Lots 6 and 7 in Block F. Located in the Southwest one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 21, Township 31 South, Range 38 East, and the North one-half of the Northwest one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 38 East. Be changed from A -Agricultural District and R-1, Single Family Residential to R-lE, Country Estate District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this .5;bL day of 96"" aA-'0y , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INNDIAN RIVER.COUNTY B RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman 57 �g JAS 193 .� ,��r��7 JAN 51983 52 frac 5o�,B ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously directed the Attorney to review the Mid -Florida Real Estate correspondence to Mr. Graessel, and if*he feels some deception has been presented, to address correspondence to the Florida Real Estate Commission and inform them of this and also send a letter to Mr. Graessel indicat- ing the action taken. The Chairman asked that Mr. King correspond with Mr. Graessel clarifying his position in regard to the rezoning if he has not already done so. REZONING - 45th ST..& U.S.1 (FISCHER) 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: r The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: 59 JAN 5 1983 NOTICE—PUBLIC HEARING. Notice of hearing to consider the following proposal to rezone land from: CAA, "Restricted Commercial District" to VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL M-1, "Restricted Industrial District." The subject property presently owned by Robert W. Fisher is located on the east side of U.S.. Daily Published Dail Highway 1, south of 4Sth Street. The subject property is described as: Thatpartof the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida 26, Township 32 East East of the East Eastfight-ofuth,f-wayeof9 U.S. 1, aind being more particularly described as: Beginning at a point 737.65' South of the NE'. COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA corner of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4; thence; continue South -along the 1/4 section lind a Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath distance of 164.0'; thence run N 89 degrees S61; says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published 04" W a distance of 510-81P to the intersection of at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a curve, said curve being the East right of way Of U.S. Highway No. 1; thence run Nor- thwesterly along said curve having an interlo �� angle of 00 degrees 34' 07" and a radius If a -. L� �— 17,128.75' and_being.concave to the Northeast, an arc distance of 170.021; the��iln S �N//�—�/f f � degrees 47' 14" E a distance f-SS0.28'to said V in the matter of section line and P.O. B. Saidarcel contains p --' 2.O sues more or less. — — i 1.�1 public hearing at which partiftin Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, in the Court, was pub- Florida, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located, > �1 cY at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on1 Wednesday, January S,1983, at 1:30 p.m, �� / � )fished in Said newspaper in the issues of _�—� If any person decides to appeal any decisiom made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such! pruposes, he may need to ensure that a ver-; batim record of the proceedings Is made,1 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at which includes testimony and evidence upoupo whichInd the an Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore Indian Rivealer Count w been continuous) published in said Indian River Count Florida, each daily and has been y p Y, Y fCoutyCo ,Board of County Commissioners entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of Dec. 15, 28,1984. . . 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. � �25262 A.D. 19 Sworn to and subscribed befoW me th's on day of �. Manager fl'+C% f(Business W -wer e 4,� f1�-� ?✓��5/U,+ (Clerk of the Circuit Court, In ian Cou ty, Irl a) '� ✓ t>j (SEAL) , p� The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: 59 JAN 5 1983 JAS 5 1983 890 52 PA5 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 8, 1982 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners IRC-82-ZC-28,#465 ROBERT FISCHER'S REQUEST TO DIVI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: ZONE ± 2.0 ACRE PARCEL 000, wo,` LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. #1 SOUTH OF 45TH STREET atrick Bruce King, AIC FROM C-lA, COMMERCIAL TO M-1, — RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL FROM: Janis Johnson REFERENCES: Staff Planner It is requested that the data herein presented by given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 5, 1983. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On November 18, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved a request to rezone # 2.0 acre parcel located on the east side of U.S. #1, approximately 500 feet south of 45th Street from C-lA, Restricted Commercial to M-1, Restricted Industrial. The applicant proposes to construct a warehouse facility for wholesale distribution. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Environment: The subject property is not designated -as Environmentally Sensitive and is not within a flood prone area. The site presently - contains active groves. Land Use: The subject property is within the core of a 50 acre Commercial/Industrial Node which is located at the intersection of U.S. #1 and 45th Street. This node contains ± 32 acres which are presently developed as commercial and/or industrial uses. This ± 32 acres comprises approximately 64% of the node area. Directly north of the property is a carpet outlet store. Further _ north is a vegetable stand at the intersection of 45th Street and U.S. #1. On the north side of 45th Street is a bait shop, a convenience market, a fried chicken restaurant, and a liquor store. Opposite the subject property on the west side of U.S. #l, is the Indian River Fruit.Packing facility. North of 45th Street, on the west side of U.S. #1 is an aluminum door company. Approximately 600 feet south of - the subject property are active groves or vacant parcels. The subject property is contiguous with existing development and the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. Traffic: The proposed development of the subject property is anticipated to generate an additional 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT's). This total combined with the existing traffic of 15,000 ADT's on U.S. #1 would not represent a significant increase. The present capacity of U.S. #1 in the vicinity of the subject property is 24,000 ADT's. The increase in traffic will not significantly impact U.S.#1 capacity. Utilities: The area is not served by Municipal or County water and sewer facilities. Any proposed development would be required to utilize an individual well and septic system. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land use and the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval. Attorney Calvin Brown came before the Board representing Robert Fisher and emphasized that this property is within an industrial node as designated in the Master Plan, and the rezoning would be compatible with the surrounding area. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to adopt Ordinance 83-5 rezoning the subject property from C-lA to M-1 as requested by Robert Fisher. Commissioner Fletcher had questions re the nodal concept and wished to know if there could not be a time element within which this zoning had to be utilized. Attorney Brandenburg commented that some communities have a rule that if the rezoning is not used within a certain time, the zoning reverts back, but that has been held improper. He pointed out that when the Board designates a zoning use, they make a decision based on the best use of that land, and to go back and change that zoning, you have to show what circumstances have changed since the previous decision; there must be back-up to substantiate that the node, for instance, is developing in a way that was not anticipated. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 61 JAN 5 1983 K 52 `FAaE 1 i ORDINANCE NO. 83-5 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map, be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: That part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 26, Township 32 South, Range 39 East lying East of the East right-of-way of U.S. 1, and being more particularly described as: Beginning at a point 737.65' South of the NE corner of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4; thence continue South along the 1/4 section line a distance of 164.0' thence run N 89056'04" W a distance of 510.89' to the intersection of a curve, said curve being the East right of way of U.S. Highway No. l; thence run Northwesterly along said curve having an interior angle of 00034107" and a radius of 17,128.75' and being concave to the Northeast, an arc distance of 170.02'; thence run S 890 47'14" E a distance of 550.28' to said 1/4 section line and P.O.B. said parcel containing 2.0 acres more or less. Be changed from C-lA, Restricted Commercial to M-1, Restricted Industrial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 5th day of January , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER_COUNTY By W, RICHARD N. BIRD Chairman REZONING - 58th Ave. & SR 60 (PAUL AUSTIN) 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 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 ./'(/UT/� e in the matter of 4,5 1, J67 /7 /O � in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues ofd ��• r s_ / 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, fora 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.subscribed before me this day of A.D. 19 (SEAL) NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the following proposal to rezone land from: A, "Agricultural District" to R-213, "Multiple Family District." The subject property presently owned by John and Therese. Maguire is located on the north side of State Road 60, 1/4 mile west of 58th Avenue. The East 296.5 feet of the South 662.05 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to said Last General Plat of Indian River Farms Company Subdivision. . AND ALSO . The East 185 feet of the Southwest Quarter off the Northeast Quarter of Section S, Township 33 South,, Range 39 East, all lying and being in, Indian River County, Florida; being furtheh described as the East 185 feet of Tract 7;. Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East according to said Last General Plat of Indian River Farms Company Subdivision. Less right-of-ways and easements of record. A public hearing at which parties in interest, and citizens shall have an opportunity to bel heard, will be held by the Board of County! Commissioners of Indian River County,l, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers' of the County Administration Building, locatedt at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, January 5, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. If any person decides to appeal any decisioni made on the above matter, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for: such pur, –poses, he may need to ensure that a verbati record of the oroceedings is made, which to ciudessttedimony anovidence upon which the app nWi%based. Milian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr.. Dec. 15, 28,1982. The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: JAN 5 1983 63 INK 5 4A r JaN S 1983 sad FnF 544, TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 8, 1982 FILE: ZC-82-10-004 of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ?aZtrick Bruce King, A CP FROM: Janice John Staff Planner SUBJECT: PAUL AUSTIN REQUEST TO REZONE 9.7 ACRE PARCEL APPROXIMATELY 1,290 FEET WEST OF 58TH AVENUE ON SR 60 FROM A, AGRICULTURE TO R -2D, MULTIPLE FAMILY. REFERENCES: It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting January 5th, 1983. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On November 18, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the request to rezone approximately 9.7 acres from A, Agriculture (maximum one unit/5 acres) to R -2D, Multiple Family (maximum 6 units/acre.). The subject property is located approximately 1,200 feet west of Kings Highway on SR 60. The parcel has 185 foot frontage on SR 60 and extends northward from SR 60 approximately 1,802 feet. The applicant proposes to construct a group of duplexes and triplexes on the site. The proposed development contains 50 units with average density of 5.3 units per acre. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Environment. The subject property contains no environmentally sensitive areas. Land Use: The northern section of the subject property is adjacent to Riviera Estates, a single family subdivision with a platted density of 3.9 units per acre. The southern end of the southern subject property fronts on SR 60. The subject property is located directly west of an area which is anticipated to be included -in the SR 60/ Kings Highway commercial node. The proposed land use will provide an intermediate land use between a commercial area on the east and single family residential develop- ment to the west. Utilities. The applicant proposes to utilize individual well and septic systems. Traffic. The traffic generated by the proposed development is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the capacity of SR 60. Good planning practices prohibit connecting internal road systems in the subject property with -the existing road system in Riviera Estates. RECOMMENDATION: The land use configuration of the subject property allows ingress and egress onto SR 60 with the future road frontage. Multi -family residential development is not intrinsically incompatible with single family residential development. In addition, multi -family development will require site plan review under Section 23 of the Indian River County Zoning Ordinance. The density requirements of the requested R -2D, Multiple Family District allow a compatible level of develop- ment with adjacent properties, therefore staff recommends approval. M SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Paul Austin Rezoning Request ENVIRONMENT: Subject property is not within a flood hazard area. It is presently in groves with shrubs and other trees growing up between them. There are no environmentally sensitive areas located within the subject property. LAND USE: The adjacent property to the east on SR 60 is presently vacant and zoned A, Agriculture. Property on SR 60 on the east side of 58th Avenue is zoned C-1, Commercial. Commercial no is located at the intersection of 58th Avenue and SR 60. 58th Avenue directly :butts theRiviera Estates, facing property Estates contains ± 18.5 acres and72lots. The northern end. Riviera approximately 3.9 units per acre. The subdivision aiseabout sSo% ity is developed at this time. The property directly north of the subject property is vacant and zoned R-1, Single Family (maximum 6.2 units/acre The property on the west side of the subject property is zoned R -2B Multiple Family (maximum 8 units/acre) and is presently vacant. Approximately 413 feet west of the subject property on SR 60 is Whistle Wood Lane. This area contains six lots with single family houses. This subdivision is zoned R-1, Single Family District (maximum 6.3 units/acre).and contains a platted density of one unit/ 7 acres. It is anticipated that the ± 35 acre parcel on the northwest corner of SR 60 and Kings Highway intersection will be rezoned and developed as a part of the commercial node. The subject property and the 48 acre parcel adjacent to it which is zoned R -2B, Multiple Family will Provide an intermediate land use between the commercial uses in the Node and the single-family residential uses located to the west. The proposed multi -family development of the subject property will interfacewith the single family subdivision Riviera Estates. Anv potential negative impacts of traffic drainage or lack of visual continuity can be mitigated through site plan design. UTILITIES: The applicant has submitted a development proposal for 50 multi -family units (duplex and triplex units). The applicant proposes to use individual well and septic systems to provide utility service development. County water and sewer services to the are not presently available to this area. It is estimated that a 50 unit development of this type would have an average daily water consumption of 17,500 gallons per day. TRAFFIC: Although specific site plan design is not a factor in consideration of rezoning request,, good planning practices would prohibit ingress and egress into a multi -family project through an existing single family development; therefore, the traffic analysis is based on the assumption that the subject property will have access to SR 60 only. Ordinance No. 82-4 requires setbacks which allow the eventual development of an access road along SR 60. A 50 unit, multi -family development is anticipated to generate an additional 300average daily trips (ADT). SR 60 presently has approximately 3,200 average daily trips per day along the subject property. The proposed development would add somewhat less than 7% increase of average daily trips per day. Based on these assumptions, the volume capacity ratio would be .29 or 29% of the existing capacity would be utilized. Upon completion of the frontage road system, the traffic pattern would be carried onto Kings Highway. Kings Highway is designated as•a- secondary collector, while SR 60 is a major arterial. It is not anticipatsithat the development of the subject property at maximum density would have a significant traffic impact on SR 60. 65 JA►N 1983 iK 4 5 J A N 5 19,83 BOK 52 rhu 5J 6 Attorney Michael Caravaglia, 3111 Cardinal Drive, came before the Board representing the applicant. He stated that Planning & Zoning Commission approved the R -2D requested. The property to the west is R -2B and to the east is Agricultural, but under the Land Use Plan, it has been designated part of the commercial node. He believed that one of the owners of the property to the east has indicated intentions of developing on a commercial basis and he, therefore, felt the best use of this property is R -2D. Community Development Director Bruce King wished it made clear that the Land Use Plan does not reflect a commercial node for the intersection of Kings Highway and SR 60 at this time, although there is the option that location may develop into a commercial node in the long term. Mr. King further noted that during site plan approval, which is required for multi -family development, staff will be looking for establishment of a non -access easement on the part that abuts Rivera Estate Subdivision. Commissioner Lyons questioned whether this narrow piece of property can be developed to provide access only to Highway 60, and Mr. King confirmed that it could be developed under multi -family and provide access. Commissioner Pletcher discussed the traffic generated by such a development and expressed concern about the possibility of using up all the capacity of SR 60 before.50% of the land is developed. He believed our Land Use Plan allows development in excess of the road's capabilities. Mr. King pointed out that these figures must relate to the entire road network and you must consider origin and goal of trips. Commissioner Pletcher wished to plan based on the worst case and felt we still do not have all the data we need. Administrator Wright noted that Mr. King will be working on this during the year with a computer, and L-A s Commissioner Lyons felt that, in the end, it is all based on a lot of assumptions. The Chirman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. John Thompson informed the Board that he and his family own the 35 acres adjacent on the east which is designated Agricultural. Apparently, there is some question as to whether there is a commercial node at that intersection or not, but they would not have any objection to Mr. Austin's proposal regardless. Hopefully their property eventually will be commercial, and a buffer would be needed. Mr. Johnson believed there is a shortage of multi -family units for rent and wished to speak in favor of the rezoning. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to adopt Ordinance 83-6 rezoning the Austin parcel as advertised and as recommended by staff. Commissioner Wodtke commented that a question was raised at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting re drainage problems in this subdivision, and Commissioner Fletcher noted `that the minutes of that meeting indicate that Engineer Robert Lloyd said he had received tentative approval of this plat from the Health Department. Mr. Lloyd explained that he took the conceptual plan to the Health Department to determine whether it would be acceptable to the Health Department if they built as proposed. He did not want to go through the entire rezoning 67 JAN 5 3 WK ME � 7 I ky sack 52. fr,.,r 5418 process and then find out that it wasn't possible -to build in that manner. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to adopt Ordinance 83-6. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposition. M. ORDINANCE NO. 83-6 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that the Zoning Ordinange of Indian River County, Florida; and the accompanying Zoning Map be amended as follows: 1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The East 296.5 feet of the South 662.05 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East; being further described as the East 296.5 feet of Tract 2, Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to said Last General Plat of Indian River Farms Company Subdivison. AND ALSO The East 185 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, all lying and being in Indian River County, Florida; being further described as the East 185 feet of Tract 7, Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to said Last General Plat of Indian River Farms Company Subdivision. Less right-of-ways and easements of record. Be changed from A, Agricultural to R -2D, Multiple Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 5th day—of January , 1983. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RICHARD N. BIRD• Chairman 69 )K- � f. 510 JAIL 51983 ink 52 f1GI 550 PROCLAMATION RE KIC'N PUT WEEK Gene Waddell, President of the Independent Insurance Agents of Indian River County, came before the Board in regard to reviving an anti -litter and general clean-up campaign as explained in the following letter: Independent Insurance Agent's of Indian River County P.O. Box 785 ,.gid°$ Vero Beach, Florida 32960✓ "" December 13, 1982 Mr. Don Scurlock, -Chairman Indian River County Commission Administration Building 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Don: DISTP(MUTION LIST . C .M.Missioners -De—Z Administrator - Attcrney Personnel Public Works Community Dev. Utilities Finance Other The Independent Insurance Agents are interested in spearheading an anti- litter and general clean-up campaign which we would envision to be an ongoing project rather than a one time event. You will find enclosed a reduced picture of a logo and street sign which could be easily enlarged to the standard 12" X 18" informational signs and posted in county parks to promote this awareness. We would also produce automobile window and storefront glass stickers for businesses and individuals to show their participation in the program. These would be printed green on a white background. We have also arranged through the local banking institutions to distribute an explanation and a picture of the logo in 27,000 bank statements beginning the middle of January. Also being represented on our committee to be sure this is an ongoing campaign is the Indian River County School Board and the Pelican Audubon Society, both showing a great deal of interest and through the children in the school system I think compound the effectiveness. It appears that as our community grows there is more and more disregard — for the haphazard disposing of small pieces of paper and trash and it is our hope through this campaign that just a general awareness would alle- viate the workload on your public works department and, at the same time, ridding ourselves of these distractions to the natural beauty we enjoy. We are, therefore, asking for you to designate by resolution the week of January 10th as "Big I Kic'n Put Week". I am also enclosing a sample of a letter which will go to a large number of groups such as condo- minium associations, scout troops, school groups, restaurants, civic clubs and any.other organized group we can think of to ask for their participa- tion sometime during this week in a special clean-up project. We obviously 70 M M Mr. Don Scurlock, Chairman Indian River County Commission December 13, 1982 Page Two also are interested in the publicity and will be dealing with all - the media to inform the general public. If any of your Board Mem- bers have any additional input which you think might be helpful to this campaign, please get in touch with me. We appreciate your interest and look forward.to your granting our request. Very truly yours, Gene Waddell President GW/blh Enc. P.S. We would appreciate being able to attend your next meeting to discuss this campaign and answer any questions you might have. Please advise me as to the date that we may be sched- uled on your Agenda. ABN. Sponsored by INDEPENDENT '7 INSURANCE AGENTS of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY %1 AN 5 1983 .1. JAN 5 4983 wK 52 fruE552 Mr. Waddell informed the Board that his group would like to put up the signs proposed at their expense on the major arteries coming into town. He noted that the City already has agreed to put these signs in their parks and on the dumpsters, etc; and will make the signs for them. They also have the cooperation of the School Board. As far as the County is concerned, Mr. Waddell believed it would only involve roadway signs and probably no more than half a dozen or so. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to auth- orize Publc Works Director Davis to work with the group i4r. Waddell represents to assist in any way we can in determining locations for the proposed signs, the total cost of which are to be born by the Inde- pendent Insurance Agents, and also to adopt the proposed Proclamation. Administrator Wright agreed that this is an extremely good project, but noted that the proposed sign also advertises the insurance group and these signs are going on the right-of-way, which he felt could present problems and set a precedent. Discussion ensued on the fact that the Board did not feel the primary intent is advertising or that we are encouraging advertising. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Chairman Bird read the following Proclamation aloud and presented it to Mr. Waddell. 72 PROCLAMATION PROCLAMATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DECLARING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 10, 1983 AS KIC AND PUT WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. WHEREAS, nothing detracts so noticeably from the natural beauty and carefully planned development of a community as "litter" --that polite little word which describes an ugly and careless habit so common in today's "civilization"; and WHEREAS, the growing communities within IndianR,iver County are not immune from this proliferating problem of openly discarded trash, garbage, and miscellaneous debris; and WHEREAS, with the support of the School Board and the Pelican Audubon Society, the local Independent Insurance Agents of Indian River County are leading the way in reviving the once popular "KIC AND PUT" anti -litter program, in which individuals and civic groups of all persuasions are asked to organize community awareness and clean-up projects through their friends and memberships; and WHEREAS, all participants are asked to help make RIC AND PUT an ongoing way of life in the community rather than simply a one-time clean-up event; and WHEREAS, if everyone joins in this worthwhile endeavor, all will enjoy the lasting and mutual benefits of a cleaner, more healthful community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the County wholeheartedly supports the RIC AND PUT program; and in honor of the "Big I" and other concerned participants, be it further proclaimed that the week of January 10th through the 16th, 1983, be observed as KIC (keep It Clean) AND PUT (Pick Up Trash) Week in Indian River County. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IND,IIAAN ,RRIIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Chairman Attest: - �1 R 1 FREDA WRIGHT'ICT-1, J a99j, APPROV S TO FORM ANDFF ENCY : By CHRIOP R J. PAULL, Assistant County Attorney r JAN 5 1933 BaoK BID #150 - OSLO DAYBEACONS The Board reviewed the following staff memo: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 20, 1982 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Award of Indian River County BID #150 - Oslo Daybeacons FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. , REFERENCES: Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received November 16, 1982, for Public Works Project # 8218 - Construction of Oslo Daybeacons. The Bid Advertisement was publically advertised and individually sent to seven (7) marine contractors. Only one bid was received, the bidder being Florida Marine Contractors in the amount of $7,800. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS It is the Public Works Department's opinion that the reason only one bidder responded is that Florida Marine Contractors is probably the only local contractor that has the ability to punch through the rock in the area. For this reason, it is anticipated that rebidding would not be productive. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that Florida Marine Contractors be awarded the low bid for Project 8218 - Oslo Daybeacons. Funding to be from the Florida Boating Improvement fund in the amount of $7,800. There are ample funds for this work. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to award Bid #150 for construction of the Oslo Day - beacons to Florida Marine Contractors in the amount of $7,800 as recommended; funding to be from the Florida Boating Improvement fund. 74 Chairman Bird felt if we are going to spend the money to make those improvements, we should make more of an effort to make people aware that there is a boat ramp there for public use. Commissioner Wodtke believed we can notify some Property Owner Associations in the area. He noted there is a small sign on U.S.1. In further discussion, Community Services Director Thomas reported that we are in the process of working on signs for this area and others. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (Continued) E. Planning & Zoning Commission ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- mously reappointed John Tippin to the Planning & Zoning Commission representing District 4. 75 JAN 5 1983 wK 52 fna 553 OF MUNI —1W;110WA;aS'0"NjEqS 2145 -14th P.venue Vero Beach, Florica 32860 v > o� p• BID TABULATION �= J�, o� •� ,, I810 NO. DATE OF OPENING X150 �' ti '�• Q v �Qo IRC November 15 1982' �„ V v OD TITLE Oslo Daybeacons ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UPtlT PRICE UNIT P?IC. UkIT 1. Oslo Da beacons 12 ea, 6,F8 0 0o COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (Continued) E. Planning & Zoning Commission ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unani- mously reappointed John Tippin to the Planning & Zoning Commission representing District 4. 75 JAN 5 1983 wK 52 fna 553 BEACH ACQUISITION PROJECT Chairman Bird reported that the sub -committee appointed to study beach acquisition had several unanswered questions about the State's priority list which could not be resolved over the phone, and therefore, several County officials traveled to Tallahassee to meet with members of the Department of Natural Resources staff. It became apparent we would not be on the initial list that the Governor and Cabinet will scrutinize on January 11th, but we were assured, in light of the fact that the bond referendum did pass, that if we submitted the additional information needed in a timely manner, it would culminate in our being included on a priority list in March. Staff is working on the additional input that the Department of Natural Resources requires, and the next action that needs to be taken by the County Commission is to determine a percentage we will be willing to pledge to participate. Staff will come back with that recommendation at the next meeting. Chairman Bird felt that getting in the game a little late gave us an opportunity to look at what is being prioritized and the percentages pledged. Commissioner Scurlock raised the question of who would hold title to the property - the County or the State. He did not want to contribute to the purchase of this property and not be able to have control over it. The Administrator and Community Services Director believed that it was very likely that the State would hold title, and Mr. Thomas believed that the County could work out a lease or management agreement for a long period of time, which, in effect, gives the County control of the park. We have this arrangement on Wabasso Beach. Commissioner Fletcher felt the people authorized the Commission to purchase property in their name, not the State's. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the City ran into problems at Memorial Island Park where the State rules got so strict, they couldn't even sell a tennis ball, and he did not want to look into the possibility of taking 5 million dollars and conveying it to the state and having them telling us what we may or may not do with this land. Administrator Wright noted that we are looking at two parcels which present very different possibilities. He asked that the Board members keep an open mind and pursue this as far as possible. Chairman Bird stated that we definitely will have these answers before we make any commitment. He emphasized that the sub -committee is not limited to working within the parameters of the Save Our Coast Program; they will be looking at everything from walkways to larger tracts and reviewing every undeveloped grain of sand from Sebastian Inlet to the South County line. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know whether it is the intent to issue the bonds immediately and invest the funds or sit back until we have everything identified and priorities set. Administrator Wright recommended we take this to the Finance Advisory Committee. He noted that even if we participate in the Save Our Coast Program, there still will be money left over. He felt we should get this money working for us as soon as possible. Community'Services Director Thomas concurred that it is important to move as quickly as possible to get this money working for us. REQUEST FROM CITY FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR MAC WILLIAM PARK BOAT DOCKS The Board reviewed staff recommendation as follows: JAN 5.1993 777 P� E 5S #Box 52 FAtiF 51-58 1 0: The Honorable Members of the DATE: December 27, 1982 FILE: v Board of County Commissioners Through: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Request from City of Vero Beach for Additional Funding - MacWilliam Park Boat Docks FROM: Jim Daviseirector REFERENCES: Letter: Clifford J. Suthard, P.E., Public WoDirector of Engineering to Mr. r Michael Wright dated Dec. 23, 1982 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Board of County Commissioners on 12-16-82 approved the allocation of $12,000 to the City of Vero Beach from the DNR Florida Boating Improvement Program for the reconstruction/replacement of 6 boat docks. As explained in the above referenced letter, the City has received bids, with the low bid amounting to $30,000 ($6,000 over the original estimate). On 12-21-82, the City Council approved awarding the $30,000 low bid to B.K. Marine Construction Inc. of Lighthouse Point, F1., and directed the City Director of Engineering to request the additional $6,000 from the County Commission's Florida Boating Improvement Fund." - 11TERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Florida Boating Improvement Fund has a current balance of $53,989. The other Projects that are currently being funded from this fund are summarized below: Balance as of 10-6-82 $53,989. Blue Cypress Lake Docks $ 3,900. Oslo Daybeacons $ 8,900. Barman Park Improvements $ 3,600. Subtotal $37,589. Previous Board of County Commission Allocation for MacWilliam Docks 12,000. Balance $2S,589. Future Projects to Consider Round Island Park - Concrete Ramp and Dock $25,000. Barman Park Phase II 10,000. Wabasso Causeway Restroom 20,000. Subtotal '$55,000. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve an additional $3,000 for Improvements to MacWilliam Park, thereby increasing the Florida Boating Improvement Fund allocation from $12,000 to $15,000. Public Works Director Davis noted that we addressed this in the past and allocated $12,000. The bids came in a little higher because of the prestressed piles. He believed both the City and the County will get an excellent facility and it will be a tremendous benefit to the public. Discussion ensued on splitting the $6,000 difference with the City. ON MOTION.by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved an additional $3,000 for improvements to MacWilliam Park, thereby increasing our allocation to $15,000 as recommended by staff. PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 4TH COURTROOM The Board reviewed staff memo as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: November 29, 1982 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Michael Wright, County Administ t ,, FROM: James W. Davis, PE. P. Public Works Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT: Preliminary Architectural Program for Construction of a Fourth Courtroom Facility as Prepared by John Calmes, Architect REFERENCES: John Calmes to Jim Davis dated September 30, 1982 John Calmes, local Architect, has submitted a preliminary draft of the Architectural program narrative for the construction of a Fourth Courtroom facility to be located on the second floor of the existing Courthouse Annex Building. Mr. Calmes' submittal is in conformance with the requirements of the Architectural Services Contract between John Calmes and Indian River County dated July 7, 1982, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on July 7, 1982. 79 JAN 5 1983 5 9 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The County staff has forwarded a copy of the preliminary program to the various Circuit and County Judges, those individuals active in the local judicial process, and the County's Criminal Justice Consultants, thereby requesting any technical comments that may be appropriate along with any priority that may be assigned to the program elements. Comments have been received by most individuals contacted. Most comments pertain to minor items with the -exception of the following: 1) Additional off-street parking in the area should be considered as mentioned briefly at the end of the program. 2) It does not appear that a Deposition Room is necessary and the proposed Witness Room/ Deposition Room can be designed as primarily a Witness Room. 3) The proposed Holding cell could be a low priority and the existing holding cell in the Courthouse could be used. 4) It has been a concensus that the existing walkway between the Courthouse and the Annex be covered to some extent. Various alternatives should be considered. The general opinion is that the Architect's preliminary program appears adequate after consideration of the comments presented by the judicial persons and other individuals contacted. The Architect has estimated that cost for the total project to be $325,000. This cost does not include additional parking. At this time, the Architect is requesting the County to approve the preliminary architectural program and accept the $325,000 budget. RECOMMMATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that 1) the Preliminary Architectural Program and preliminary Project budget be approved subject to consideration of the attached comments by the Judges, other local persons involved in the judicial process, and the County's Correctional and Judicial system consultants. 2) the Architect be authorized to begin Schematic Design of the Fourth Courtroom. 3) Funding for architectural services be authorized from Account No. 301- 131-519-66.51 (Courthouse Construction unencumbered balance $50,000) in the amount of not -to -exceed $6000 for the Schematic Design Phase. Board members indicated that they felt Mr. Calmes has done an excellent job in his analysis, but expressed concern about a budget of $325,000. Architect John Calmes informed the Board that he had tried to be very conservative in his "guesstimate" budget, which includes $186,000 for construction of the 4th Courtroom; $52,000 for construction of a cover for the walkway; $12,000 for recording and amplification equipment; and $75,000 for furnishings. He noted that these figures were based on middle/high quality furnishings, and the $186,000 for renovation for the 4th courtroom was estimated on the basis of $100+ per foot. M Mr. Calmes continued that I they are anticipating redoing the interior electric, and adding a new air conditioning system for that area, plus some additional plumbing; they are, in effect, starting with a shell and will have to do some demolition work. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the importance of covering the walkway just to afford protection from the elements. Mr. Calmes reported that everyone he had interviewed had agreed that covering the walkway would be a tremendous asset in achieving maximum utilization of the facility. This would not only facilitate access for the handicapped, but would serve to make the two structures into one complex, providing more waiting room area, restrooms, deposition rooms, etc. It was generally felt we must decide what the trade-off benefits are to justify the expenditure involved in covering the walkway. The Chairman then proceeded to review Mr. Calmes presentation page by page. Question was raised on the following items: Page 4 - the need for a telephone for the Judge and also an alarm button in the Courtroom. It was noted there was a disparity of opinion on this. Page 5 - Whether the furniture listed was included in the estimated price. It was explained that the furniture that is itemized is included in that price, but the built-ins are considered as being part of the construction budget. Page 6 - Whether we have the overall space needed to separate the various functions. Mr. Calmes stated the primary dimension is the width of the courtroom as opposed to the depth, and he believed there is sufficient space overall. Page 7 - the need for storage area. It was explained that the evidence storage is intended for temporary storage of documents, exhibits, etc., while court is in recess. 81 tH( FA'E I I JAN 5 1983 JAN 5 1983 BOOK 52i pa�,F 562 . Page 8 - the compatibility of the recording equipment and also the sizing of the sound system as related to the room area. Page 11 (a) - the Commissioner's responsibility to provide items such as blackboards, projectors, etc. Mr. Calmes stated that they contemplate providing in the contract the items listed. If such things as a projector or TV monitor are required as part of the evidence, the attorney involved would provide that equipment and we would provide the electrical facilities, tables, etc. (b) - the air conditioning system contemplated. It was explained that there presently are several separate air conditioning systems in the Annex, and a completely new air conditioning system will be needed to service the fourth courtroom primarily because the prior function in this area was an office area. Page 15 - the need for a window in the Jury Room. Mr. Calmes did not anticipate closing up any of the existing windows and felt there would be a logical location for a Jury Room with a window. Page 16 - air conditioning for the Jury Room. Mr. Calmes did not believe there will have to be special air condi- tioning for the Jury Room, but did not know if controls would be located in that room. Page 17 (a) - the preference for having some type of blind or drape for window light control rather than sealing off any windows. (b) - the need to be specific about the quality of interior decorating items - carpet, chairs, wall coverings. Page 18 - Possible consideration of the covered walkway as an optional item. Discussion next ensued as to what money was contem- plated for the proposed renovation. Finance Director Barton informed the Board that there is nothing allocated in the 82 � � r budget; this was one of the items pulled out at the last minute. Enough money was allowed to do the preliminary work, but it was thought this project might be put on hold. Public Works Director Davis noted that the next step is the schematic design phase, which is estimated at a cost of $6,000. Mr. Calmes explained the three phases 1) schematic design stage, which will provide a little more realistic idea of cost. 2) design development, which goes more into detail as to electrical, plumbing, etc., and even further detail of cost analysis, and 3) the construction document stage, which includes working drawings, invitation to bidders, etc., Chairman Bird asked if we have budgeted funds to go to final construction drawings or only a portion of the way, and the Finance Director stated that we have.only budgeted to go a portion of the way. Commissioner Scurlock had a question re the proposed cost of $325,000 if this isn't going to be a permanent facility. He noted we can rent a lot of space for that amount of money. Commissioner Lyons reported that the Jail Committee is going to get a recommendation from their architect consultant, Frizzell, shortly. His guess was that only part of the judicial system would be in that complex, but he stated he will'go over their recommendation with the Administrator and report back. Commissioner Lyons noted that we have a big investment in the present Courthouse and did not believe we are going to abandon it in the next few years. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously 83 JAN 5 1983 WK 52 w - 'M3 JAS! 5 1983 WK adopted the staff recommendation, which is basically to authorize an amount not to exceed $6,000 from Account #301-131-519-66.51 for Courthouse construction to take us through the schematic design stage. REQUEST FROM PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR ASSISTANCE The Board reviewed the following letter from Public Defender Elton Schwarz: ,L t DISTRIBUTION LIST Commissioners ✓ Administrator —�— • e 3 P • Attorney DIRECT LI S TO MAIN OFFICE: • �`s...�'`130 ) 287-2966 (STUART) Personnel ( 305 ) 4 "rad ' ; ORT PIERCE) OFFICE OF Public WorK101) 562•1515 (NERD BEACH) 13KEECHOBEE) ELTON H. SCHWARZ Community Dev. PUBLIC DEFENDER Utilities REPLY Tort NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLOii-nancei December 17, 1982 Other LI The Honorable C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge Chief Judge 19th Judicial Circuit Martin County Courthouse Stuart, Florida 33494 Dear ---Judge Trowbridge: Because of State mandated cutbacks and other economic conditions, I regret that I will be reducing the size of my staff from sixteen full time Assistant Public Defenders to nine full time Assistant Public Defenders as of January 1,(1982: This reduction in staff leaves me no alternative other than to refuse acceptance of misdemeanor andjuvenile cases in Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River Counties after January 1. The following is a breakdown by county concerning the impact of this reduction: 1. Okeechobee County: Shirley M. Brennan, my Assistant Public Defender who has been in Okeechobee County for quite -some time will be going on maternity leave for approximately three months and the existing caseload can hopefully be handled by my other assistant as- signed to Okeechobee County. Upon Ms. Brennan returning from mater- nity leave, I will be in a better position to assertaiij our fiscal Position for the balance of the year. 0 2. Martin County All misdemeanor and juvenile cases are cur- rently being handled by Janine Gedmin and Ann M. Goade. Both of these individuals are being placed on indefinite leave without pay as of January 1, 1983. The existing felony caseload is such as to preclude the misdemeanor and juvenile cases from being handled by the two re- maining assistants assigned to this office. Current estimates predi- 84 cated upon workload for the first six months of this calender year indicate an average of sixty misdemeanor and juvenile cases per month, or thirty cases per attorney. 3. St. Lucie County: Willye L. Thomas, my Assistant Public Defender currently handling juvenile cases will be leaving by the end of the month by virtue of her certification eligibility as an intern having expired prior to her obtaining membership in the Florida Bar. This position cannot be filled. Sammy Berry, Jr. and Abraham J. Gale, my assistants presently handling the misdemeanor' caseload in St. Lucie County will be placed on indefinite leave without pay as of January 1st. It is estimated that we will have approximately seventy misdemeanor cases per month and approximately ten juvenile cases per month during the first six months of 1983. I anticipate that the four felony attorneys assigned to St. Lucie County will be able to absorb the additional caseload in juvenile court but will be unable to handle misdemeanor assignments in county court. 4. Indian River County: Bruce J. Smith, my assistant currently handling all misdemeanor and juvenile cases in Indian River County, will be placed on indefinite leave without pay as of January 1st. The estimated ten juvenile cases per month will be handled by my two felony assistants assigned to Indian River County. However, we will not be able to handle the estimated eighty misdemeanor cases per month in Indian River County. In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Escambia County vs. Behr, FLA', 384 So. 2nd 147, I am requesting, by copy of this letter, all county judges in Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River Counties to reassign all pending misdemeanor cases and all cases arising after January 1, 1983 to special assistant public defenders in accordance with Section 27.53(2) Florida Statutes. it is estimated that the average misdemeanor case requires between five and ten hours of attorney time outside of court. This would indicate that one attorney could handle approximately thirty cases per month in a time frame of approximately 160 hours. At the rate of $35 per hour set by the court, this would amount to $5,600 per month per at- torney or a total of $28,000 per month for the five attorneys antici- pated to be needed to handle this workload. The five Assistant Public Defenders being placed on indefinite leave without pay.have indicated a willingness to contract with the respective counties to accept these misdemeanor cases at a contractual rate of $1,750 per attorney, per month, or a total of $8,750 per month for all five attorneys. Assuming that the current situation continues until the end of our fiscal year on June 30th, this would amount to a total of $52,500 needed to be expended by the three counties currently involved. It would amount to $10,500 for Indian River County, and $21,000 each for Martin and St. Lucie Counties. Since we still have over $68,000 appropriated for re- imbursement to the counties for payment of compensation to private at- torneys in conflict cases, the overall impact should be virtually nil. Under such a contractual arrangement, the attorneys would be receiving a fee.comm`enserate'with their present compensation in- cluding matching funds for health insurance and social security. We will also be able to continue providing support services such as office space and secretarial services without any additional costs. I sincerely hope that the Boards of County Commissioners involved as well as the various judgesaffected agree to cooperate so that a reasonable solution can -be achieved with minimal impact on the tax- payers. f' Respectfull yours, - Elto� H. Schwarz Public Defender 85- ,., i JAN 5 1983 F�,rF Administrator Wright reluctantly recommended that we go with the Public Defender's proposal. He believed there are about 80 cases a month where we have to foot the bill and anticipated that it would be considerably more expensive if we followed the other route and let the Judge appoint the attorneys to defend the indigent. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he had no problem with addressing this at budget time; he did, however, have a great problem with the State taking this action in the middle of the year and would just as soon let the Judge tell the taxpayers they are going to have to pay for this. Commissioner Fletcher wished to know the legal defini- tion of an indigent. Assistant Public Defender James Long reported that it is based on income and number of dependents - a single person who makes less than $100 a week is considered indigent. If you are married with one dependent and make over $120 per week, you are not considered indigent. Assets are also taken into consideration, i.e., whether the person owns a house, a car, has a bank account, etc. Commissioner Fletcher asked if most of the indigents are transient or resident, and Mr. Long believed most are residents. Commissioner Lyons noted that while there is a great deal of wealth in this county, a large percentage of our population is at or below poverty level. Commissioner Scurlock had two questions regarding the proposed contract, the first relating to who is handling the liability insurance coverage, and the second in regard to whether Judge Stikelether will continue to indicate the Public Defender's Office will handle these cases or possibly follow his other option. Attorney Brandenburg reported that Mr. Smith has indicated that the current malpractice insurance they have C% will continue in effect through the term of the contract, and he would recommend that if the Commission enters into the contract that a copy of the contract be sent to the insurer with the specific request that they send the Board a letter certifying that the policy in effect will continue through the term of the contract. With respect to the second item, he has talked with Judge Stikelether, and although the Judge is of the opinion that it is somewhat of a circuitous way to reach a result, he agrees that if individual members of the Bar were appointed, it would cost the County more in the long run and indicated that he will continue appointing the Public Defender's office. Administrator Wright submitted that we have a 30 day severance clause; that this is the least expensive way out; and recommended that we go ahead with this proposal and then get together with other County officials at the SACC meeting to see what can be done about this problem. MOTION was made by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to accept the recommendation of the Administrator and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract proposed by the Public Defender's Office, contingent on receiving a letter from the insurance company certifying the malpractice insurance coverage and also contingent upon having a termination provision in the contract. Commissioner Wodtke continued to discuss the lack of money in the budget for this purpose; he believed what will happen is that we will have to do without something we need in order to do this. Commissioner Scurlock discussed going along with this on a 30 day basis and adopting a Resolution to be conveyed to the appropriate people identifying the situation and our 87 JAN 1983 JAN 5 1983 5P8 reluctance to go this route, which takes from the local level to replace money lost from the State. Commissioner Fletcher felt whenever you take money from the State, you must realize it may be taken away when you least expect it, but he did believe that one of the prime purposes of government is to maintain a judicial system. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition. 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. 83792 - 84070 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 4:25 o'clock P.M. Attest: f Clerk Chairman