HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/25/1983Wednesday, May 25, 1983
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Wednesday, May 25, 1983, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present
were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice
Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Patrick B. Lyons; and William
C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County
- Administrator; 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 and led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
The Chairman asked for any additions to the Agenda.
There were none.
MENTAL HEALTH BOARD DISTRICT NO. 9 - RESIGNATION AND
APPOINTMENTS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani-
mously.accepted the resignation of Thelma
FitzGerald from Mental Health Board District
No. 9 and directed that she be sent a letter
of thanks for her services.
1
MAY 2 5 1983 aux Fw r 7
MAY 2 5 1983 iaoK 5 �'
Said letter of resignation is made a part of the
Minutes, as follows:
Board -'6f- Commissioners
Administration Building
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: District IX Mental Health Board
Gentlemen;
I first want to take this opportunity to thank the Board for the opportunity
to serve this community on the District Board as a voluntary member. I am
sure that my 17 years dealing every workday with Mental Health problems made
me a most valuable member of the Board as well as one of the most knowledgeable
volunteers.
I wish also to take this opportunity to set the record straight as to my
voting on various issues, including those which were endorsed by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, and somehow, by someon , was not
accurately made known to the Commissioners.
1. On the Certificate of Need for a Psychiatric Hospital for this area: -
a. At the meeting attended by Commissioner Scurlock; I was prepared
to vote for the certificate of need and to offer a motion to
that effect. However, it was brought to the attention of the
Board Members at that very meeting, that "it was not the policy
of the District IX Board to endorse the certificate." I assume
this was in all fairness to other facilities who also were re-
questing the Board's endorsement.
I therefore offered the Motion "that the Board endorse the
concept and the need for the Psychiatric Hospital for this
area," and that motion was approved by all members present.
2. On the Board Plan and the allocation of funds based on population: -
a. At every meeting, as the minutes will reflect, I voted for the
plan to address the needs and to use the population formula for
the allocation of funds. And I voted thusly at the meeting
attended by William Wodtke and some of the membevs of'the iueal
Mental Health Board.
b. At the April 27th meeting, with the majority of the members in
attendance ( if not all of the members ), I observed that the
lone member objecting to the plan would have be -,n myself, as the
representative of Indian River County. As it was, the vote was
100% for the plan as amended and offered to the full board on
that date. After hearing a conversation between John Ashcraft and
one of the Board Members or Staff wherein he stated "this is a
darn good plan, now if the Board will stick to it.", I decided
to vote for the plan and not remain the lone disenting vote on
the Board. Certainly if the Provider thought it was good then
it must have been. Since then I believe Mr. Ashcraft has
-changed his mind.
2
� ® r
DISTRIBUTION {:IST
THELMA FITZGERALD
Commissioners
6570- 114th LANE
Administrator
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
Attorney
32958
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev. __—
utiiiti%y 5, 198.3 --
Finance
Other
Re: District IX Mental Health Board
Gentlemen;
I first want to take this opportunity to thank the Board for the opportunity
to serve this community on the District Board as a voluntary member. I am
sure that my 17 years dealing every workday with Mental Health problems made
me a most valuable member of the Board as well as one of the most knowledgeable
volunteers.
I wish also to take this opportunity to set the record straight as to my
voting on various issues, including those which were endorsed by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, and somehow, by someon , was not
accurately made known to the Commissioners.
1. On the Certificate of Need for a Psychiatric Hospital for this area: -
a. At the meeting attended by Commissioner Scurlock; I was prepared
to vote for the certificate of need and to offer a motion to
that effect. However, it was brought to the attention of the
Board Members at that very meeting, that "it was not the policy
of the District IX Board to endorse the certificate." I assume
this was in all fairness to other facilities who also were re-
questing the Board's endorsement.
I therefore offered the Motion "that the Board endorse the
concept and the need for the Psychiatric Hospital for this
area," and that motion was approved by all members present.
2. On the Board Plan and the allocation of funds based on population: -
a. At every meeting, as the minutes will reflect, I voted for the
plan to address the needs and to use the population formula for
the allocation of funds. And I voted thusly at the meeting
attended by William Wodtke and some of the membevs of'the iueal
Mental Health Board.
b. At the April 27th meeting, with the majority of the members in
attendance ( if not all of the members ), I observed that the
lone member objecting to the plan would have be -,n myself, as the
representative of Indian River County. As it was, the vote was
100% for the plan as amended and offered to the full board on
that date. After hearing a conversation between John Ashcraft and
one of the Board Members or Staff wherein he stated "this is a
darn good plan, now if the Board will stick to it.", I decided
to vote for the plan and not remain the lone disenting vote on
the Board. Certainly if the Provider thought it was good then
it must have been. Since then I believe Mr. Ashcraft has
-changed his mind.
2
� ® r
I therefore stand on my voting record which is recorded in the minutes of the
District IX Mental Health Board.
I further wish to offer my resignation to the Board of County Commissioners and
wish them good luck in their plans regarding the funds for this area. I feel that
they have failed to show confidence in my appointment and I can no longer feel
that decisions which I might make henceforth would improve that conficence.
This resignation is to take place immediately.
cc: District IX Board Very truly yours,
All News Media
J. AshcraftL- t�
Thelma FitzGerald J/
Chairman Bird noted that there are three appointive
positions to consider, all relating to mental health issues:
an opening to sit on the Advisory Board to the Department of
Health & Rehabilitative -Services, which -makes
recommendations to the HRS relative re funding matters;
(they apparently want a Commissioner to fill this position);
an opening now created on the Mental Health District No. 9
Board; and representation on the local Mental Health Center
Board. Commissioner Wodtke, who is presently serving on
the local Mental Health Center Board in Fort Pierce, has
indicated his willingness to serve on the HRS Advisory
Board, but feels there would be a conflict between the two.
Commissioner Wodtke informed the Board that the
Statutes prohibit serving on both boards, and Attorney
Brandenburg confirmed this statement.
Discussion ensued re legislation that may be introduced
today to do away with District Mental Health Boards, and it
was agreed to defer action on these appointments until later
in the meeting.
HUTCHINSON ISLAND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Chairman Bird explained the procedure to be followed,
but Commissioner Scurlock stated that he wished to make his
comments before any presentations were made as he felt a
goal needs to be established as to what the outcome of this
meeting will be. After analyzing the backup material and
3�5*74
MAY 2 5 1983
MAY 2 5 1993
current information, he did not feel it would be feasible to
go through the document line by line and rewrite the
proposed plan this morning and, in fact, believed that would
be the worst thing we could do. He emphasized that he
personally felt the goal of this meeting should be not only
to receive comment from the.public but ask for an extension
of 30 to 60 days. Commissioner Scurlock did not feel the
proposed plan was completely bad, but felt strongly that
this whole thing has gained momentum too fast, and he
objected to the whole approach. As he understood it, the
comments are due tomorrow.
Commissioner Lyons supported Commissioner Scurlock's
position, but stated he would like to hear what those
present have to say, then get it all together in some sort
of a written fashion, and have another meeting when this is
all consolidated to make it our official position.
The Board had questions as to whether the committee
itself actually had drafted the proposed document, and
Community Development Director King explained that the
technical representatives from each jurisdiction had input
and reviewed.the drafts; but the work primarily was
performed by the Regional Planning Council.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that although Mr. King, as
a professional, has the ability to address many of these
items, the Board has not established any policy as yet.
Mr. King explained that the Commission does not really
have direct input - they appoint two representatives, who
help formulate the plan and then the full committee votes on
it, and that is why he came to the Commission for a
directive as to what position they wished to take.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it was unbelievable that
something as important as the transfer of development
rights, for instance, would take on an entirely different
4
light from how each county has dealt with it in their own
Comprehensive Plans.
Mr. King stated explained they were concerned about
development of the island in total and wanted to establish
uniform standards and this was a compromise.
The Board felt that zero transfer is a strange
compromise.
The Board continued to discuss the need for an
extension of time, whether or not it would be allowed by the
committee which has many state representatives on it, and
the importance of developing some comment and input in the
event an extension were not allowed. The possibility of a
lawsuit to enjoin the state from taking action before we
r have sufficient time to develop comment on the plan was
suggested, but it was generally felt this was a very dubious
possibility.
The Chairman asked the Community Development Director
to give the Board a brief overview of. the Management Plan.
Mr. King proceeded to review the effects of the Growth
Management Plan as it relates to policies the County does
not presently have.
Use of the Shoreline
Page 15, line 3. The plan proposes to establish a
priority list for future use of the shoreline, both ocean
and riverside.
Dune Preservation Zone
Page 17, line 15. This would be another new policy for
the County and would establish a "dune preservation zone"
landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, which
would restrict development and access along the beach/dune
system. Mr. King explained that staff would analyze and
make recommendations on the size of the proposed zone.
Another matter that arises is whether within that zone there
5
MAY 2 5 1983
'd®DK i-LIJ PAGE 576
MAY 2 5 1983
PA;1F577
would be any density credit for transfer, and he did not
believe this has been addressed.
Shoreline Stabilization
Page 16, line 16. This states that those who benefit
from shoreline stabilization efforts are to provide the
necessary funding.
Commissioner Wodtke asked Mr. King to explain this
statement, and Mr. King stated that any time there is a
beach stabilization project, the actual funding would be
computed based upon the perceived benefits to all people..
He felt this is similar to the process the Erosion Control
Committee is trying to establish, and it is just saying you
should try to do some type of assessment to determine actual
benefits derived in relation to the cost of the project.
The Board then questioned whether the plan treats beach
stabilization and beach restoration as one and the same as
it was felt that stabilization would pertain to structures
such as groins while restoration would be more related to
sand pumping. Mr. King did not believe they are treated
differently, but Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that Page
18, line 10,. stated that jetties or groins should only be
used when part of a beach restoration project.
Water Quality
Page 19, Line 4: Mr. King noted this refers to water
within the marine estuary and the need to control the inflow
of fresh water which affects the salinity level.
Commissioner Wodtke did not see how a uniform statement
can be made that will be effective in three counties that
have different situations at the various inlets, a varying
tidal flow, etc.
Mr. King explained that the policy is aimed at
maintaining the optimum level, and each jurisdiction will
have to decide what level they need to maintain.
Commissioner Scurlock felt they are setting policy
without any information to back it up.
Density Transfer
Page 19, line 13. This states that areas designated as
environmentally sensitive, i.e., wetlands, tidal flats,
etc., shall not receive any residential density credits.
Mr. King informed the Board that in the event someone's
property was 100% -environmentally sensitive, then that land
owner would be entitled to build one dwelling on his
property, regardless of the size of the property.
Commissioner Scurlock felt to address density transfer
in two lines is ridiculous, and Mr. King believed the state
will address this to make it clearer._
Commissioner Lyons stated that, after listening to all
the various comments, he planned to make a motion to ask our
elected representative on the committee to come back to this
Commission with her recommendations as to what they want to
do with this plan. Although he understood the ultimate
goal, he felt that the approach is very impractical.
Mr. King then went on to discuss the definition of
"buildable acres," noting that any area outside the coastal
construction line would not be taken into consideration in
allowing maximum density. Under our present policy, we look
at the gross acreage of the property to the mean high water
line.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that at the hearings
on the Comprehensive Plan, there was a great deal of
discussion relating to density and impacts, and a compromise
was reached. Now, if the area is changed, it will alter the
situation.
Mr. King stated that the goal of the committee is to
mesh all these factors into an overall plan for managing
natural resources and protecting the environmental areas,
7
L- MAY 2 5 1983
590K -53 PAGE 578
r MAY 2 5 1983 6000
and he believed a lot of this will dovetail when we get to
the transportation section of the plan.
Policies
Page 21, Line 6. This is re encouraging connection to
public water and waste water systems. Mr. King noted that
all the requirements set forth under the second paragraph in
regard to improving the insection and permitting process
would be new for the county. He also felt there is a
possibility of a proposed amendment which would say that
flow meters shall be required on all water and wastewater
facilities.
Capital Improvements Programming
Page 23, line 12. Mr. King stated that it is the
intent of the committee that the capital improvement program
be integrated into one overall capital program, and each
local capital improvement program (CIP) would be reviewed
annually.
Transportation
Page 26, line 8. Future development shall not exceed
efficient use of the principal transportation system. The
principal system for our county includes SR AlA, the Wabasso
Bridge, and the 17th Street Bridge. The Merrill Barber
Bridge is considered to be in the municipality. Mr. King
noted that he found this policy mentioned five times in the
county's Comprehensive Plan, and it does establish a level
of service standards.
It was generally agreed this is compatible with what is
in our Plan.
Discussion continued re capacity of SR AlA during the
peak season and Mr. King explained the formula used to
establish capacity, which was based on an average of 7�
trips per day per unit. He believed there would be an
amendment to deal with overutilization of existing streets,
which would provide that future development would either
8
have to improve the transportation system to deal with its
impact or face the alternative of being allowed to develop
at no more than one unit per acre.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we have planned on a
certain customer base for our South Beach Water System, and
if those numbers change radically, we will have a problem.
Commissioner Lyons concurred and pointed out that we would
have trouble with -the bond covenants.
Commissioner Bowman felt it may be necessary to sell
water out of the county, but the Commission was not
enthusiastic about that idea.
Commissioner Bowman noted that not only are we being
severely impacted from -the south, but -we -are going to have
Aquarina at our north door. She suggested the appointment
of an ad hoc committee to report to the County Commission on
July 6th and that this committee be constituted as follows:
the Chairman to be the elected representative to the
Planning & Management Committee; a representative from the
Planning & Zoning Commission; the County Attorney; a
representative from the Game & Fish Commission; and one
representative from each municipality in the County.
Commissioner Bowman felt with a 7 person ad hoc committee,
this plan can be brought into shape and brought back to the
Commission as a whole.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to appoint
an ad hoc committee as outlined above to
review the plan and bring recommendations
back to the Commission July 6th.
Lengthy discussion ensued in regard to having a
separate motion requesting an extension; whether or not we
0
MAY
r1
MAY 2 5 1933
aoo�c 0 PAct ,
could be detached from the committee; the main purpose of
the ad hoc committee, i.e., whether they would entirely
rewrite the report or just address the issues that affect
Indian River County and are significantly different from
what we have now, etc.; and Commissioner Scurlock voiced the
opinion that the ad hoc committee should have a member from
the private sector.
Chairman Bird reviewed the history of how we got to
this point, noting that it originated with what appeared to
be a border dispute between Fort Pierce and Stuart and then
escalated to where the Regional Planning Council was asked
to look into the possibility of designating an area of
critical concern. The area in question was always
considered to be the area between Fort Pierce inlet and the
Stuart inlet, but the state decided to include Indian River
County. The Chairman continued that Dr. DeGrove of the
Department of Environmental Regulation explained the intent
in putting Indian River County on the committee was because
we had been very progressive in our planning, and it was
hoped our expertise would enhance the committee's ability to
come up with_a plan that would-be compatible for all three
counties. He noted that Dr. DeGrove did not believe the
final product would cause any significant change in how we
handle our Comprehensive Plan; although, it might for Martin
and St. Lucie counties.
Discussion next ensued as to what occurs after the
Planning Management Committee makes their final report.
Mr. King reported that once the committee adopts the
plan, it goes back to the local jurisdiction to review and
identify if the policies in its comprehensive plan implement
those in the Management Plan. If not, amendments would have
to be made to the Comprehensive Plan. At the end of 6
months, the state would look at the progress each
jurisdiction has made with implementation of policies;
10
� A i
Dr. DeGrove would evaluate the progress, and recommend to
the Cabinet what area he felt should be designated an area
of critical concern. The Government and Cabinet could make
this designation and then it would take action of the
Legislature to overturn it.
Mr. Shannon concurred, noting that the Department of
Community Affairs has the option to recommend designation of
the entire area or just a small portion with specific
problems.
Question again arose as to whether the Regional
Planning Council had always considered Hutchinson Island as
including Indian River County.
Mr. Shannon explained that the Regional Planning
Council originally wished to review the developments
occurring in the southern portion of St. Lucie County as
Developments of Regional Impact, but could not get this
done, which led to frustration; the only other resource
program to get hold of this problem was the critical area
program. He believed the area they were concerned with was
from the Fort Pierce inlet to the St. Lucie inlet.
Chairman Bird noted that actually it.was the state
which took action to include Indian River County, and Mr.
Shannon concurred, stating that the RPC neither endorsed
this proposal nor rejected it.
Commissioner Lyons emphasized that he wanted the
opportunity to prevent this report in its present state from
being published, which gives it a certain legitimacy in
people's eyes.
Chairman Bird felt our option is that we either
continue to fight to get out of the committee or participate
aggressively to protect our planning and foresight and
hopefully the outcome may be consistent with our policies
and require very little change in our county.
11
L- MAY 2 5 1983
BOOK
,1,1up'AY 2 5 aJ1l983 P 1
N�fJ � rug �j
Commissioner Scurlock believed the action proposed by
the Motion on the floor re establishing an ad hoc committee
to come back with a recommendation July 6th is the only
action we can take.
Walter Young, Planning Director of the City of Vero
Beach, informed the Board that the City of Vero Beach did
address this matter yesterday and their position is that
they wish to be deleted from the further jurisdiction of the
Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Committee,
but failing that the City has other concerns. They have no
problems with the overall goals, but they do have problems
with the specifics as there are policies that may in some
instances be contradicted by adopted policies of the City
and they are not satisfied that the amendment process by the
committee is satisfactory to address this. Mr. Young noted
that they have prepared a report on the position of staff
and would like to have this made part of the record. He
encouraged the Commission to join in with the City of Vero
Beach in regard to being deleted from the jurisdiction of
the committee or else have the committee determine the
impact on our j-urisdiction.
Report from Mr. Young is hereby made a part of the
record as follows:
0
12
83-444
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
DATE _ May 23, 1983
TO
John
V.
Little
DEPT
City
Manager
FROM
Wal ter
R 'You-Qg
DEPT
Planning
Director
�f�� �►i�'i�l!11i�i�i�L�IW �it��:::ftYcli[sl���t�ti�,+�•��t�oei�+��s�=tea
The Growth Management Plan of the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and
Management Committee will impact future development of the -barrier island
in Vero Beach. Policies dealing with environmentally sensitive resources,
potable water/wastewater, capital improvements programming and transporta-
tion are being considered for recommendation by the Committee to the
Governor through the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs. The
impact on Vero Beach cannot be adequately eval-uated due to the general
nature of the policies and the incomplete definitions.
The general implication of the Growth Management Plan is that if adopted
Vero Beach would be required to amend its Comprehensive Plan and develop-
ment ordinances in accordance with the development guidelines proposed.
Many of the general policy statements are adequately addressed in the Vero
Beach Comprehensive Plan. Those _policy statements which would require
additional consideration include:
1) Shoreline Use (page 15)
The policy statement recognizes non-dependent and non -
related uses which would cause irretrievable commitments
of coastal resources as a fifth development priority.
This would include residential, motel/hotel, as well as
general commercial uses. Approximately eighty (80) per-
cent of -the Vero Beach ocean and river frontage is devoted
to such uses. The Vero Beach Comprehensive Plan designates
a majority of the ocean and river frontage for residential
and commercial use.
2) Beach/Dune Stabilization (page 17)
A long-term multijurisdictional management plan -that uti-
lizes natural coastal dynamics will be required. The pian
will be required to provide for dune stabilization and,where
appropriate, restoration. Incorporated into the plan will
be provisions. for restricting development and access along
the beach/dune system; establishment of a "dune preservation
zone" landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line;
establishment of a "coastal preservation line" seaward of
the existing Coastal Construction Control Line; not per-
mitting any new construction that would threaten the sta-
bility of either the primary dune or beach itself; and
requiring those who benefit from shoreline stabilization
efforts to provide the necessary funding.
The impacts of this requirement are difficult to determine.
The dune preservation zone is not defined. The impact
depends on how many feet landward of the Coastal Construction
Control Line the new dune preservation line is established.
There is also a question as to if land beyond the dune pres-
ervation line will be considered in calculating density
for development. Another question which arises concerns
the renovation of existing structures. This renovation may
be considered development, and the structures which require
renovation may have a questionable status. The question
who benefits from shoreline stabilization also remains un-
answered.
13
MAY 2 5 1983 c�c Pic
MAY 2 5 1993
3)
11WK 5385
Density Transfer (page 19)
Areas which are designated environmentally sensitive shall
not receive any residential density credits. According
to the Growth Management Plan, environmentally sensitive
resources include beaches and dunes. Buildable acreage is
defined as "...areas landward of the Coastal Construction
Control Line." This policy will significantly reduce the
density of beachfront developments; however, the policy fails
to address the local tax structures which may have to be
significantly altered if this policy is implemented.
4) Capital Improvements Programming (page 23)
This policy will require each local government to develop
a capital improvements program for its portion of the barrier
island. Each capital improvements program will be coordinated
with all surrounding,jurisdictions and integrated into one
overall capital improvements program. Each local government
CIP must be reviewed annually and be integrated into the
local budgetary process. A serious question arises concern-
ing the level of financial responsibility this policy will
'brave on Vero Beach. More specifically, will this policy
require Vero Beach to plan for and make expenditures for
capital improvements which are basically for the benefit
of other jurisdictions.
5) Transportation (page 26)
This policy requires the establishment of a uniform and
coordinated land use and transportation policy to ensure
that the future development of the barrier island will not
exceed the efficient use of the principal transportation
system or facilities both on the islands as well as the
bridges, causeways and related roadway system that links
the island to the mainland. Levels of service "C" on an
average basis and "D" for peak season traffic were set to
determine whether or not future development efficiently
uses the transportation system. As development outside the
City limits occurs and the level of service deteriorates,
the ability to develop within Vero Beach may be limited
by implementing this policy. The level of service of roads
is not addressed in the Vero Beach Comprehensive Plan.
Several of the definitions established in the Growth Management Plan require
additional consideration. These include:
1) "Buildable Acreage: Includes areas landward of environ-
mentally sensitive areas and landward of the Coastal Con-
struction Control Line." As mentioned above, this defini-
tion may significantly affect the tax base.
2) "Class II Waters: Coastal waters which have either actually
or potentially the capability of supporting shellfish propa-
gation and harvesting." This could be taken to mean all
water.
3) The definition of development indicates that reconstruction
involves development. The status of existing structures
should be clarified.
4) The Dune Preservation Zone should be specifically defined
as is the Coastal Construction Control Line.
14
In summary, the Growth Management Plan sets forth policies which will have
a significant effect on development in Vero Beach and the barrier island
as a whole. Because of such a wide ranging impact, the policies should
not be adopted while there is a question concerning their impacts on each
of the jurisdictions involved. While the Planning staff supports environ-
mental preservation, low density and growth management, it is impossible
to supporf the Committee's policies concerning these issues without know-
ing the full impact of same.
Of course, considerations should not be limited to the above as a review
by Council may reveal additional concerns.
The Resource Planning and Management Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m. on
June 2, 1983, in Ft. Pierce at Indian River Community College to vote on
the policies attached; and unless advised to the contrary, as a_member we
will register opposition to these policies for the foregoing reasons.
DR/WRY/nc
atts
XC: David S. Croom, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Board
Gary Anent, County Development Coordinator for St.
Lucie County, distributed to the Board the following
memorandum and letter to the Chairman of the Hutchinson
Island Resource Management Committee asking for a
postponement of consideration of the sub -committee report
until November 3, 1983.
TO: County Administrator
County Commission
FROM: County Development Coordinator
County Planner
County Attorney
DATE: May 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Hutchinson Island Resource Management
Committee -Subcommittee Report
On June 2, 1983, the Hutchinson Island Resource Management
Committee will hold the second reading of the attached
subcommittee report. At that time, the amendment process will
begin.
Based on discussions held by the subcommittee, and the
attached copy of the report, the Development Coordinator's Office
and the County Attorney's Office share the following concerns:
1. The subcommittee has refused to
acknowledge that individual property
rights are an issue. No discussion has
been held concerning local government
implementation of the recommended
policies. Of all the recommended
policies, the policy on density transfer
(page 19) is perhaps the most disturbing
as it eliminates all density credits in
environmentally sensitive areas, which
are not defined. Denial of all use of an
individual's property, as you are aware,
has serious legal implications. Past
15
Q�J( ce3 PAGE
rMAY 25 1983
(OCK
Board policy which allowed density
transfer to protect wetlands appears to
have been effective. The recommended
policy may have the effect of triggering
additional fill permit applications.
2. The recommended policies generally lack
any specific criteria for implementation.
3. Many of the recommended policies are
based on perceptions of the subcommittee
as opposed to facts. As an example the
subcommittee has recommended policies on
potable water and wastewater, based on
the assumption that package plants are
seriously harming the environment. In
fact there has been no evidence presented
that this is the case. A D.E.R.
representative indicated that improperly
functioning package plants were
environmentally dangerous, a comment
supported by the St. Lucie County Barrier
Island Study. No other definitive study
or statement has been made.
As an additional example of this policy
formation in lieu of facts, the
subcommittee has indicated a need to
measure traffic flow and extent of
wetlands consistently from one
jurisdiction to the next'in order to
better understand the dynamics of the
island. Since this data has not been
converted to a common form, it appears
that these policies are premature.
_ x,,:587
1
We submit that more data is in fact necessary before final
policies are written, that the Board is seeking this data with
little cooperation from its most affected neighbors, and that St.
Lucie County presently has and will continue to have a better
understanding and control of its portion of this island than the
Resource Management Committee is likely to have for some time.
In summary, this document appears to be a "no growth" policy
based on the preference of the majority of subcommittee members.
Early indications from our consultants indicate that required
traffic improvements may not be possible. If this is the case,
then a "no growth" policy may be appropriate. • However, until
such time as all facts are in, no final policy should be
formulated.
The Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County within
the past year, has taken the following actions concerning the
Barrier Islands, among others:
1. Adopted a moratorium on the consideration of approval
of most site plans on the Barrier Islands.
2. Prepared an impact.study of Barrier Island development.
3. Based on the results of the impact study, ,imposed
temporary limitations on the consideration and approval
of Barrier Island site plans.
4. Commenced a needs analysis as a predicate to adoption
of an impact fee ordinance.
5. Drafted and presented to the Florida legislature a bill
_creating the St. Lucie County Expressway Authority.
16
6. Drafted and presented to the Florida legislature a bill
authorizing creation of an environmental control board.
7. Instituted a Barrier Island traffic monitoring program.
8. Commenced an environmental and financial feasibility
study of transportation improvements on and to the
Barrier Islands.
9. Commenced legal research into a rate of growth
ordinance for the Barrier Islands.
10. Amended the County's comprehensive plan to incorporate
protective environmental policies.
This list does not include the series of decisions denying
various site plan petitions based largely upon environmental
and transportation concerns, which decisions have engendered
a total of six lawsuits.
These Board actions appear to represent a more logical,
factual and scientific approach to management of the Barrier
Islands than the approach taken by the subcommittee.
Our intent i s not to criticize the overall area of critical
state concern inquiry. That review has provided a forum for the
exploration of various planning concepts to deal with an
environmentally sensitive, and at the same time very valuable,
local resource. Moreover, the review has focused on the Barrier
Islands the attention of higher level state officials, which
officials have finally (at the committee's request) explained the
import of current executive policies. Rather, our intent is
simply to point out what we believe to be serious shortcomings in
the subcommittee report.
As stated previously, the committee will begin the process
of amending the subcommittee report on June 2, 1983. We believe
that the report should be restructured substantially, and that
even a series of amendments probably would not eliminate the
underlying weaknesses of the approach taken.
For these reasons, we recommend that the Board:
1. Continue its efforts to develop and implement a
logical, factual and scientifically sound Barrier
Island management program.
2. Continue to make its findings available to the Resource
Management Committee.
3. Seek a substantial restructuring of the subcommittee
report to incorporate a logical, factual and scientific
approach to the management of the Barrier Islands.
DPK/ar s
17
Boa �3 fAGE 5 8
r
1%ic .St. .ache 66ugey
MPH11-111M ^s Cr 01° M1 @WROMMEN
(305) 466-1100
(305) 878-4898
2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE
7=t Pty. 7&
33450
MAVERT L. FENN. District No. 1 • E. E. GREEN. District No. 2 • MAURICE SNYDER. District No. 3 • R. DALE TREFELNER. District No 4 • BILL PALMER. District No. 5
May 24, 1983
Mr. K. Dale Cassens, Chairman
Hutchinson Island Resource Management_ Committee
P. O. Box 613
Ft.,Pierce, F1. 33454
Subject: June 2, 1983 Hutchinson Island Resource Management
Committee Meeting - Subcommittee Report
Dear Mr. Cassens:
During the last eighteen months, the Board of County
Commissioners of St. Lucie County has undertaken -a series of
measures to formulate and implement a logical, factual, and
scientific management program for the Barrier Islands. Among
the steps that the Board has taken as a part of its integrated
and comprehensive approach are the following:
1. Adopted a moratorium on the consideration of approval
of most site plans on the Barrier Islands.
2. Prepared an impact study of Barrier_ Island development.
3. Based on'the results of the impact study, imposed tem-
porary limitations on the consideration and approval of
Barrier Island site plans.
4. Commenced a needs analysis as a predicate to adoption
of an impact fee ordinance.
5. Drafted and presented to the Florida legislature a bill
creating the St. Lucie County Expressway Authority.
6. Drafted and presented to the Florida legislature a bill
authorizing creation of an environmental control board.
7. Instituted a Barrier Island Traffic Monitoring program.
8. Commenced an environmental and financial feasibility
study of transportation improvements on and to the Barrier
Islands.
9. Commenced legal research into a rate of growth ordinance
for the.Barrier Islands.
10. Amended the County's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate
protective environmental policies.
18
- 2 -
Mr. K. Dale Cassens, Chairman
H. I. Resource Management Committee
May 24, 1983
Most of this work has been completed, and the results
of the critical analyses listed in Items 7, 8, and 9 shall
be available by August 1, 1983.
We believe that our studies, when concluded, will yield
a more complete data base on the Barrier Islands than any
previously generated. Specifically, the Traffic Monitoring
Program (Item 7) will delineate numbers and types of trips
being made to and from the Barrier Island and will provide
information as to the numbers and types of future trips ex-
pected. The Traffic Monitoring Study will also provide data
concerning present and future occupancy rates. The environ-
mental and financial feasibility study of transportation
improvements (Item 8) is designed to indicate what, if any,
transportation improvements can reasonably be expected to be
provided to the system. The legal research into the rate of
growth ordinance (Item 9) is intended to help the Board make
a legally defensible decision to control growth based on the
results of Items 7 and 8.
The total cost to the residents of St. Lucie County of
the'studies and other work listed above is in excess of $200,000.
The full potential of this effort must not be lost. The Board
views the simultaneous receipt of the most complete Barrier
Island data base and convening of the Resource Management
Committee as a unique opportunity for the State and all involved
local governments to work together to provide the best possible
management program for these islands.
The Board feels that producing the best possible management
program requires utilizing the best possible data. We, therefore,
request that no action be taken.on amending or updating the
existing subcommittee report until such time as the referenced
reports have been received and analyzed by St. Lucie County and
all interested parties.
For these reasons, the Board is asking the committee to
postpone consideratian- of the sub -committee report until November
3, 1983.
Sincerely,
William B. Palmer, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
DPK:cc
xc: Secretary, Dept. of Community Affairs
H. I. Resource Management Committee Members
MAY 2 5 1983
19
enc 3cF
r
MAY 2 5 1983 ut
Mr. Anent emphasized the money St. Lucie County is
spending for studies and research and explained that the
reason they are requesting an extension is to give them time
to analyze the voluminous material these studies will
generate and to consider the plan as it relates to them.
Another time factor is that the six lawsuits against St.
Lucie County in regard to denials of site plans on the
barrier island will be coming to trial in October. These
claims amount to over 20 million dollars, and he felt this
should be of some concern to the Resource Management
Committee.
Chairman Bird asked if Mr. Anent was requesting that
Indian River County support St. Lucie County's request for
extension, and Mr. Anent stated that he just came to explain
their position - not to ask for support.
Chairman Bird noted that there is a Motion on the floor
for appointment of an ad hoc committee.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, that our representa-
tive to the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning
and Management Committee request the Committee
to defer action on the report until after the
1st of August, 1983.
Question arose about a specific date as opposed to just
a reasonable extension of time to allow the governmental
entities time to consider the report, and Commissioner Lyons
stated that he would be glad to change his Motion to request
a reasonable period of time to give our input on this
report, that time to be no earlier than August 1st.
20
Commissioner Scurlock also felt that we do need a specific
time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Chairman Bird stated that he would like to support the
request made by the City of Vero Beach to be withdrawn.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we already have a
Resolution to that effect, but Commissioner Wodtke noted
that we asked not to be included, but we were, and he would
like to reemphasize our position and ask to be withdrawn.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock for pur-
poses of discussion, to request that Indian
River County be withdrawn from participation
in the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning
and Management Committee.
Discussion continued at length as to the advisability
of being completely deleted from the committee rather than
working through the committee to protect our interests, the
report policies and how they would affect us, etc.
Mr. Shannon believed that in the Charlotte Harbor area
and the Suwanee River area studies the Governor and Cabinet
decided not to designate any jurisdictions as an area of
critical concern.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would encourage us
to request that we not be designated an area of critical
concern since he believed it will be impossible to be
removed from the committee in any event.
Mayor Dorothy Cain expressed great concern that this is
simply a grab by the state to take power from the local
21
MAY 2 5 1983 a P9.
MAy 2 5
1993
arc
- PipE 59
governments.
She informed the Board that Vero Beach
intends
to go down on June 2nd to the college to lobby and try to
convince the Martin and St. Lucie County people to totally
remove Vero Beach from this study. Mayor Cain believed once
we are in and the plan is passed, we will never get out of
it. She urged the county to join with the City and lobby to
be removed from the committee.
Al MacAdam of the Town of Indian River Shores wished to
bring to the Board's attention a sentence from a letter
written by the secretary of the Hutchinson Island Planning &
Resource Management Committee: "Your input is critical
since the Management Plan adopted by the Committee will
establish what action should be taken by local government
and ultimately whether any or all of the study area should
be declared an area of critical concern."
Chairman Bird asked if the Town of Indian River Shores
wished to join the City of Vero Beach in their stand, and
Mr. MacAdam reported that the Town Council meets tomorrow
and this will be discussed. He concurred that we should
never have been made part of this and was in favor of
pursuing the.move to be removed from the committee as not
being an area of critical concern.
Chairman Bird felt the Motion would be more in order to
make our appeal to the committee and this also would be more
in line with the position of Vero Beach.
Commissioner Wodtke had no objection to that.
Commissioner Scurlock felt strongly that if we are
going to lobby anyone, it should be the Governor.
Discussion continued as to whether the committee has
the power to delete Indian River County from the
restrictions of the final approved plan, and Mr. Shannon
stated that they have the ability to make a recommendation
that an area not be considered for designation as an area of
critical concern.
22
Mr. King emphasized that the committee is the advisory
board and the actual action is taken by the Governor.
Discussion continued at length about addressing the
proper place where the decision will be made.
Thomas Eagan addressed the Board speaking as an
individual and questioned why the county is so afraid to be
a part of this overall picture. He stated that if our
Comprehensive Plan is as good as we have been told and is in
the best interests of all in the county, then we should
enter into the committee and work from within for what we
think is right.
Mayor Cain stated that the City feels that if they can
persuade the committee -to vote that Vero -Beach, Orchid and
Sebastian are not areas of vital concern, it will be very
difficult for the Governor then to decide otherwise. She
emphasized that their representative has presented
amendments that have been totally ignored, and the City is
afraid they are going to be trapped into a long term
relationship with a three county committee telling them how
to utilize their resources.
a critical date.
They were told that June 2nd is
Question arose as to whether the June 2nd meeting might
not be premature for such a decision, and Mr. Shannon
stressed that is the first time the full committee is
looking at the whole report.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if on June 2nd the
committee would have the ability to say Indian River County
is out of the study, and Mr. Shannon doubted it.
Mayor Cain referred to the sentence previously quoted
by Mr. MacAdam which stated that "the committee will
establish what action should be taken by local government
and ultimately whether any or all of the study area should
be declared an area of critical concern," which leads them
to believe their lobbying to be removed would have some
23
MAY 2 5 1983
I MAY 25 1983
effect.
lobbying.
W
She again urged that the County join in such
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Motion on the floor
was to pursue deletion from the Committee both with the
Committee and the Governor, and Commissioner Wodtke
confirmed that was the intent.
Robert Reider of the Vero Beach Civic Association
wished to bring into focus something overlooked so far,
which is that the Florida Statute that calls for
Comprehensive Plans calls for coordination of these plans
with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities and
with the state comprehensive plan. The Coastal Zone
Management Plan also talks about adjoining counties. We,
therefore, are concerned with St. Lucie County because we
are adjacent.
Discussion again arose re our previous Resolution to
the Governor asking to be deleted, and Attorney Brandenburg
clarified that the Resolution asked to be included only to
the extent of the emergency transportation aspects. This
request was rejected, and he did not feel asking for
reconsideration -will do any good.
Ruth Stanbridge of the Florida Game and Fish Commission.
stated that for the past six years she has seen these study
areas all over the southern areas of the state. She
believed Indian River County was considered because we do
share the barrier islands with St. Lucie County. Mrs.
Stanbridge emphasized that the state does not just
arbitrarily go.in and say this is an area of critical
concern. She did not believe we have anything to fear from
the State and felt they are just making sure that we are
safe guarded because we have done our Comprehensive Plan so
well.
Attorney Byron T. Cooksey cautioned the Board to
24
be very careful as to how they use the terminology
"Hutchinson Island" because it is not south of the St. Lucie
Inlet; it runs north to the historical.inlet which was
closed in 1910, and that area north of the Fort Pierce Inlet
to some undetermined point is the original historical
Hutchinson Island.
Pat Corrigan, property owner on the barrier island,
expressed concern -that this committee has the power to
override any local government plan. Apparently local input
has been ignored so far, and he believed that may be the
case in the future. Mr. Corrigan strongly supported the
Committee's position to try to be removed from the Committee
and noted, in any event, certainly.more time is needed to
give intelligent input.
Ed Morrison, member of the committee representing
Indian River shores, reported that the meeting next week
actually will be the first reading and it will be open to
amendments, He felt the meeting we really should be
pointing at should be the meeting of the 13th.
Chairman Bird asked Mr. Morrison, as a member of the
committee, how he would evaluate the Commission's calculated
risk in regard to not giving a formal report until after
July when our ad hoc committee has reported back -to the
Board, - did he think the committee would delay receiving
input?
Mr. Morrison felt the Planning & Management Committee,
which is made up of the three counties, would be very remiss
if it had the final meeting on June 13th, rather than
delaying until the other material is received and analyzed.
Ben Bailey, Jr., citrus man, commented that the
so-called benign study seems to be turning out as a lot of
them had feared, and the Governor apparently is going to
lump us in with St. Lucie and Martin County, whose
characteristics are entirely different than ours as to
25 53 ' PAGE
AY 2 5 1983 coax
MAY 2 5 1983 p.f. pVf P x;797
density, development, etc., If we must be in this study,
Mr. Bailey felt only that part of the County up to the 17th
Street Bridge should be included. He believed the committee
has been stacked by the Governor and it is a no-win
situation for us. He therefore, agreed with the Board's
intention to try to be removed from the Committee and hoped
they will pursue asking for an extension.
John Tippin, Vice Chairman of the Planning & Zoning
Commission, speaking as a private citizen, noted that when
our Comprehensive Plan was to be reviewed by the state
agencies, one of the agencies was very critical, while
another said it should be used as a state model. He
commended the Commission for trying to opt out of the
Management Committee. Mr. Tippin felt we have always wanted
to cooperate with our neighbors, but he was very concerned
that all the statements about the process to be followed by
this committee are so vague. He compared our sharing
density with Fort Pierce to a "one horse, one rabbit"
mixture.
Jeannette Lier, resident of the Town of Orchid and
representative on the Management Committee, commented that
she is probably the only person who was born on the barrier
island and has lived there for 70 years. Mrs. Lier informed
the Board that she has reviewed the drafted report and found
many mistakes: She -especially questioned the part re
wetlands transfer and the figure of -1742 acres of wetland in
the north of Indian River County.
Mr. King stated that this figure came from the barrier
island study and it included wetlands, mosquito impoundment
areas, etc.
Mrs. Lier felt it must take in every island in the
river which would have nothing to do with transfer of units.
Chairman Bird asked for a restatement of the Motion on
the floor, and Commissioner Wodtke stated that it was to
26
request that we reassert our position of not wanting to be
included in the plan both to the committee and the Governor.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Chairman Bird left the meeting temporarily, and Vice
Chairman Scurlock took over the chair.
MENTAL HEALTH BOARD DISTRICT 9 (cont'd)
Commissioner Wodtke informed the Commission that he is
willing to accept the appointment as the Board
representative to Mental Health Board District 9, but in
order to do so, he will have to resign from the Mental
Health Center's Board as by Statute he cannot sit on both
boards. He noted that he is not on the Mental Health
Center's Board as a Commission appointee, but was requested
to serve on that Board by the Mental Health Center; they
would very much like to have a County. Commissioner sit on
that Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Bird being
temporarily absent, the Board by a 4 to 0 vote
appointed Commissioner Wodtke as their represen-
tative to the District 9 Mental Health Board.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE HUTCHINSON ISLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sam Shannon, Executive Director of the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council, wished to take a moment of the
Board's time to discuss the density transfer policy in the
proposed Management Plan, which he felt has been found very
confusing, possibly because of its location in the document.
27
LW n
MAY 2 5 1983
MAY 2 5 1993
53
50:9.
He
stated that the transfer policy was intended to
be used
as an element in transportation modeling. The technical
committee understood that the roadways on the island were
not going to be able to handle all the traffic the juris-
dictions might want to put on the island, and therefore,
some of the existing densities in the comprehensive plans
would have to be reduced. In order to establish equity
among the various governments in regard to reducing
densities, the idea was to allocate each jurisdiction an
amount of roadway trips based on the number of "buildable
acres" each had. Once this is addressed and the number of
trips allocated, he did not feel the committee would care
how the government determined who they would give the trips
to. The intent was to establish a consistent policy to
determine the portion of the roadway system each should be
allocated. Mr. Shannon felt there should be an amendment to
make this less confusing.
Commissioner Wodtke talked about beach restoration and
renourishment and the statement "those who benefit should
pay for it." He felt this can be interpreted in various
ways and that it should be clarified.
Mr. Shannon then brought up the intent of the fresh
water content provision, explaining that this was primarily
aimed at St. John's Water Management and the Corps because
of the releases from Lake Okeechobee.
Chairman Bird returned to the meeting at 11:30 o'clock
A.M. and took over from Vice Chairman Scurlock.
APPOINTMENT TO DISTRICT 9 ADVISORY COUNCIL TO HRS
Commissioner Wodtke noted that he was hoping that if we
have a problem with the District Mental Health Plan, perhaps
through the Advisory Council we might have some recourse for
an appeal.
28
Discussion followed re an appointee, and whether a
Commissioner is to appoint someone or whether the appointee
has to be a Commissioner.
Commissioner Wodtke believed itis a Governor's
appointment; there is a vacancy for a County Commission
representative.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
recommended Commissioner Wodtke for appointment
to the District 9 Advisory Council to the HRS.
CHANGE ORDER #1, SOUTH -BEACH WATERCONSTRUCTION
At the request of Administrator Wright, the above item
was carried over to the June 1st meeting of the County
Commission.
REPORT ON HURRICANE SEMINAR
Commissioner Wodtke and Commissioner Lyons reported on
their attendance at the Fifth National Hurricane Conference,
which they felt was a very comprehensive and worthwhile
conference.
Commissioner Wodtke reported on the new process of
"probability forecasting, whereby, based on the history of
the last 100 years, they project a percentage of probability
as to which direction a storm will take. He noted that this
has given rise to some concern by Civil Defense that if
people are given a probability factor of 120, for instance,
they may disregard evacuation notices. He noted that
another lecture addressed "vertical evacuation," which
relates to the possibility of having to move people into
multi -storied buildings if it is not possible to move them
from an island or other low areas. Other subjects discussed
were federal flood insurance and storm surge in which a
vulnerability analysis is done by "SLOSH" modeling.
29 Boa -53 Pka 600
MAY 25 1983
MAY 2 5 1983
Commissioner Wodtke felt the best idea he heard presented in
regard to informing people where to find hurricane shelters
was the suggestion to work cooperatively with the local
telephone company and put charts on the back page of the
telephone book. He next addressed the closing hours of
bridges, noting that the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over
the bridges and the District Director can close a bridge at
his discretion. He continued that as to legal liability in
a disaster, the key is to have a plan, to put responsibility
in a responsible place, and have someone in place to make a
decision.
Commissioner Lyons reported on the effect of hurricanes
on building construction, stating that it has been learned
that the buildings left standing after hurricanes were the
ones that were well tied together. He informed the Board
that Barber Bridge is one of about two bridges in the U.S.
that has a rule that says during a hurricane a boat can get
it opened (Reg. 117.38A), and he would like the Attorney to
see if we can't get that changed. If we have an evacuation
going over the bridge and a boat owner whistles and we don't
open it and his -boat is damaged, he believed we would be
liable. Commissioner Lyons next discussed the definition of
what and when is a hurricane, the need for a dried food
supply which would last for several days, emergency
medicine, and the question of who is coming to work to man
needed services, hospitals, etc. He felt we should
readdress what our situation might be with a major emergency
and have a study made as to the condition of i-95 and U.S.I
to handle an evacuation from the Miami area. Commissioner
Lyons noted there were some very good lectures•re liability,
i.e., don't take on the duty unless you have the power. He
felt we must determine whether our ordinances are such that
we have emergency powers and also whether we have any
34
&I
ordinances to prevent price gouging for repairs - ice - gas
- supplies, etc.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that an interesting
statistic is that 78% of all Floridians live in the coastal
areas.
There being no further business, the Board on Motion
duly made, seconded and carried, adjourned at 12:00 Noon.
ATTEST:
d
YC^
Clerk - _ Chairman
31 OAR
MAY 2 5 1983