HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/18/1983e '•i
Monday, July 18, 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 Monday, July 18, 1983, at 1:30 o'clock P.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, Budget Director;
and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Attorney Brandenburg led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
REVIEW HUTCHINSON ISLAND STUDY REWRITE
Chairman Bird announced that the purpose of this
meeting is to allow the Board to address some proposed
amendments to the Hutchinson Island Resource Management
Plan. The Chairman reviewed the appointment of the Ad Hoc
Committee.which was charged with the task of reviewing this
plan, comparing it to our Comprehensive Plan to point out
any major discrepancies, and making recommendations. He
felt it was important that the Commission either endorse the.
report presented by the Ad Hoc Committee or make changes in
it before it is presented to the overall committee as being
representative of the Commission's wishes.
Commissioner Lyons asked that the document the Board is
addressing be identified, and Commissioner Bowman stated
that this basically is the document that was prepared by the
Hutchinson Island Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee has
modified it.
She mentioned several minor changes the
1 ar�i PACS 0
J U L 18 1983
APO
committee had made in correcting misquotations and incorrect
names.
Chairman Bird asked if Commissioner Bowman was
recommending that this rewritten report be used as our
report.
Commissioner Bowman confirmed that she was, but with
the understanding that there still are two more meetings and
other changes will be made.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that it was his
understanding that the primary responsibility of the Ad Hoc
Committee was not only to make recommendations, but also to
analyze impacts on our Comprehensive Plan, and he had felt
the Planning Department would come up with an itemized
account of the impact in reference to our own Plan.
Administrator Wright reported that Director King has
taken the rewritten report and compared it to our
Comprehensive Plan, pointing out where there are areas that
are different as set out in the following Policy Analysis;
2
Related Citation in Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan
Policy Analysis for Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan
(As amended by the Indian River County Ad Hoc Committee)
July 18, 1983
Proposed Policy
1. Page 27, Page 88 #3, Page 88 #8, 1. No activity shall be allowed that results in the alteration,
Page 88 #9, Page 88 #14, Page 88 degradation or destruction of environmentally sensitive
#12 resources, except when
(a) ' such an activity is necessary to prevent or eliminate a
public hazard.
(b) The activity is proposed by a governmental agency or a
not-for-profit corporation existing for the benefit of
the community and the activity would provide public
benefits that outweigh the public harm caused by the
resources alteration, degradation or destruction.
(c) Such activity is water dependent, or due to the unique
unique configuration of the site, is the unavoidable
consequence of development for uses which are appropriate
given general site characteristics; however, in no case
shall such activity be allowed for the primary purpose of
obtaining fill.
2. Page 86 "Vegetation" 2. Require restoration or mitigation programs on a one-to-one basis
where unavoidable damage occurs in environmentally sensitive areas
so that there is no net loss of wetlands.,
3. N/A 1. Shoreline alteration.activities (e.g., bulkheads) shall not be
undertaken in a manner which adversely impacts water quality,
the natural habitat nor adjacent shore areas.
M
4 ;a
+w
El
M
Related Citation in Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan
Policy Analysis for Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan
(As amended by the Indian River County Ad Hoc Committee)
July 18, 1983
Proposed Policy
4. N/A 2. . The alteration of the shoreline shall not be permitted
unless the proposed activity is: 1) necessary for a
specific purpose (e.g., shoreline stabilization
efforts), 2) compatible with the environment and
adjacent uses. e
5. N/A 4. No bulkheading shall be permitted waterward of the mean high
water line except:
(a) when it is demonstrated that the bulkheading will prevent a
public hazard, or
(b) when the activity is conducted by a governmental authority or
non-profit corporation created for the ccomunity interest and is
shown to be in the public's interest.
6. N/A 5. Shoreline stabilization should be accomplished by the
establishment of appropriate native wetland vegetation. Hardening of the
shoreline should be allowed only when erosion is causing a serious threat to
life or property. Rip rap materials, pervious interlocking brick systems,
filter mats and other similar stabilization methods should be used in lieu of
vertical seawalls whenever feasible.
rig
1
1
1
CD I
Policy Analysis for Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan
(As amended by the Indian River County Ad Hoc Committee)
July 18, 1983
Related Citation in Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Policy
7. N/A 1. Shoreline use shall be limited to water or water dependent uses which comply with the
activities and exceptions described for environmentally sensitive resources.
(See pg. 11 & 12).
B. Page 86 Historic & Scenic Preservation (b) efforts should be made to provide, enhance and preserve scenic views
of the water through such measures as site design requirements and building n
design criteria.
9. Page 88 #3, Page 88 #5, Page 88 #6 1. To protect beaches and dunes from erosion, dune stabilization and restoration
shall be undertaken through implementation of long-term management plans that
utilize natural coastal dynamics.
10. N/A Consideration should be given to establishing a "dune preservation zone" landward
of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL).
11.
N/A
(g) Requiring those who benefit from shoreline stabilization efforts, including
re-establishing dune systems, to provide the necessary funding.
12.
N/A
(h) Requiring that dune system restoration, where needed, be included in beach
renourishm mt projects.
13.
N/A
(i) The counties shall request the State to resurvey the coastal construction
control line not less frequently than once every 5 years.
Cn
00
14.
N/A
2. To facilitate the recharging of groundwater and minimize stoimtaater run-off,
impervious surfaces should be held toa minimum and porous materials should be
CO
substituted to the maximum extent practicable.
J
3
W
kanw
Policy Analysis for Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan
(As amended by the Indian River County Ad Hoc Committee)
Uz
July 18, 1983
Related Citation in Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Policy
15.
N/A
4. Adopt more stringent stormwater criteria for Outstanding Florida Waters.
16.
N/A
1. Areas designated as wetlands shall receive not more than one residential density
credit per 10 acres to be built on the upland areas of the site.
17.
Page 45 #1(c)
1. All developments shall be encouraged to connect to major water and wastewater
systems which will be under strict regulatory control of appropriate governmental
agencies. Until such time that these areas are provided such service, package
plant systems are acceptable as interim measures as long as the quality of the
affluent from such facilities meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment AWT) standards
if discharged into the Indian River and/or its associated wetlands or the Atlantic
Ocean. Package plants shall also be under the stringent regulatory control of
the appropriate governmental agencies.
18.
N/A
(a) Prohibit all aerobic wastewater treatment plants whose capacity is less than
10,000 gallons per day.
19.
N/A
(b) Increase the minimum monitoring frequency for treatment efficiency to one
grab sample per week.
20.
N/A
(c) Require emergency power where the water supply has emergency power.
M
21.
N/A
(d) Require surge tanks (flow equalization tanks) on all contact stabilization
units.
00
J
'�
4
Policy Analysis for Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan
(As amended by the Indian River County Ad Hoc Committee)
July 18, 1983
i .
Related Citation in Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan Proposed Policy
22. N/A (e) on extended aeration units without surge tanks, require oversized clarifiers.
23. N/A (f) Flow meters shall be required on all water/wastewater treatment facilities.
24. N/A Each local government having capital expenditures shall develop a capital improvement
program for its portion of the barrier island and integrate the program into
jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. Each jurisdiction shall have the sole responsibility
if implementing its program. Each program will be based upon the level of growth
anticipated in that jurisdiction and will include the public expenditures the jurisdiction
intends to incur to meet the demand created by its growth management plan. It shall
include a timetable and anticipated sources of funding for the capital improvements.
25. N/A The capital improvement program shall be sufficient to meet demands created by the growth
management plan. No jurisdiction will create a capital improvement program that combined
with its growth management plan will burden surrounding jurisdictions. Each will
coordinate their programs and they are encouraged to participate in joint programs with
regional, state and federal agencies and, where such programs are found acceptable, said
agencies shall coordinate their capital improvement programming to coincide with the CIP
funding and timetable of each local government's capital improvement program. The
committee will mohitor the jurisdiction's progress in implementing the capital improvement
program through the budgeting process and will report its recommendations to the Florida
Department of Commwzity Affairs.
5
JUL 18 1983 13 N.
Mr. King explained that under the column entitled
"Proposed Policies", they have listed any new policies in
the report; if we had current policies established that were
very much akin to these but not a direct relationship, the
page numbers of our Master Plan which address this were
listed opposite. If there was no clear cut policy which
related, they identified it as N/A (not applicable.)
Some discussion arose regarding policy as to
transportation levels and transfer of density, and
Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern about the makeup of
the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Committee. He
wished to know if Mr. King had checked to see if we could
send two County Commissioners to act as voting members
rather than putting the burden on staff of making a policy
statement as opposed to a planning statement.
In further discussion, it was noted that the makeup of
the committee was set by the Governor, and it is doubtful
that it could be changed.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that this
puts Mr. King in.a very difficult position when you have a
Commission that may or may not be divided.
Commissioner Bowman informed the Board that Indian
River County has eight votes on the Hutchinson Island
Committee, and Chairman Bird emphasized that we would like
to have solidarity on those eight votes, which is why it is
so important to review and finalize the amended report so
that it is ready to transmit to the Committee in an official
form.
Considerable discussion ensued on the fact that the Ad
Hoc Committee's revised plan includes density transfers
which are quite different from those allowed under our
present Comprehensive Plan, i.e., "Not more than one unit
per 10 acres" rather than one unit per acre.
8
Commissioner Bowman explained that Martin County has
changed their position and now allows no density transfer
whatever. The wording "not more than" was used so that they
could come under the umbrella of this new proposal.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he is not particu-
larly interested in what either Martin or St. Lucie County
is doing and believed we must determine what makes sense for
us. He felt 1 unit per 10 acres is a drastic reduction,
especially since we have much lower density on the barrier
island than either of the other counties.
In further discussion, Board members made it plain that
they felt we went through a great deal of work to come up
with our present Comprehensive Plan; that we are not in a
position to change it without going through the entire
procedure; and we, therefore, cannot make a recommendation
that is in conflict with our Plan.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to direct
staff and voting members on the Hutchinson
Island Resource Management Committee to
recommend an approach that is consistent
with our existing Comprehensive Plan and to
model our response to the Committee so that
all elements, transportation, etc., will be
consistent.
Discussion followed as to whether there may be some new
elements that might be desirable in our Master Plan, and
Commissioner Lyons had no objection to going through
whatever is necessary to amend the Plan if that proves true,
but did not think we can amend our Master Plan by voting in
a committee for something different than the Commission agreed
to previously.
954PaG 14,
JUL 1 1983
r
JUL 18 1983
54'
Chairman Bird felt the Motion sets the basic tone for
what we are trying to accomplish and believed we then should
go through the revised plan and address specific items.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Items set out in the Policy Analysis were then
addressed, as follows:
No. 1 - (Page 11, Line 10 of revised Hutchinson Island Plan)
Mr. King informed the Board that our Plan states very
much the same, but it does not spell out the three
exceptions, listed as (a), (b) and (c).
It was generally agreed that the criteria set out in
(a), (b), and (c) is more restrictive than our current plan
in that it pretty well prohibits the property owner from
using his land unless he makes it available to the public or
some governmental agency.
Attorney Brandenburg brought up the legal point that if
you are going to require an individual to give you a public
benefit in order to allow him to develop, this could be
considered to constitute a "taking."
Various alternatives were discussed, but Commissioner
Lyons stressed that we do not have these limitations in our
Plan, and he is not going to sit here and change the
Comprehensive Plan.
ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
agreed to leave out the limitations (a), (b),
and (c) and substitute the pertinent language
employed in our current Comprehensive Plan.
10
No. 2 - (Page 12, Line 20)
Mr. King stated that this is the same as in our current
Comprehensive Plan except that it says on a "one-to-one"
basis and it is less specific.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested, in order to save some
time, that in each of these cases where we address
specifics, we insert our language in place of their
language.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the Board objected to the
suggested language, and Commissioner Lyons explained that
whether we object or not is not important - what is
important is that we addressed this all in our Comprehensive
Plan, and we cannot change it here and now.
No. 3 - (Page 13, Line 1)
No. 4 - (Page 13, Line 5) shoreline alteration activities
No. 5 - ( Page 147, Line 1)
No. 6 - (Page 14, Line 9)
After some discussion, it was agreed to leave No. 3 and
No. 4 in.
No. 5 F.(bulkheading) - Lengthy discussion ensued, and
Mrs. Jeannette Lier pointed out that the words in paragraph
(b) "governmental authority or non-profit corporation" came
out.of the Ad Hoc Committee; they were not the wording in
the original report, which the Town of Orchid preferred.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the way it
originally read, it was saying that an individual could not
do something because it would create a hazard, but if that
individual gave us a public benefit, then we would let him
go ahead and create the hazard anyway. To eliminate the
"taking" issue, he suggested allowing only governmental
organizations that are in the business of providing public
benefits to do this.
Discussion continued re alternative language, and
Commissioner Lyons felt we are doing a lot of talking about
something we will not control in any event since it is
11
JUL 18 1983 Lop{ -1 54 nu 1
:s
JUL 18 1983 54 w IT
necessary to obtain permits from the appropriate government
agency.
Commissioner Bowman reported that the original language
read that "No bulkheading shall be permitted waterward of
the mean high water line except when it is shown to be in
the public interest."
After further discussion, it was agreed that the
wording of the original report should be substituted and
subparagraphs (a) and (b) eliminated accordingly.
No. 6 � (shoreline stabilization) - Commissioner Wodtke
felt that stabilization of the ocean would require a
different approach than stabilization of the river, but
Commissioner Bowman believed that native wetland vegetation
is suitable for both; on the ocean it would be sea oats, sea
grape, saw palmetto, etc.
It was agreed to leave No. 6 in.
No. 7 - (Page 14, Line 17)
After brief discussion, it was decided to delete No. 7.
No. 8 -.(Page 15, Line 7)
The Board unanimously agreed to leave this in.
No. 9 - (Page 15, Line 11)
It was felt that we have language which addresses this
and that it should be left in.
No. 10 - (Page 15, Line 1)
Commissioner Wodtke asked that the Dune Preservation
Zone be explained, and Mr. King stated that it is to be an
area established by each local jurisdiction located west of
the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL).
Commissioner Wodtke noted that if we are going to have
a CCCL, a coastal preservation zone line, a dune preserva-
tion line and an erosion control line, this could present a
difficult problem of identification.
12
Engineer "Flip" Lloyd believed this is a function of
the DNR, and did not feel the county has the expertise to
deal with it.
Commissioner Lyons noted that it bothers him when he
sees somebody tunneling into the back of the dune to make a
parking area, etc., and Commissioner Wodtke believed that is
something we could control another way.
Considerable discussion ensued on primary dunes as
opposed to secondary dunes and where they actually are
located.
Commissioner Bowman noted that saw palmetto and sea
grape only.grow on secondary dunes and if you see them on
the dunes near the ocean, you have already lost your primary
dune.
Argument see -sawed back and forth as to the advisa-
bility of taking this language out or leaving it in, and it
was finally agreed to remove No. 10.
No. 11 (Page 16, line 18)
Attorney Brandenburg stated that his understanding is
that this is consistent with what the previous beach
restoration committee came up with in regard to funding
for shoreline stabilization.
Administrator Wright wished to know if "necessary
funding" means the entire amount or just that which doesn't
come from the state and federal sources.
After further discussion, it was agreed to modify No.
11 so that it reads "provide the necessary local funding"
and leave it in.
No. 12 (Page 16, Line 2)
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we were to acquire funding
in any -manner for shoreline stabilization, whether this
policy would require we also do the dune system restoration.
Commissioner Bowman felt the Corps will require it, and it
was agreed to leave No. 12 in.
13
QOQK PAGc
No. 13 (Page 16, Line 23)
It was agreed to leave the wording as to resurvey in.
No. 14 (Page 17, Line 9)
Mr. King noted that current policies in regard to
recharge of groundwater and minimizing run-off address water
quality; this addresses the quantity issue and may require
going to a different type asphalt.
Mrs. Lier reported that this was not in the original
report. The Town of Orchid supports this requirement and
has it in their plan.
It was agreed to leave Na. 14 in.
No. 15 (Page 17, Line 17)
It was agreed to delete No. 15.
No. 16 (Page 17, Line 19)
It was noted that the transfer of density credit for
wetlands had been discussed earlier, and it had been agreed
that we could not recommend anything that was in conflict
with our Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that he did not have any
problem, however, with the wording "not more than."
No. 17 (Page 19, Line 3)
Mr. King reported that this was a cnange by the Ad Hoc
Committee, and it is not consistent with our plan. The.
original plan said we will encourage development to connect
to a "central water and sewer system", but in the interim
package plants will be permitted. The Ad Hoc Committee says
you can only use package plants if they meet certain standards.
The Board directed that this be made consistent with
our Master Plan.
No.
18
(Page
20,
Line
1)
No.
19
(Page
20,
Line
3)
No.
20
(Page
20,
Line
5)
No.
21
(Page
20,
Line
7)
No.
22
(Page
21,
Line
9)
No.
23
(Page
21,
Line
11)
The Board discussed the various requirements set out in
14
Nos. 18 - 23 re prohibition of aerobic wastewater treatment
plants, monitoring frequency, surge tanks, etc'. Commissioner
Scurlock believed that Nos. 18 - 21 will be dealt with under
our new franchise programs and did not feel Nos. 22 and 23
need to be addressed in this plan.
It was agreed that Nos. 18 - 23 should be eliminated.
No. 24 & 25 (Page 21, Line 14 and Page 22, Line 4)
These deal with each local government developing a
capital improvement program for its portion of the barrier
island to integrate with the overall management plan. Mr.
King explained that each jurisdiction is supposed to look at
anticipated expenditures for the next six years and revenue
sources and balance them out and set priorities.
Chairman Bird noted that we don't address this in our
Comprehensive Plan ,although we probably should have. He
noted if we put it in, we will be inconsistent with our
Plan.
Mr. King pointed out that this actually is mandated by
law and it is in our Plan in some areas.
The Chairman directed that Nos. 24 and 25 be left in
the document to be submitted to the Hutchinson Island
Committee.
Discussion ensued regarding the transmittal method, and
Mr. King explained that he has developed amendment sheets on
everything.that was proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee, and
now what he will have to do is go back through and amend the
document submitted by them to be consistent with what was
decided on today. As to how the Hutchinson Island Committee
will address this, Mr. King believed they will go through
the document line by line, page by page, and vote on each
change.
Administrator Wright asked what the Board wishes staff
to do in the event the Hutchinson Island Committee's proposal
does not agree with ours and is more restrictive.
15
J U L 1 1983 �'BoOK 54 FAGS U
JUL 18 1983
Commissioner Scurlock stated that if anything is
inconsistent with our present Comprehensive Plan and it is
more restrictive, staff should vote No. If it is less
restrictive, then there is no harm done. The Board agreed.
Further discussion ensued as to the possibility that
Mr. King might possibly have missed some change in going
over the plan, and if that were so, he should address it in
the same way, making sure that it is consistent with our
current plan.
Mr. King commented that the policy statement re
transportation is consistent with ours, although the figures
they generate may be different. If we disagree with the
traffic count information, etc., he noted that the Board has
the option to do our own study.
Chairman Bird requested that the final document to be
submitted be well identified and revised per the Board of
County Commission's directions.
Commissioner Bowman presented the argument that the
County will be accused of being parochial.
Commissioner Lyons did not understand that argument.
He emphasized that we did not send anyone down to amend our
Master Plan; they don't have the right.
Commissioner Bowman noted that the Regional Planning
Council has taken a regional view. Actually what we are
doing is setting up a State Master Plan, and she believed
the State is asking for the same regional view from us.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the State reviewed each
county's plan and approved them,. and Commissioner Scurlock
pointed out that we were asked to be part of this committee
as a model and therefore, our Plan should be the model.
There being no further business to come before the
16
Board, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, it
adjourned at 3:35 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
11 JJI
Clerk
Chairman
17
E�OOX % PAU � .