HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/1984Wednesday, December 12, 1984
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,
December 12, 1984, at 9:OO o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman;
and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent was Patrick B. Lyons, Vice
Chairman, who was recuperating from surgery. Also present were
Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas,
Intergovernmental Relations Director; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney
to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves,
Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ADDITIONS'TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock reported that he had received an emergency
request in petition form from The Moorings Property Owners
Association in regard to purchase of Hutchinson Utilities, which
he would like to have added under his matters.
Commissioner Bird wished to add two items - one, a
discussion re installation of security lights at the County
fairgrounds, and, two - a further report on the emergency
situation relating to potholes at the County Library parking
lots.
Attorney Brandenburg wished to add the following matters to
the agenda:
1. A discussion regarding the Hutchinson Island Resource
Management Plan.
2. Certificate of Occupancy for Mr. Tipton's church.
3. Extension of Options on parcels being considered for
the wastewater treatment plant.
BOU
F- I
1994
BOOK
It was announced that Item 7A re execution of an application
for the Florida Small Cities Community Development Block Grant
has not been advertised and should be removed from today's
agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Lyons being
absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) added and de-
leted items to today's agenda as set out above.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 14, 1984.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
of November 14, 1984, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wodtke requested that Item D be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion.
OMB Director Barton requested that Item A be removed as it
is necessary to state the percentage rate on the assessment.
,/ B. Authorization to apply for 23 Tax Deeds
The Board reviewed letter from Tax Collector to Attorney
Brandenburg, as follows:
2
GENE E. MORRIS TELEPHONE: (305) 5e7-elao
TAX COLLECTOR P. O. BOX 1309
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32961
November 28, 1984
Mr. Gary M. Brandenburg
County Attorney
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Brandenburg:
There are twenty-three tax certificates from the tax
certificate sale of June 1, 1982, held in the name of
Indian River County, which are now over two years old.
The County should apply for tax deeds on these certificates.
A list is enclosed.
The 20 -Year Tax Search Fee is $45.00 per parcel, or a total
of $1,035.00. When the tax deed applications are ready to
certify to the Clerk of Circuit Court, it will be necessary
to have a $12.00 fee for the Sheriff's posting fee on one
parcel which has an improvement and the Clerk's fees and
' advertising costs are $73.10, each parcel, or a total of
$1,681.30.
The enclosed tax deed applications must be signed and
returned to our office.
Since ely yours,
Gene E. Morris
County Tax Collector
TAX
CERTIFICATE SALE DATE: JUNE
1, 1982
Tax
Crtf. No. Legal Description
4
River Edge PBI 8-81 Tract A
5
River Edge PBI 8-81 Tract B
25
Hall, Carter
& James Sub PBS 3 2 &
31
Lot
44
Block 1
26
Hall, Carter
& James Sub PBS 3 2 &
31
Lot
45
Block 1
28
Hall, Carter
& James Sub PBS 3 2 &
31
Lot
91
Block 3
60
Lot 50 X 105
ft in SlZ of NW4 of SE4
of
SW14.
as
in D Bk
42, PP 500
Section 29-31-39
63
Wabasso Lows
Park Sub R Bk 268 PP 486
Lots
21
& 22
160
Hilliard Sub
PBI 5-16 N 22.08 ft of
Lots 2,
3,
4 &
5 Block 12
3
C 1984Boos 59 F}� )F 155
DEC 12 1984
BOOK 59 NAF 156
CERTIFICATE LIST CONTINUED:
Tax Crtf. No.
217
218
240
246
266
277
281
287
A
294
Legal Description
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 1 PBI 4-75 Lot 2 less Rd
R/W as in OR Bk 287 PP 252 Blk D (OR Bk 430 PP 409)
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 1 PEI 4-75 Lots 5 & 8
Less Rd R/W as in R Bk 287 PP 252 Blk D
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64A Lot 6
Blk M (OR Bk 430 PP 409)
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64A Lot 12
Blk N (OR Bk 430 PP 409)
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64A Lot 1
Blk U (OR Bk 494 PP 437)
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64A Lot 2
Blk Y (OR Bk 430 PP 409)
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64 Lot 6
Blk Z (OR Bk 494 PP 438)
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64 Lot 8
Blk AA (OR Bk 430 PP 409)
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64 Lot 9
Blk BB (OR Bk 430 PP 409)
310
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64 Lot 11
Blk GG (OR Bk 430 PP 409)
313
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64 Lot 5
Blk HH (OR Bk 430 PP 409)
328
Vero Tropical Gardens Sub Unit 2 PBI 6-64A Lot 1
Blk MM (OR Bk 430 PP 409)
372
Ind Riv Farms Co Sub PBS 2-25 Beg at SE Cor of Tr 1, run
Nly along E Bdry 125 ft, thence Wly along a line parallel
to the S Bdry of Tr 1, 327.90 ft to POB, thence run Wly
along a line parallel to the S Bdry 351.66 ft thence on
a deflection angle of 89 deg 35 min to the right, run Nly
130.30 ft, thence on a deflection angle of 90 deg 25 min_
to the right, run Ely 133.83 ft, thence on a deflection
angle 90 deg 25 min to the left, run Nly 143.54 ft to
true POB, thence N 70 ft, thence E 30.17 ft, thence S 70
ft, thence W.30.17 ft to POB. Section 22-33-39
383 S 50 ft of N 175 ft of W 75 ft of E 491.45 ft of NW4
of NE -14 (OR Bk 51 PP 851) Section 25-33-39
393 Ind Riv Farms Co Sub PBS 2-25 W 40 ft of S 100 ft of
W 10 A of E 20 A of Tr�4 (OR Bk 498 PP 219). Section 25-33-39
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized the Chairman's signature on the 23 tax
deed applications on the tax certificates listed
above and approved payment of the required fees and
advertising costs set out in the above letter.
4
��C. Authorization to Reimburse Sheriff for Certain Legal Services
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director, as follows:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Doti ;y64
ARD COUNTY _
�OM.M'SSICNERS
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,
OMB Director
DATE: November 29, 1984
PtpjL8Vorks
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other
SUBJECT: Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund
REFERENCES:
We have received copies of invoices in the .amount of $23,615.88 that the Sheriff
paid for legal services and court reporting relating to drug cases and confiscated
property,
The Sheriff paid these invoices and also remitted the funds to the Board, He is
now requesting that the -Board authorize re.i.mbursement of these expenses from the
Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund. -
(,copies of these invoices are on file in the Management and Budget Office
Chairman Scurlock commented that the Sheriff is now using
Assistant County Attorney Wilson to handle some of these items
and has indicated he will use our staff whenever possible.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
-reimbursement of the Sheriff from the Special Law
Enforcement Trust Fund in the amount of $23,615.88.
E. State Medical Examiner Contract
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the contract between the State of Florida Department
of Law Enforcement, the Medical Examiners Commission,
and the County, for Medical Examiner Funds, and
authorized the signature of the Chairman.
5
DEC 1 2, 1984
BOOK 59P,ku 157
DEC, 12 1984
_I
C O N T R A C T
Between
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
MEDICAL EXAMINERS COMMISSION
Indian River County
for
MEDICAL EXAMINER FUNDS
BOOK PAGE 158
This Contract is entered into between the State of Florida, Department of
Law Enforcement, Medical Examiners Commission, hereinafter referred to as
"COMMISSION", and Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY", through its Board of County Com-
missioners, and the DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER.
Any reference in this Contract to "DISTRICTS" shall mean Medical Examiner
District 19 as established by the Medical Examiners Commission under Chapter 406,
Florida Statutes.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Chapter 406, Florida Statutes, and Rule 11G-4, Florida Admini-
strative Code, authorize the COMMISSION to disburse to the COUNTY State funds
for medical examiner services and to oversee the distribution of State funds for
said purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual understanding and the pro-
visions, terms, and conditions hereafter set forth, the COMMISSION, the COUNTY
and the DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER mutually agree as follows:
I. COUNTY Agrees:
A. To comply and act in accordance with all provisions of Chapter 406,
Florida Statutes, and implementing rules of the Medical Examiners
Commission, where applicable.
B. To use funds provided to the COUNTY under this Agreement only for
medical examiner related expenses, said uses to include, but not be
limited to, the following:
(1) Salaries and/or fees for service
(2) Transportation
(3) Facilities and equipment
6
(4) Laboratory services
(5) Administrative costs
(6) Other related expenses
C. To provide the COMMISSION with:
(1) A County Annual Expenditure Report on forms to be provided by the
COMMISSION identifying total funds expended or encumbered and
budgeted, for medical examiner services during the 1983-84 County
Fiscal Year.
(2) A copy of the budget adopted for medical examiner services for
the current 1984-85 County Fiscal Year.
D. To comply with requests from the COMMISSION for information regarding
expenditures for support of medical examiner activities pursuant to
Chapter 406, Fla. Stat.
2. The COUNTY and the DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER agree:
(A) To comply with Title VI and VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC
2000d), Executive Order. No. 11246, entitled "Equal Employment
Opportunity", as supplemented in Department of Labor Regulations (41
CFR Part 60), and Federal Regulations concerning nondiscrimination
because of mental and physical handicaps.
(B) To meet the standards of accountability of Rule 11G-4.06, Florida
Administrative Code, which include the following:
(1) Each county shall use an accounting system which meets generally
accepted accounting principles.
(2) Each county and each district medical examiner shall maintain
such records and accounts as are necessary to properly account
for state funds disbursed by the Commission.
(3) All records relevant to this rule shall be retained for a period
of not less than three years, unless otherwise provided by law.
(4) Records and accounts necessary to justify the use of state funds
for medical examiner services shall be open to inspection for
audit purposes to the COMMISSION, the Department, and the Auditor
General.
(5) Funds received from the COMMISSION shall only be used for the
provision of medical examiner services.
7
SEC 12, 1984 aoox 59 P'GF 159
DEC 19 1984
BOOK
59
F�cF160
3. In the event of COUNTY or DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER'S
noncompliance
with
any provision of this Contract, the Contract may be terminated or suspended
in whole or part by the COMMISSION upon thirty (30) days written notice to
the COUNTY and DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER.
4. The COMMISSION Agrees:
A. To pay the COUNTY a total sum of $10,229.00 to be paid in semi-annual
payments of $5,114.50.
B. Payment shall be -made on a semi-annual basis. Payment for the
first two quarters shall be made upon execution of this Contract
and after the Commission has received its 2nd quarter allotment of
General Revenue Funds, approximately October 1, 1984. The second
payment shall be made when the documents outlined in Item 1(C)
above are provided to the COMMISSION and after the COMMISSION has
received its 4th quarter allotment of General Revenue Funds,
approximately April 1, 1985.
5. This Contract is effective for the State Fiscal Year July 1, 1984 through
June 30, 1985.
6. The Contract is subject to the availability of funds, and the determin-
ation as to such availability rests solely with the COMMISSION. If
funds become unavailable, the COMMISSION may terminate this Contract
on twenty-four (24) hour notice.
7. Any alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of
this Contract shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing,
duly signed and attached to the original of this Contract. The parties
agree to renegotiate this Contract if State revision of any applicable
laws or regulations make changes in this Contract necessary.
8. The COUNTY and the DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER shall be independent con-
tractors, and not the agent or servant of the Department and shall not
be entitled, as a result of this contract, to any benefits granted
employees of the State of Florida. The COUNTY and the DISTRICT MEDICAL
EXAMINER shall have complete supervision and control over their own
agents, servants and employees.
P
9. The Department shall not be deemed to assume any liability for the acts,
omissions to act or negligence of the COUNTY or the DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER,
their agents, servants, and employees; nor shall the COUNTY or DISTRICT
MEDICAL EXAMINER exclude its own negligence to the Department or any third
party.
10. This Contract contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the
parties. Any items incorporated by references are physically attached. No
other agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this
Contract, shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agree -
went on the respective dates under each signature: Indian River County through
its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, signing by and thrbagh its Chairman, autho-
rized to execute same by Board action on the 12th day of December
I
1984 , the DISTRICT MEDICAL EXAMINER, and STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, MEDICAL EXAMINERS COMMISSION, signing by and through its
Staff Director, duly authorized to execute same, and by the COMMISSIONER OF
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Date State of Florida, Medical Examiners Commission
Staff Director
Date State of Florida, Department of Law Enforcement
Commissioner
December 12, 1984i•-� G A
Date Chairman, Board of County Co sioners
Indian River County, Florida
Date
MEC3A/C
DEC 12 1984
L -
District Medical Examiner
19th District
D
Apgro-led,-a:; to fora
and legal sufficiency. ;
G$ry ;$r4rnentlurgj
County Attorney ,r'
BOOK S u -c 161
BOOK
DE G 1 9a4
61 F. Authorization to set Public Hearing for Condemnation of
Hazardous Structure
The Board reviewed the following memo from Building Director
Rymer:
TO: Board of County Comnissioners DATE: Decenber 4, 1984 FILE:
FROM: Ester Rymer
Building Dir cto
SUBJECT: Condemnation of hazardous
structure located at N.E.
corner of 38th Lane & U. S . #1
Lot 11, Block 1, W.E. Geoffrey S/D
REFERENCES:
I respectfully request the Board to schedule a public hearing on January 9, 1985
at 9:30.A.M., to discuss the demolition of the subject structure. Notice of
!publication to appear in a newspaper at least two consecutive weeks prior to
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) authorized staff to schedule a public
hearing as requested by the Building Director.
JA. Approval of Final Assessment Roll, 142nd St., Ercildoune
Heights
The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director, as
follows:
10
� s
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 19, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
THROUGH:
Final Assessment Roll
SUBJECT: 142nd Street -
Michael Wright Ercildoune Heights
FROM -James W. Davis, P.E• REFERENCES:
Public Works Director ,
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The paving of 142nd Street is complete. The final cost and
preliminary estimate for the work was:
Final Cost/FF Prelim. Cost/FF Final Cost Prelim. Estimate
142nd St 10.9862 11.09 $17,571.12 $17,820.00
The Final Assessment Rolls have been prepared and are ready
to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to
be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first
to be made twelve months from the due date and the second to be
established by the Board of County Commissioners.' The due date
is 90 days after the final determination of the special assess-
ment. The interest rate shall be 1% over the Prime Rate at the
time of adoption of the Final Assessment Roll.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to the benefited owners is less
than that computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only
alternative presented is to approve the final assessment roll.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the
paving of 142nd Street be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and that they be transmitted to the Office of the
Clerk to the Board for collection.
OMB Director Barton stated the interest rate will be 122%.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the Final Assessment Roll for Project #8225 - 142nd
St. between 81st St. & 110th St., Ercildoune Heights,
and directed that it be transmitted for collection at
an interest rate of 122%. (Said Final Assessment Roll
is on file in the Office of the Clerk.)
11
L_EC 1 z 1,84 52K
J
rDEC 12 198
BOOK 5 i �E 164
JD. Final Plat Approval - Shorelands Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Stan Boling:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 29, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
SUBJECT: SHORELANDS SUBDIVISION
Robert M. Keatt ng, = CP
Planning & Development Director
'u l}THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: Stan Boling/Sr REFERENCES: Shoreland S/D
Staff Planner DIS:STAN
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on December 12, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Shorelands Subdivision is a 37 lot subdivision located on the
east side of S.R. A -1-A, immediately south of Smugglers Cove
Subdivision. The subject property is ±17.2 acres in size.
The zoning classification of the site is R-lA (4.3 dwelling
units/acre). Its land use designation is LD -1 (3 dwelling
units/acre). The proposed density is ±2.2 dwelling units/acre.
The applicants are requesting final plat approval. The
Shorelands Subdivision proposal formally began the County's
subdivision process on August 30, 1983, prior to the adoption
of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan. A land
development permit was issued for this project on May 29, 1984.
Therefore, this development proposal is not affected by the
County's suspension of development approval reviews, as enacted
via Resolution No. 84-101.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The subject subdivision will receive water service from the
City of Vero Beach. The City Utilities Department has indicat-
ed that the water distribution system is satisfactory. The use
of individual wells and septic tanks has been approved by the
Environmental Health Department. A Stormwater Management
Permit has been issued by the Public Works Director. All of
the required improvements have been completed and approved
except for the construction of a dune cross-over and a buffer
zone planting along S.R. A -1-A. The applicants have agreed to
contract with the County to complete the remaining required
improvements, guaranteed with posted security.
The applicants have submitted a final plat, an irrevocable
letter of credit for 1150 of the cost of the remaining required
subdivision improvements, an approved cost estimate from a
project engineer, and a contract committing them to completing
the remaining required improvements. The County Attorney's
Office has approved the contract subject to its being signed by
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. The final
plat is also in conformance with the approved preliminary plat.
Thus, all County requirements concerning final plat approval
have been addressed.
12
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to Shorelands Subdivision, authorize the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign acontract
with the applicant committing the applicant to completing the
remaining required improvements, and accept the irrevocable
letter of credit guaranteeing the contract.
Commissioner Wodtke questioned the expiration date, July 30,
1985, shown on the irrevocable letter of credit, and Attorney
Brandenburg explained that if the required improvements are not
completed prior to that expiration date, we would call down the
letter of credit; it, therefore, is necessary that someone keep a
tickler file on such letters of credit so they are not allowed to
lapse.
Administrator Wright assured the Board that staff will take
care of this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
granted Final Plat Approval to Shorelands Subdivi-
sion and authorized the Chairman to sign the
Contract with Shoreland Development for Construc-
tion of Required Improvements as recommended by staff.
(Said Contract is on file in the Office of the Clerk.)
'RESOLUTION ASSURING COUNTY SUPPORT OF PROVIDING FAIR HOUSING
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Resolution 84-103 demonstrating the
County's efforts in providing nondiscriminate
housing choice to minorities.
13
DEC 121994 800K 9 f"111 465
DEC 12 1994 BOOK 1EA,�L 16
RESOLUTION NO. 84-103
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DEMONSTRATING
THEIR EFFORTS IN PROVIDING NONDISCRIMINATE HOUSING
CHOICE TO MINORITIES RESIDING IN THIS JURISDICTION.
WHEREAS, will affirmatively further fair housing throughout
the jurisdiction by adhering to and complying with all applicable
federal and state laws; and
WHEREAS, housing choices will be provided for low and
moderate income families and minorities outside of areas where
minorities and low and moderate income families are concentrated;
and
WHEREAS, minority and/or low income groups are assisted in
housing throughout the community; and
WHEREAS, enable low and moderate income persons to remain
in neighborhoods that are experiencing revitalization and
substantial displacement,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that
1. Indian River County is and will continue to comply and
support fair housing within this jurisdiction.
2. Indian River County will continue to provide assisted
housing throughout the community under the Department of Housing
and Urban Development's Section 8 Program.
3. The Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners are authorized to execute this resolution.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Wodtke
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. LyonsAbsent
Commissioner William C. Wodtke,.Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 12th day of December, 1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
on curlocJr.
n Chairman
ATTEST: _ �h.iaT r; L��lu
I Fre a Wrig t,
Clerk
APPROV Abpan
AND L SU
BY
r
oun yAttorney 14
REPORT ON STATUS OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he has received
a copy of the recommendation made by John DeGrove of the
Department of Community Affairs, which was to start the
designation of the barrier island as an area of critical concern
with the idea that if the local government adopts a Resolution by
January 11th giving assurance that they will comply with the
Plan, the DCA then will stop the designation process. The
Attorney recommended that instead of waiting to January 11th to
adopt such a Resolution, the Commission adopt it today so that
when the Governor and Cabinet meet on December 18th, we will have
the Resolution in hand to deliver to them and express our
feelings that since we have already done this, there is no need
to start the designation process at all for our portion of the
island. Attorney Brandenburg then reviewed the proposed
Resolution setting out how we will coordinate and cooperate with
the Plan and respectfully requesting to be deleted from
designation as an area of critical State concern.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Lyons being
absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted
Resolution 84-104 as described above.
15
�ocKf.�iw 167
BOOK 5
RESOLUTION NO. 84-104
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ASSURING THE GOVERNOR AND
CABINET OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'S INTENT TO
CORRECT THE IMPLEMENTATION DEFICIENCIES
STATED IN THE HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
RESOURCES, POTABLE WATER AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT, CAPITAL- IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAMMING AND TRANSPORTATION.
WHEREAS, on October 8, 1982, Governor Bob Graham, as
Chief Planning Officer of the State of Florida, and in recognition
of the unique characteristics of Hutchinson Island and the growth
pattern prevalent along the Treasure Coast, appointed the
Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Committee,
pursuant to Florida Statutes §380.45, and
WHEREAS, the objectives of the Committee were to organize
a voluntary, cooperative resource planning and management program
to resolve existing and to prevent future problems, and
WHEREAS, the study area was expanded to include Indian
River County because Secretary Haggen felt the presence of a third
county would assist in resolving deficiences between Martin and St.
Lucie Counties, and that;
"It was felt that Indian River County's success in
dealing with Barrier Island development issues would
be a valuable asset to the Committee."
WHEREAS, the Committee developed the Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan and adopted the Plan on October 6, 1983,
and
WHEREAS, Indian River County adopted Resolution No.
83-116, a copy of which is attached hereto, indicating its
willingness to comply with the recommendations in the Plan, and the
Administration Commission, on November 29, 1983, adopted a Motion
acknowledging Indian River County's efforts;
"Move that _the Governor and Cabinet sitting as
the Administration Commission acknowledged the
Resolution adopted by Indian River County
Commission and the voluntary compliance and
cooperation of local governments in implementing
applicable portions of the Plan.
(Note:Res.#83-116 is on file in the Clerk's Office)
16
Further, the Governor and Cabinet concur that no
development restrictions beyond those currently
existing in the approved local Comprehensive Plans
are imposed by virtue of the voluntary compliance
by Indian River County with the Hutchinson Island
Resource Planning and Management Plan."
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1984, in recognition of the
importance of the Island's transportation system, and in an effort
to adopt appropriate Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning
regulations, assuring the efficient use of the transportation
system, the County initiated a study to analyze existing land uses,
transportation conditions and hurricane evacuation conditions, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, by this Resolution, to
publicly state and document its assurance to the Governor and
Cabinet of the State of Florida and the Department of Community
Affairs that the County intends to correct the implementation
deficiencies, as set forth in the Memorandum, dated December 7,
1984, from John M. DeGrove, regarding Hutchinson Island.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
that:
I. Indian River County intends to correct the
implementation deficiencies relating to environmentally sensitive
resources, potable water and wastewater treatment, capital
improvements programming, and transportation, as outlined in the
Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Plan by the
adoption of appropriate ordinances by June 1, 1985, which;
(a) require dune restoration as a component of beach
renourishment,
(b) incorporate sea turtle protection requirements
for site and building plans,
(c) adopt stormwater criteria for outstanding
Florida waters,
(d) encourage potable water and sanitary sewer hook
ups and establish standards which will include package sewer
treatment plant effluent limitations of 15 mg /1 B.O.D. and 15 mg /l
T.S.S. on an annual average basis,
17
®EIC 121984 Joy 5 9 FAUGE X169
DEC 12 1984
(e) provide improved permitting and inspection
process for wastewater management to assure estuarine and potable
water systems are protected from pollution and require increased
monitoring frequency and the provision of flow measuring devices.
(f) The Department of Community Affairs has
previously approved Indian River County's Transportation Study and
Capital Improvement Analysis for the Barrier Island. The Study
includes an analysis of the transportation system on the Barrier
Island together with an analysis of what improvements will be
necessary for the transportation system to insure that future
growth will not cause the system to exceed Level of Service C for
annual and Level of Service D for peak season. The County will
implement the recommendations from the study when they become
available. Prior to the adoption of the Transportation Impact
Study, a copy of the conclusions and recommendations shall be
submitted for review and comment to the Department of Community
Affairs and other units of local government in the planning area.
(g) The County will coordinate and adopt a
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulation with other units of
government to assure uniform and coordinated policy.
2. Indian River County respectfully requests the
Governor and Cabinet to instruct the Department of Community
Affairs to delete Indian River County from the recommendation to
designate Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Islands an area of
critical State concern because of the County's voluntary and
cooperative compliance with this planning effort.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bowman who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bird and, being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Absent
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
18
77
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 84-104
duly passed and adopted this 12th day of December , 1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By /
Don C. Scur ock, Jr.
Chairman
Attest:
Freda Wright' Clerk
APPROVED AS TO,' FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
By r q
ry A,Braude' burg,
ou y Attorney
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that if the Governor and
Cabinet do approve our request to be deleted from designation as
an area of critical concern on December 18th, we will be meeting
on December 19th, and this would give us the opportunity to
repeal our previous Resolution 84-101, which put a hold on all
projects over 1 unit per acre on the barrier island and
authorized advertising a moratorium. 'In that event, Planning
staff would want to know what, if anything, the County will do
between now and the time the Transportation Plan is corrected to
stop or mitigate the immediate rush of projects into the Planning
Department.
Planning Director Keating agreed that he would like some
direction regarding this by next Wednesday. He noted that he
already has one developer who wants to go on the agenda of the
next Planning & Zoning meeting if the Resolution is retracted.
He believed we must recognize that the DCA recommendation is
predicated on our voluntary compliance, and it is a question of
how well we will be complying if we let development proceed at
the same pace on the barrier island.
19
DEC 12 V984 Boor U9 F,Au,E171
DEC 12
1984
Bou 59
F1-472
Chairman
Scurlock believed the key is to make provisions
for
the necessary improvements based on our Comprehensive Plan, but
agreed there may be a need for some mechanism to prioritize what
we accept.
Commissioner Bird inquired about acreage used to compute
density and wished to know if we still would be bound by the
Committee decision, which was to use net buildable acreage.
Planning Director Keating reported that staff normally uses
the gross acreage, and Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that if the
Board does repeal Resolution 84-101 next week, we would go back
to computing density based on gross acreage.
Some discussion ensued in regard to moving ahead quickly on
reestablishing the coastal construction setback line and adding
possibly 10' to 251. Commissioner Wodtke expressed some concern
in regard to any arbitrary movement of the line for the entire
coastal area as the severity of erosion has varied considerably
in different areas. It was noted that the State reestablishes
this line every five years if requested, and we are on schedule
for the summer of 1986.
REZONING - 10 ACRES 16TH ST. & 66TH AVE. TO R -1A (LEE & ESTES)
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
20
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
in the matter of &44,e)
in the �i Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of J 07�. /!?—
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 subscribed before me this,^s ?/, day of Ze%�. 19_
(SEAL)
(CI
Manager)
Indian River County, Florida)
Rus, INC.
Avenue (C.I
(Rosewood
south of Sts
-The sut
The We
.(
A
and
ICE'- PUBLIC NEARING
ring to consider the adoption of
nce rezoning land from A, Agri-
torrttyyR-1A, Single-Famlly bDylatrict
ANCY Presently LEES nOwned
SES CIT -
subject is located west of o8th
/Lateral A), north of loth street
d). Seat of 71st Avenue and
iad 60 (20th Street).
rcoperty is described as:
Bass of Tract 15, Section o.
WHording to the- Plst-thereof.aa.,s
a►ded In Plat Book 2, Page 25, Of the
blit Records of St. Lucie County, Floc
Said land now lying and being In In-
n River County, Florida.:
ibiic hearing at.which parties in Interest
tizens. shall have an opportunity to be
will be held by the Board of County Com-
iers 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,
December 12,1084,' of 9:15 a.m
If ao�decides
eiany na
made Person
abovematter, he/she will need
recotd'of the proceedings, and for such purr
Posse, he/she may need to Insure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings Is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based. y
Indian'River County
Board of County Commissioners
s -Don ¢. Scurlock Jr
" Chairman J
Nov. 20, Dec. 4;1t�84.' w ,W
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation
and recommendation of approval, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 29, 1984FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
LEE & ESTES CITRUS
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REQUEST TO REZONE 10
ACRES FROM A, AGRICUL-
SUBJECT: TURAL DISTRICT, TO
Ro ort M. Keats g,CP R-lA, SINGLE-FAMILY
Planning & Development Director DISTRICT
?S
FROM; Richard Shearer, AICP LEE & ESTES REZONING
Chief, Long -Range Planni�EFERENCES: RICH
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 12, 1984.
21
®EC 12 CK 59 Frn)E 173
DEC 12 1984 BOOK 59 FnF
X74..
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
William C. Lee, Nancy U. Lee, and Estes Citrus, the owners, are
requesting to rezone 10 acres located on the north side of 16th
Street and one-half mile west of 66th Avenue from A,
Agricultural District, to R-lA, Single -Family District (up to
4.3 units/acre).
The applicants are proposing to develop the subject property as
a single-family subdivision.
On November 8, 1984, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The
land north, south, east, and west of the subject property is in
citrus groves and zoned Agricultural District. Approximately
350 feet west of the subject property is a single-family
subdivision zoned R-1, Single -Family District.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land north, east, and west of it as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land south of the
subject property is designated as RR -1, Rural Residential 1 (up
to 1 unit/2.5 acres).
The R-lA zoning district is consistent with the LD -2 land use
category and the single-family residential development to the
west.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to 16th Street
(classified as a secondary collector street on the Thoroughfare
Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under
the R-lA zoning would generate 350 average annual daily trips
(AADT) .
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are not currently
available for the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
22
® M M
Commissioner Bird stated that his only question related to
County water and sewer which is coming to this area, and wished
to know how someone who wasn't in on the initial phase of this
could tie in.
Administrator Wright informed the Board that staff will be
bringing a line extension policy before them within the next
thirty days, at which time the Board will review a new fee
schedule as well and set the policy for the county.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) adopted Ordinance 84-91 rezoning 10 acres
north of 16th Street and west of 66th Avenue
from A to R-lA as requested by the Lees and
Estes Citrus.
DEC 12 1984 23 800 59 F'A1'475
DEC 12 IS34
BOOK 5 9 ;'' ;c 1 6
ORDINANCE NO. 84-91
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:
The West 10 acres of Tract 15, Section 6, Township 33S,
Range 39E, INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION,
according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 2,
Page 25, of the Public Records of St. Lucie County,
Florida. Said land now lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida.
Be changed from A, Agricultural District, to R-lA, Single -
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 12th day of December,
1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: vn G '�5L�
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of
Florida this 17 day of Dec, , 1984.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Departme t.AState
received on this 20 day of December , 1984, a .M./P.M.
and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFYICTENCY.
, County Attorney
24
COUNTY—INITIATED REZONING — 6.1 ACRES SR A -1—A & CR 510 TO R -2D
The hour of 9:15 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
In the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues
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 subscriblq beye me n, % n L( day of J19
i
WMM
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit'Courull than River County, Florida)
NOTICE — PUBUC HEARING
Notice of -hearing Initiated by Indian River
County to consider the adoption of a County or-
dinance rezoning land from R-2, Multiple -Family
District, to R-21),
MDistrict,
I tlip Famiry and DlsMcLmThessubject property is
located wast of State Road A -1-A and south of
C.R.610(Wabasso Beach Road) .
The su! i4t property is discnbed as:
These 00rOohs'of Government Lot 1 and
Government Lot 2 in Section 25, Town -
"ship 31S, Range 39E, Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, Iying westerly of State Road
/[-1-A; Wng mora particularly described
`as follows: , :,_, .
COMMENCING at the NW comer of sold
Section 28; THENCE along the north line
of said Section 28;, _, _
South 89%93r' `' V ' 9378.83 feet
THENCE South 0010125 East 40.10 feet
to the . Point of Intersection- with the
Right -of -Way One of County Road 510
(also known as Wabeasb Beach Road);
,said Point of Intersection being also the
POINT OF BEGINNING.,THENCE along
.-said Right-ot-Way Ilse; ._ ..
North 89°59'50" East ° ; n 4111.89 feet
to Its intersection with the southwesterly
Right-01-Wa8yy line of State Roadand
the Base Une of which is parallel
concentric with and .50' northeasterly of
thwesteNr. ff[W-W way as do.
-r•r'
9c6W in O R .Book 35,Page 393 of
#is PubUgP600rds of Indian River Coun-:
>ty;� Florida, •aa., shown on the Right-of-
We1P Mapp "ecti
Son 8807102;. THENCE
Along eaid ioutherwasterly Right-ol-Way .
sine yMa, _J
South 24°27'38" East 560.00 feet
'THENCE South ti9°59'S9'West
i 644.60 feet
�THENCS North tXP08`10" West
6 f t �F ,1 . 500 85 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING
A public hearing at which parties -in interest
and Citizens shall have an -60portunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
MhWonera of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County, -Commission Chambers of the County
,Administration Building,- located at .1040 25th
Street, Vero Beach, - Florida. on Wednesday,
December 12,1980. at 9:15 a.m.
if any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter. he/she will need a
record.'o}; the proceedings, and for such pur-
poem,, he/she may need to Insure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings Is made. which In-
cludes testimony and evidence.upon.which the
appeal Is based.
River County
of County Commissioners
1 ' ¢ B-s_Dq C. Scurlock, Jr.
4 9.:Ch
Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the staff recommendation, as
follows:
25
DEG I �, 1934
BOOT 59 PnF
D E C 12 1984
BOOK °G` 178
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 29, 1984FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO REZONE 6.1 ACRES FROM
R-2, MULTIPLE -FAMILY
SUBJECT: DISTRICT, AND C-1, COM.
Robert M. Keati , AYUP DISTRICT, TO R -2D, MUL-
Planning & Development Director TIPLE-FAMILY DISTRICT
?15
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP : A/510 Rzng.
Chief, Long -Range Planniri EFERENCESRICH
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 12, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Indian River County is initiating a request to rezone 6.1 acres
located at the southwest corner of State Road A -1-A and County
Road 510 from R-2, Multiple -Family District (up to 15 units/
acre), and C-1, Commercial District, to R -2D, Multiple -Family
District (up to 6 units/acre).
On September 26, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners
rezoned 36.85 acres located south and west of the subject
property from R-2 and C-1 to R -2D but denied a request to
rezone the subject property to C-1. At that time, the Board
briefly discussed the need for commercial development at this
intersection and instructed the staff to study the need for the
A -1-A and C.R. 510 tourist/commercial node.
This rezoning request was initiated to establish a zoning
district consistent with the LD -2 land use designation.
On November 8, 1984, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -1 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property, and the land south and west of it, is
undeveloped. North of the subject property, across County Road
510, is undeveloped land zoned C-lA, Restricted Commercial
District, and R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2
units/acre). Further north, are single-family residences.
East of the subject property, across S.R. A -1-A, is undeveloped
land zoned C-1, and an office building, the Wabasso Beach
Market, and a County Park zoned C-lA. Further north, are
single-family dwellings zoned R-1, C -1A, and R-2.
26
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all
of the land around it as.LD-2, Low -Density Residential 2 .(up to
6 units/acre). In addition, the Plan designates a 25 acre
tourist/commercial node at the intersection of A -1-A and C.R.
510. Since the County Commission has determined that the
subject property will not be included in the tourist/commercial
node, this property should be rezoned consistent with the LD -2
land use designation. The R -2D zoninq district is consistent
with the LD -2 land use designation and the R -2D zoning south
and west of the subject property.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to C.R. 510 and to S.R.
A -1-A (both classified as arterial streets on the County's
Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject
property under the R -2D zoning would generate 256 average
annual daily trips. Both roads would maintain level -of -service
A if this rezoning is granted.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentaly
sensitive. However, the subject property is located in a B
flood zone which includes areas within the 500 year flood
plain.
Utilities
The subject property is within the service area of the north
beach utilities franchise.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning & Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Mr. Shearer noted that this previously was considered for
rezoning to C-1, and it was denied. The developer would like to
develop this the same as the other 36 acres, and the County has
initiated the zoning change to give this parcel the same
classification. Both the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff
recommend approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Edward Green of Pebble Path, Summerplace, wished to confirm
that the area under discussion is located directly at the
intersection. He was confused by this being done piecemeal and
wished to know whether it still stands, as decided three meetings
ago, that the entire acreage would be R -2D.
This was confirmed, and it was further noted that the east
side of AlA remains commercial and that the Board did establish
27
®E C 1 � 89g
BOOK P,1;F 179
DEC 1
nor
59 u F180
that
a total of 25 acres in this general area would be
capable of
a neighborhood commercial node type development.
Mr. Green spoke of the beauty of the road coming over the
bridge and the residents' desire to maintain the beauty and
naturalness of the area. He also spoke in favor of increasing
the coastal construction setback line to 125' and complimented
the County Parks Department for their work at the beach park.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) adopted Ordinance 84-92 rezoning 6.1
acres at the southwest corner of SR A -1-A and
County Road 510 to R -2D.
ORDINANCE NO. 84-92
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:
These portions of Government Lot 1 and Government Lot 2 in
Section 26, Township 31S, Range 39E, Indian River County,
Florida, lying westerly of State Road A -1-A; being more
particularly described as follows:
28
I_1
COMMENCING at the NW corner of said Section 26; THENCE
along the north line of said Section 26;
South 89°59'37" 3378.83 feet
THENCE South 00°10'25" East 40.10 feet
to the Point of Intersection with the Right -of -Way line of
County Road 510 (also known as Wabasso Beach Road); said
Point of Intersection being also the POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE along said Right -of -Way line:
North 89°59150" East 416.89 feet
to its intersection with the southwesterly Right -of -Way
line of State Road A -1-A; the Base Line of which is
parallel and concentric with and 50' northeasterly of
said southwesterly Right -of -Way as described in 0. R.
Book 35, Page 393, of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida, as shown on the Right -of -Way Map,
Section 8807-102; THENCE along said southwesterly Right -
of -Way line:
South 24027136" East 550.00 feet
THENCE South 89059159" West 644.60 feet
THENCE North 00000110" West 500.65 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 6.10 Acres.
Be changed from R-2, Multiple -Family District, and C-1,
Commercial District, 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 12th day of December,
1984.
to
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: � G, o Z". ez�
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO HOURS OF SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
L_
29
BOOK 59 F':,481
r
DEC 12 1984
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 ,fk�
in the matter of
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of aa Zme
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 pib be
(SEAL)
-,2?,3 day ot/ D. 19 _
7111�t .
( usiness Manager)
CircuiTcourt, jhdian River County, Florida)
BOOK 59 F! F 182
PUBLIC NOTICE OF" E°
INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River Cou3 Florida, will conduct a Public
Hearing on WWednesday, December 12, 1084, at
8:30 A.M. In the Commlaslon Chambers at the
County Administration Building, 1840 25th
Street, Vero Bea* Florida 32880, to eons
the adoption of an ordinance erititied:
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD 012-!e`2,
.B._v c1i;�
INO TO THE HOUR QQF OFn1`t:P
COHOLIC BEVERAGE AMENDING'
SECTION 2.1 OF THE CODE OF LAWS,
AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR:
UNIFORM HOURS OF -SALE ON/�ry;
GIVEN DAY; CODIFICATION, SEVEq
ABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
If any Person decides to appeal any dMolt
made on tiie above matte►, he will need a rem
Of tier proceedings and for such purposes,
may needto insure that a verbatim record of
Is made,'whkh record I ctudas I
oriy In evidence on which the appeal
Iridian River County
Board of�Commisalonera
Don C Jr, Chaimiari x;
Nov. 23,1884.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that this new Ordinance is
needed to bring our old Code up to date with current practices.
He recommended approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Ms. Jackie Heller of Jackie's Cash & Carry convenience store
informed the Board that she now has to send her customers to the
City to buy beer on Sundays, and she would appreciate the Board
approving the proposed Ordinance in order to correct this
situation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) closed the public hearing.
30
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 84-93 per-
taining to hours of sale of alcoholic beverages and
providing for uniform hours of sale on any given day.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to state that he planned to vote
against the proposed ordinance even though he knew it is done in
the City of Vero Beach. He realized that religion and politics
don't mix well, but he personally felt that many businesses
shouldn't be open on Sunday at all and that the present practice
of allowing the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sundays only after
1:00 P.M. is fine.
Chairman Scurlock agreed with Commissioner Wodtke's comments
and expressed amazement that this change came about in the City
of Vero Beach so quickly; however, he pointed out that the
difference in hours has a negative impact on businesses located
across the county line. He, therefore, did not see any option
other than to make the hours uniform.
Commissioner Wodtke understood the Chairman's position and
stated that he was somewhat appalled to see that no one was
present in the audience to speak against the proposed change in
hours.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3 to 1 with
Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition
and Commissioner Lyons being absent.
31
BOOK F'm, 83
DEC 98 BALIf 5 9 8
ORDINANCE NO. 84- 93
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PERTAINING TO THE
HOURS OF SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; AMENDING
SECTION 2-1 OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING FOR UNIFORM HOURS OF SALE ON ANY GIVEN
DAY; CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Counties are authorized by Article VIII,
Section 5, of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Florida
Statutes §562.14 to regulate the hours of sale of alcoholic
beverages within the unincorporated areas of their respective
counties; and
WHEREAS, the effectiveness and purpose of current County
regulations regarding hours of sale on Sunday have been diminished
by the adoption of less restrictive municipal regulations,
resulting in the creation of an unnecessary hardship upon County
merchants and vendors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA as follows:
SECTION ONE
Section 2-1, Hours of sale, of Chapter 2, ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES, of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River
County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 2-1.
HOURS OF SALE
The hours of sale of alcoholic beverages within the
territory of Indian River County, Florida not included within any
municipality are established as follows:
(a) No alcoholic beverages, that is, all beverages
containing more than one percent (1%) of alcohol by weight, may be
sold, consumed, or served or permitted to be served or consumed in
any place holding a license under the State Beverage Division
of Florida between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. of eaQh-
�Pt�ese�ap;-Weelaese�ap;-��rrrrse�ap;-Prelap-er-Satrr�e�ap, any given day of
the week, including Saturday and Sunday.
+b*--- bevereg-esu--that- i &r--$-.3 -beverages
eeata�a�ae}-mese-bl�ea-erre-gee-eeat-a€-a�eel�e�-bp-we�gl��- stay -be
-1-
NOTE: Words in streek-thred h -type are deletions from
existing law; wor s underlined are addition
I
sold ;- consumed -a-r-se veel--&r-tri-t�t-ed--too--be--se-r-ve&-.Cr--ec�i°rsttttec}-gin
airy-place-+teld+ng -a- 1 c�� -tender- -the --S-t-a-te-$ev��-egQ-�i�i�-i_gf
Pier ld&--be-trweeir--the -4xmim--of--1-.0--ATMT--aft&-4.:�9_e--p�q..---&n ea -ch
fe}---ode-��cic�o-.�i-e•-}iejv�r-agues;--that- s-,--,a33--be�e�ages
eeataialae}-mtrr-c-Stam--one -Ve-r--ceftt--af--a3tie3--kms-weight;-.ftey -be
sold;-eesstmed7-mer-ved--o-r- -pe mmltted - -served-,er--co-rtsufteed 3a-
agy-place-�o-i�13�-a- Vii-Geese--�ade�-the-��a�.e--$e�e�-ag-e--iii-c�i s -ice -off
Fle�lda-Hetweetr-the-hetes-a€-1��61-A-Nf--aed-�: 99-R-M--erg-A4aaday-e€
eeeh-week.
(b)
4d-)
The above
established hours
shall not apply to
December
31st
(New Year's
Eve), which shall be
extended until 3:00
A.M. on January 1 (New Year's Day).
SECTION TWO
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated
into the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County 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 purpose.
SECTION THREE
SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, part thereof,
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 of this ordinance, and it
shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the
ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative
part.
SECTION FOUR
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 Depart-
ment of State.
-2-
NOTE: Words In struek-threugh-type are deletions f ,�
DEC 12 1138 F��,,F 1��
D E C 1 9, 1984
BOOK 5 9 `'G` 18- 6
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commission-
ers of Indian River County, Florida, on this 12th day of December,
1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
DON C. SCU LOCK, JR
Chairman
VCERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR CENTRAL ASSEMBLY ,OF GOD
Attorney Brandenburg reported that the Central Assembly of
God has built a new center on SR 60 and has completed all
required improvements with the exception of some landscaping and
some grading around the ponds that was not completed mainly
because it has been very wet out. In regard to the landscaping,
the members of the congregation are donating items from their
yards, and it will take some time to put all this in place. The
church, therefore is requesting that the Board allow them to
obtain their Certificate of Occupancy and post a bond to cover
the landscaping in the same amount as if it had been done by a
professional. They have quotes from Glenn & Mike's for the
landscaping and from Trodglen Company in regard to paving in the
amounts of $15,000 and $23,000.
Larry Boan, Associate Pastor, explained that Pastor Tipton
could not be present today, but lst American Bank is on the way
with a Letter of Credit.
Attorney Brandenburg suggested that the Board put some
limitation on the time allowed to complete the landscaping.
Pastor Boan felt they could be done by the end of March, and
Commissioner Bird suggested a limit of 120 days.
Attorney Brandenburg suggested there also be some time
limitation re grading around the ponds, which he believed could
be done more quickly.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
34
i
I
authorized the issuance of a Certificate of Occu-
pancy for the Central Assembly of God upon receipt
of security acceptable to the Chairman and the
County Attorney to cover the additional grading
around the ponds, which is to be done within 60 days
and the landscaping, to be completed within 120 days.
4000 20TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
Of Indian Hives County
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 1000
Gentlemen:
(305) 567.0552
January 3, 1985
We hereby establish our Irrevocable and Unconditional Letter of
Credit in your favor for the account of Central Assembly of God, Inc. of
Vero Beach, Florida for the sum of $38,000.00, available on the following
terms:
This letter of credit is being provided for the purpose of securing the
completion of all site plan improvements under the currently approved site
plan for construction of the Central Assembly of God Church at 6767 20th
Street, in Indian River County, Florida. This Letter of Credit is non-
transferrable.
The funds of this Letter of Credit will be on deposit and available to be
drawn by Indian River County in the event the remaining site plan work is not
completed in accordance with an Extension Agreement between the Church and
the County Commission made at the December 12, 1984 County Commission meeting.
Drafts must be drawn at this bank on or before June 10, 1985. Drafts drawn
under this Letter of Credit must be markad upon their face "drawn under First
American Bank of Indian River County Letter of Credit No. 1000 dated January
3, 1985." If the completion of improvements and your written approval of
such improvements occur prior to June 10, 1985, this Letter of Credit shall
be void upon said date of happening.
We hereby agree with the drawers, endorsers, and bona fide holders of drafts
drawn under and in compliance with the terms of this Letter of Credit that
such drafts shall be duly honored on presentation of a written statement
signed by the proper official for Indian River County that the above customer
is in default under the terms of its agreement.
Very truly yours,
FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
DAVID H. TALLEY, PRESI ENT
35
® E C 12 1984 BOOKji
I
DEC 12 1984
OPTIONS FOR LOCATION OF SR 60 WASTEWATER PLANT
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that two of the four
options for property on which to locate the above wastewater
plant expire on the 16th of December. He believed the engineer-
ing analysis has pretty much ruled out using those two options.
The other two options expire on the 23rd of December, and he
asked that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute an
extension of those options as these locations are being given
serious consideration by our engineers.
Commissioner Bird commented that since these options don't
cost us anything, possibly we should extend them all, but
Administrator Wright explained that it is felt two of the
locations would not be viable and he, therefore, did not believe
it would be fair to tie them up any longer.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) authorized the Chairman to execute an
extension of the two options discussed above
which expire on December 23rd and allow the
other two options to expire.
36
-I
EXTENSION OF OPTION CONTRACT
This OPTION CONTRACT EXTENSION entered into this
12th day of December , 1984, by and between INDIAN MVER COUNTY,
a political subdivision of the State of Flor.ua, hereinafter
called "Purchaser," and S. S. and EARL MONROE, INC., hereinafter
referred to as "Seller."
Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows:
1. The term of the Option Contract entered into between the
parties hereto on the 24th day of October, 1984, a copy of which
Is attached hereto, is hereby extended for an additional 45 -day
period. Indian River County may exercise said Option during the
additional 45 -day period under the same terms and conditions as
the attached Option Contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their -
hands and seals on the date set forth next to their signatures.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/L,/4 -t OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
C4 �
Witnes By G
)V4A
Don C. Scurlock, Jr4'
Chairman
fitness
Attest
Freda Wr-jg:ht, G erk
Date December ZO,' 1984
Witness
S. S.and EARL MONROE, INC.
B y I�-y�n6i -P kjn� 0 �N�An_A
Its President
Attest �' vc""_-1_0�
Secr tary
Date 141c-
37 37
D E C 12 1984
�u��. 'JUA FA,FZ69
BOOK 59 f'B:GE 90
EXTENSION OF OPTION CONTRACT
This OPTION CONTRACT EXTENSION entered into this
12thday of December, 1984, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter
called "Purchaser, " and LARRY G. CATRON and PATRICIA E. CATRON,
his wife; DR. JAMES G. PUNCHES and BETTY A. PUNCHES, his wife; and
DR. HUGH K. McCRYSTAL and ANN MARIE McCRYSTAL, his wife,
cumulatively hereinafter referred to as "Seller."
Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows:
1. The term of the Option Contract entered into between the
parties hereto on the
24th day
of October, 1984,
a copy of
--which
is attached hereto, is
hereby
extended for an
additional
45 -day
period. Indian River County may exercise said Option during the
additional 45 -day period under the same terms and conditions as
the attached "Option Contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands and seals on the date set forth next to their signatures.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By a
Don C. S urlock,.,
Chairman
Attest aezja
Freda Wright, Clerk
Date December 12 1984
Wil,qess
Witness
VA
Witnesfs�� N1
Witness
38
ry iG . C
Patricia E.- Cation
Date
,Yr.1 James G. unchk
6y�
Betty A. ,hunches
Date- J/,A- - 17-
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION SUBMISSION ALTERNATIVES
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation and
reviewed the five alternatives presented:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 29, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: AMENDMENT APPLICATION
SUBMISSION ALTERNATIVES
SUBJECT:
Robert M. _Ke,&1Ting,rAICP
Planning & Develophlent Director
FROM:
V11J
EFE
Richard Shearer, AICP R RENCES,
Chief, Long -Range Planning
CPA Alternatives
RICH2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 12, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On September 12, 1984 the Board of County Commissioners
instructed the Planning Department to review the County's
policy for accepting Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications
once a year. The Board of Realtors asked the Board to consider
accepting applications on a quarterly basis. At the meeting,
the Board briefly discussed accepting applications twice a
year, possibly with conditions.
On October 18, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission
considered four alternatives that the staff had prepared
concerning the number of times per year the County would accept
applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan. At that time the
Commission discussed a fifth alternative which would be
accepting applications twice a year, in January and July, but
applications submitted in July would not necessarily be heard
by the Commission immediately. Under this alternative, if an
application was received in July and required substantial staff
analysis, additional time would be allowed for this analysis.
On November 19, 1984, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend alternative #3, which states that the
County will accept applications twice a year in January and
July.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The Planning Department prepared four alternatives for
accepting Comprehensive Plan amendment applications as follows:
1) No change in the County's present policy of
accepting applications once a year;
39
8 0 0 r 59 PACE191
J
I
DEC 12 198 aooK 59 F°,G
2) Accepting applications twice per year, in
January and in June, if conditions warrant;
3) Accepting applications twice a year, in
January and in July;
4) Accepting applications quarterly.
5) Accepting applictions twice a year, in January and in
July, but with extra review time available.
No Change
The County could retain its current policy of accepting
applications once a year during the first two weeks of January.
In adopting its Comprehensive Plan, the County incorporated a
provision within the document which limits the consideration of
Comprehensive Plan amendment requests to once per year at the
beginning of the calendar year. This provision indicates that
amending the Plan is an action which should not be encouraged.
While a Plan should not be competely inflexible, it must be
constant, comprehensive, and must serve as a guide for future
development. As such, proposed changes in the Plan must be
assessed for effects upon other elements of the Plan.
For that reason, it is advantageous to review all Comprehensive
Plan amendment requests in the same time frame, not only to
determine their separate effects but also their cumulative
impacts.
Generally, amending the Plan must be viewed as a more drastic
action than changing other County ordinances. Since the
Comprehensive Plan was developed, based upon various studies
and analyses which identified existing conditions, determined
present trends, and projected future conditions, the Plan
constitutes a document which reflects a development policy
designed to meet future needs and address potential problems
before they occur. Because of the comprehensive nature of the
Plan, itself, as well as its long term focus, certain
characteristics must be addressed prior to amending the Plan.
The current County policy of limiting Comprehensive Plan
amendment requests to once a year, is consistent with actions
by other local governments. An example of this is legislation
filed at the state level in the past legislative session which
would have limited all local governments to annual Plan amend-
ments. Another example is Collier County which attempted to
limit amendment requests to once every two years. Perhaps the
best example of the importance of Comprehensive Plans is
Seminole County's former amendment policy; that county formerly
required a four-fifths majority vote of its Board of County
Commissioners to amend its Plan.
When all things are considered, there are many advantages to
limiting amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Instead of
allowing the Plan to be subject to the same considerations as
any other action, this limitation reflects the Plan's status as
a long term guide to growth and development. It allows
flexibility while establishing control and consistency, limits
attempts to circumvent the Plan's intent, and ensures an
adequate review of amendment requests.
One problem with only accepting applications during the first
two weeks of January is the short amount of time that
applications can be accepted. The County might consider
extending this period to allow more time to assemble the
material necessary to accompany the application.
40
M
- M
Accepting Applications Twice a Year With Conditions
The County could continue accepting applications in January
and, in addition, accept applications in June if certain
conditions are met. Prior to June 1, individuals requesting a
Comprehensive Plan amendment would submit a simple written
request to be allowed to submit an amendment application. The
request would include a brief description of the size and
location of the property and one or more reasons why the
individual feels that a change in the land use designation of
the property should be considered.
The Planning Department would do a brief analysis of the
requests based on the following criteria to determine if:
1) A major change in conditions had occurred in
the area around the subject property (such as
new development that was considerably more
intense than the development that would be
permitted on the subject property); or
2) An oversight occurred when the Plan was
originally prepared (such as not properly
assessing the existing land use pattern in
the area around the subject property).
If either of these conditions could be met, the Planning
Department would recommend that the County accept a
Comprehensive Plan amendment application for the subject
property. Regardless of the Planning Department's recommenda-
tion, all requests to submit applications would be considered
by the Board of County Commissioners at their last June meeting.
Applicants whose requests were granted by the Board could
submit applications during July which would then proceed
through the standard amendment process.
Accepting Applications Twice a Year
Another alternative is accepting applications twice a year in
January and in July without any pre -submitted conditions having
to be met. An advantage to this alternative over the previous
alternative is that individuals would not have to submit a
written request to file an amendment application and get it
approved. A disadvantage is that there would be no limit to
the number of amendment applications that could be submitted.
Accepting Applications Quarterly
A fourth alternative is to accept Comprehensive Plan amendment
applications on a quarterly basis, such as in January, April,
July, and October. The advantage of this alternative is that
an individual would not have to wait up to six months or a year
to apply for an amendment to the Land Use Plan. If an individ-
ual missed the deadline for submission one month, there would.
only be a two month wait before applications could be submitted
again.
The disadvantage to this alternative (or allowing amendments
more often than quarterly) is that the Comprehensive Plan would
no longer be a long-range Land Use Plan but would be little
better than a zoning map.
Accepting Applications Twice a Year with Extended Review Time
This alternative is similar to alternatives 2 and 3 in that
applications would be accepted twice a year. While
41
D E C 12, 1984 59
BOOK 59 PAGE 194
applications would be accepted in January and reviewed
expeditiously, this alternative would allow for a longer review
period for some applications received in July if the staff felt
that the particular application(s) would result in a major
change in the land use plan or otherwise required a lengthy
staff analysis. While most applications could be reviewed in a
couple of weeks, some applications could be for large parcels
of land which would affect not only the subject property but
also could affect large areas around them. This would require
extensive staff time to review and analyze the potential
impacts. The advantages of this alternative are that it would
allow individuals to submit applications twice a year, and the
staff would have additional time to review complex amendment
applications submitted in July.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend that
Comprehensive Plan amendment applications be accepted twice a
year in January and July. The Planning Department recommends
that the County retain its present policy of allowing the
submittal of Comprehensive Plan amendment applications only
once a year. However, the staff also recommends that the County
extend the application submission period to accept amendment
applications throughout the entire month of January instead of
just the first two weeks of the month and, if the Board of
County Commissioners does decide to follow the Planning &
Zoning Commission recommendation, staff recommends that
applications be accepted throughout the month of July.
Mr. Shearer commented that staff feels it might be difficult
to place conditions on applications submitted in the summer, and
agreed that if this were to be done twice a year, it should be
with no conditions placed on them. The Planning & Zoning
Commission was in favor of Alternative 3; the Planning Depart-
ment, however would prefer to see applications submitted only in
January, but would like the time for submission to be extended
throughout January rather than just the first two weeks. If the
Board should decide to go with the Planning & Zoning Commission's
recommendations of accepting applications in January and July,
staff would recommend they be accepted during the entire month of
July also.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to authorize staff to
initiate whatever action is needed under the
Comprehensive Plan to allow for submission of
applications for amendment of the Plan twice a
year during the entire months of January and July.
42
M M M
Nancy Offutt, speaking for the Board of Realtors, noted that
the Realtors first requested a quarterly review, but they have
relaxed their position and agree that a semi-annual review is
fair.
Commissioner Bowman favored submission of applications just
once a year during the entire month of January as she felt
otherwise it would be a continuing process which would drag
through the Planning Department for the whole year.
Commissioner Bird felt that once a year is just too long for
someone to have to wait in view of the pace at which the County
is growing and changing.
Chairman Scurlock asked whether Planning would be able to
handle the workload with submissions twice a year without having
to increase staff.
Mr. Shearer noted that the last Comprehensive Plan amendment
considered this year was on September 12th, and Planning Director
Keating explained the reason for that was that many people who
submitted their applications in January, did not have all the
required back-up. Staff gave them several months to gather it
all together, and also some elements had to undergo review.
Chairman Scurlock stated that what he was trying to point
out is that even if we do make the change to twice a year, we may
not be changing anything from a practical standpoint because of
the limitations on staff.
Mrs. Offutt believed some of the delay was because people
did not prepare sufficiently; she felt that having a whole month
to submit instead of just two weeks would help solve that
problem.
Administrator Wright stated that if it gets to the point
where additional staff is required, he will come to the
Commission. He noted that right now we are down in personnel and
are having a difficult time hiring people.
Planning Director Shearer confirmed that he had two staff
43
DECFN
121994 Bm 59 F,,{,F I,95
'DEC
��4 aoaK r+�c 1 96
members leave last week and will soon have three vacancies as
there is one retirement coming up.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3 to 1 with
Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition
and Commissioner Lyons being absent.
PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD - INFORMATION FOR SUBMITTAL
TO THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION
Michael Galanis, Director of Environmental Health, reviewed
the following memo:
TO: Board of County Commissioners ATE: December 4, 1984 FELE:
Dour Scurlock, Chairman
SUBJECT: Attached proposed Envi-
ronmental Control informa-
tion for submittal to
legislative Delegation
FROM: Michael J. Galanis, M.p.@EFERENCES:
Director, Environmental Health
The Indian River County Public Health Unit(IRCPHU), Environmental
Health Section conducts ongoing programs in the plan review, in-
spection and regulation of over 2000 separate establishments in
Indian River County. These will result in over 5000 separate in-
spections for FY 84-85. These regulatory functions involve water,
sewage, food, Migrant labor camp, trailer park, swimming pools, and
other public health and environmentally related establishments.
Additionally, over 1000 citizen complaints are answered annually
by staff of this department. The department utilizes existing
Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Codes as standards
when conducting these inspections. When problems are encountered,
as they often are, we find the majority of citizens cooperative
and willing to make corrections. Unfortunately, this is not al-
ways the case. Many times we must proceed to enforcement activities
to promote these minimum standards.
Current mechanism for enforcement lies in contacting the county or
states attorney and requesting his or her asistance in filing
criminal charges against the offending party. While these indi-
viduals are cooperative, we are often reluctant to involve their
time when they are overloaded with important county matters or
criminal matters for the sheriff's department. The state does
allow for an administrative fine procedure, however, provides
44
one legal staff member, part-time, to support our activities in
this area. Additionally, the system breaks down when violators
refuse to comply with the "administrative orders" of Tallahassee.
In the final analysis, this department may and often does become
involved in the regulatory activities of many departments through
Florida statute 386, Nuisances Injurious to Health.
We have learned that most of these other state regulatory agencies
have their own frustrations with their ability to enforce regula-
tions. In our experience, the only effective means we have dis-
covered is through an "Environmental Control Board" or other such
entity established at the local level to hear local problems that
provide for relief in a quick and expeditious manner.
We have attached a proposal that will allow for the establishment
of an Environmental Control Board in Indian River County. We
propose to submit it to our local delegation by December 14th
so that they may have it prepared for their January meeting.
When the bill is passed by the Florida Legislature, this board
is able to enforce state law at the local level. The board
appoints a "hearing board" to hear cases. The "offending" party
still has appeal rights to the judicial system.
The Environmental Health section will provide staff, present
cases, and generally assist the hearing board in its activities.
There will probably be some legal assistance needed by the county
attorney however he has assured us this will not be a major ob-
stacle.
In other areas, these boards are used by state agencies other
than the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The
Department of Environmental Regulation makes extensive use of
Martin Counties Environmental Control Board. The Department
of Business Regulation, Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Transportation could possibly be assisted by a
board such as this. St. Lucie, Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade
counties have establilshed similar boards.
Mr. Galanis stated that Attorney Brandenburg was very
helpful in preparing the proposed Bill. He reported that many
counties, including Martin and St. Lucie, already have taken this
step, and all he is asking today is that the Commission authorize
and support the efforts of State Representative Patchett in
getting a Bill passed so we can set up such a board sometime next
year.
Commissioner Bird asked who would designate the Environmen-
tal Control Officer, and whether it would be Mr. Galanis or
someone he hired.
Mr. Galanis stated that it would be the Board's choice, and
Attorney Brandenburg believed the intent would be to designate
Mr. Galanis the Environmental Control Officer. There would be no
positions at this time so there should not be a need for any
employees.
45
D E C 12 1984 BOOK 59 F''CE 19, 7
F- I
DEC 12 1984 aooK 5 9 F ! �
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the Hearing Board shall be
made up of "residents of the County," and he suggested it should
be "voting" residents. He further noted that the doctor member
is to be recommended by the County Medical Society and the
Engineer by the local chapter of the Florida Engineering Society;
therefore, he felt the lawyer should be recommended by the local
Bar Association.
Attorney Brandenburg agreed these items could be corrected.
Commissioner Bird inquired about staggered terms, and
Attorney Brandenburg stated that could be dealt with also and
could be established by Resolution.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if this Board could invoke a fine
and was informed that it could. Attorney Brandenburg explained
that actually the County Commission is the Environmental Control
Board and adopts the regulations that the Hearing Board enforces.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is a possible conflict
where the Commission make certain decisions, but then as the
Environmental Control Board will be wearing different hats.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that this doesn't seem to have
caused problems in other counties which have adopted this type of
procedure. He pointed out that it is a very similar concept to
the Code Enforcement Board.
Mr. Galanis noted that the proposed Bill was copied from one
adopted for a larger county, and possibly holding a meeting less
frequently than every 45 days would be sufficient. He noted that
while the Hearing Board does make decisions, they can be
appealed; however, nine out of ten matters are generally solved
at the Hearing Board level.
Commissioner Bowman felt there are some points that need to
be fine tuned in regard to length of terms, etc., and Attorney
Brandenburg stated that could be handled either separately or by
resolution.
Discussion continued regarding how the procedure would work,
and whether this Board will make decisions on state requirements.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the rules and
regulations can be either state regulations or local ordinances
relating to the same type of items.
Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that he would not want this
board to be used by the DER or other state agencies to push all
their workload over here.
Mr. Galanis believed he could control that. He noted that
the DER is the regulatory agency over sewer plants, and this
actually would involve many other facets of health related
nuisances.
Discussion continued regarding the appeal process and how
the DER works, etc., and Commissioner Bird asked if someone could
make a complaint about a neighbor, for instance, directly to this
Board or whether they would have to funnel it through Environ-
mental Health.
Mr. Galanis confirmed that there would be a professional
investigation before anything was brought before this board.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that he has not reviewed this
completely, and if he should have additional comments he would
like to be able to bring them to the County Attorney. He was
assured that this could be done at the public hearing with the
Legislative Delegation or at any time up until then.
Attorney Brandenburg felt there is a need to move on this
quite quickly and suggested that any Motion include submitting
the proposed Bill to the Legislative Delegation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the proposed Bill relating to
establishment of a County Environmental Control
Board, including the changes just outlined and
deleting the requirement that the Board meet
no less than every 90 days, and authorized
submission of same to the Legislative Delegation.
47
D E C 12, 1984
eooF 59 Fin ffl
1
r DEC 12 1.834
Boor
VFRANK ZORC ADDRESSES COMMISSION RE BEACH RESTORATION
59 PeAr oa
Mr. Zorc had a few questions as to the actual purpose of
next week's meeting between the City Council and the County
Commission.
Chairman Scurlock stated that his understanding is that the
City Council and County Commission will be meeting in a joint
session where they can take action; various plans for funding the
restoration projects will be presented; and hopefully there will
be a commitment to participate and to send a letter to the Corps
as to what basis the local share will be made on. Further, he
believed consideration will be given to authorizing a beach
preservation committee to establish an overall beach management
program. As to -the question of public input, the Chairman felt
that only reasonable comments presented in a reasonable time
frame would be entertained. He asked if any of the Commission
members disagreed with his statement.
Commissioner Bowman wished clarification of his statement re
"participation" as she felt the Board had committed to a straw
ballot, and she did not think the public would stand for a change
of position on this.
Chairman Scurlock noted that each Commissioner will have to
make their own decision on this. Because of new facts, new
funding formulas, and a new public awareness, he noted that he
has indicated he would reconsider his position on a straw ballot.
Mr. Zorc stated that it then appears the joint meeting is
not to be just a workshop meeting, and the Chairman confirmed
that it is to be a regular meeting at which action can be taken,
and he would assume some answer will come out of that meeting.
Ii STAFF REQUEST FOR DIRECTION RE MAXIMUM DENSITIES FOR MD -2 AREA
Planning Director Keating reviewed the following memo:
48
J
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 3, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
SUBJECT: REGARDING MAXIMUM
DENSITIES FOR MD -2 AREA
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AId EFERENCES:
Planning & Development Director
It is requested that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
its regular meeting of December 12, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
At its regular meeting of November 28, 1984, the Board of
County Commissioners approved two rezoning requests for
property in the area between U.S. #1 and the Indian River,
south of 17th Street. Although this area is designated MD -2
(up to 10 units per acre) on the Land Use Plan, the Board of
County Commissioners approved the proposed rezonings only
after the applicants agreed to reduce their requested
densities from ten to eight units per acre.
Both rezonings in question involved land zoned for sin-
gle-family use. To utilize their property for more intense
multi -family uses, the applicants needed to have their
property rezoned to a higher density multi -family use.
While other properties in this area which currently have
single-family zoning will require a rezoning before the
property can be used for multi -family development, some
properties already have an R-2 zoning designation (up to 15
units per acre). In such cases the R-2 zoning would be
capped at ten units per acre by the underlying MD -2 land use
designation, and the property could be developed at a
density of up to ten units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES
At this time, the staff requests direction from the Board as
to how to proceed in relation to development reviews in this
geographic area of the County. The principal issue to be
resolved is whether the recent action by the Board in
limiting densities in this area to eight units per acre
should be applied to all parcels in the area designated as
MD -2 on the Land Use Plan. If so, that will require Coun-
ty -initiated rezonings to downzone various parcels already
designated for ten units per acre.
The staff has identified the following alternatives:
°No Action
This would allow those parcels currently having an
R-2 zoning classification to develop at ten units
per acre. It would allow the Commission to
rn r ` F 201
0 E G 12 19'Cw-`;"
41
I TH - M,
Bork 59 ; "'r 2,02
or
determine on a case by case basis the appropriate
density for those parcels requiring rezoning.
° Density Reduction
The Board of County Commissioners can reduce the
density of all parcels in the MD -2 area to eight
units per acre to correspond to the Board's recent
action on the Strazulla and Tannen rezoning re-
quests. This action could take one of two forms:
- Downzoning & Land Use Plan Amendment
The Board could direct the staff to downzone
parcels currently zoned R-2 to R -2B (8 units
per acre). To complement the downzoning, the
Board could direct the staff to amend the Land
Use Plan for this area, changing the MD -2
designation to MD -1 (up to 8 units per acre).
- Downzoning Without Land Use Plan Amendment
The Board could direct the staff to downzone
parcels currently zoned R-2 to R -2B. Instead
of amending the Comp Plan, however, the Board
could opt to retain the MD -2 land use desig-
nation.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff requests direction from the Board as to how to
proceed.
Mr. Keating noted that this is the only area in the county
with MD -2 which allows densities up to 10 units per acre. Other
than the Gifford MXD, this is the highest density in the county.
Staff has recommended approval at 10 units per acre but would
like direction from the Board. He wished to point out that down
there right now we have two zoning districts in place. Most of
the land on 6th Avenue is R-2, where the applicant would not need
a change of zoning for 10 units per acre. A lot of the land east
of that is R-lA, and they would have to undergo a rezoning to get
the higher density of either 8 or 10. Staff has identified
alternates as set out in the memo; downzoning would be consistent
with what was done with the Tannen and Strazzulla properties, but
it is less density than some projects currently built in the 6th
Avenue area.
Commissioner Bird stated his interpretation of the Plan is
that while MD -2 allows up to 10 units, it is not a a guarantee of
10, and the reason he went for less density on the Strazzulla and
Tannen properties was because of the environmentally sensitive
50
� � r
area and the trade-offs allowed, which would have created a far
greater density on the upland buildable area.
Chairman Scurlock concurred that Commissioner Bird had hit
on the key point - it was a balance of looking at a particular
piece of property and transferring densities and ending up with
20 units per acre instead of 10. He felt we should try to end up
with a product consistent with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would not favor changing a
thing. He felt staff should continue to make their recommenda-
tions as they see fit, and the Board should have the ability to
temper those recommendations.
Mr. Keating wished to point out that there are a couple of
properties where there will be transfers - some of the R-lAs and
some of those that front on 6th Avenue where they will be
dedicating right-of-ways.
Commissioner Bowman agreed with what has been said, but
stated that she would prefer to spell it out and cut it down to 8
so everybody knows where we stand.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Bowman
voting in opposition, the Board by a 3 to 1
vote, instructed the staff to take no action
and maintain the status quo in the MD -2 area.
MASTER WATER PLAN AGREEMENT - BOYLE ENGINEERING CORP.
The Board reviewed the following memos from Utility Services
Director Pinto:
51
DEC 121984 , U 59 PnE 203
FF_
DEC 1 1984
BOOK 59 Fv°;t 204
TO: The Honorable Members of thEDATE: December 4, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator
FROM:Terrance G. Pino
Utility Services Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
SUBJECT: MASTER WATER PLAN
REFERENCES: A)
B)
C)
11/7/84 Memo to BCC
Cover letters
Revised agreement
The Board reviewed Exhibit "A" on November 21, 1984, and tabled
the item to an upcoming meeting.
Attached as Exhibit "C" is the revised agreement from Boyle
Engineering to provide professional engineering services on
projects related to the water system and mapping.
In Mr. Coleman's cover letters, he reviews each revision (Ex-
hibit "B").
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board authorize the Chairman to execute
this agreement on behalf of the County.
TO: The Honorable Members of thEDATE: November 7, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator
EXHIBIT "A"
SUBJECT: MASTER WATER PLAN
FROM: Terrance G. PintoREFERENCES: 1) Agreement between Indian
Utility Services d*rctor River County & Boyle
Engineering Corporation
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Boyle Engineering Corporation has submitted two (identical)
signed agreements by Richard J. Coleman, Senior Civil Engineer
and Kermit L. Prime, Jr., Managing Engineer (Reference #1).
These agreements authorize Boyle Engineering Corporation
to prepare a master plan for development of a water distribution
system to serve the south county mainland area which extends
from the ity limits of Vero Beach south to the Indian River
County line; the State Road 60 corridor which extends from
the ity limits of Vero Beach to a line approximately two
miles west of Interstate 95; and the north county area which
52
® r
extends from the State Road 60 corridor through the Gifford
area to the west bank of the Indian River, including the
hospital and surrounding area. The limits of the study area
to be included in the water master plan are shown in Exhibit
A attached to the agreement.
These agreements also authorize Boyle Engineering Corporation
to develop a computer model of the water distribution system
which shall be used by the engineer to analyze the system.
The engineer will also advise the County of the equipment
needed for an IBM PC computer system to operate the computer
model, and the engineer will develop the computer model
in such a manner that it can be converted for use on this
equipment.
Boyle Engineering Corporation will also prepare maps showing
the County's existing water distribution system. All water
system information used by the engineer for preparation of
the maps shall be provided by the County. The engineer will
not perform any field location work.
Exhibit B to the agreement presents an estimate of the work
tasks, number of manhours, direct wages and salaries, reim-
bursable expenses.and budget for completing the scope of
services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board authorize its Chairman to execute
these two agreements on behalf of Indian River County.
Chairman Scurlock reported that he has been working with
Director Pinto on this and he has one more area of discussion -
Sec. 1.1.2 on Page 4 of the proposed agreement re Work Tasks.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that he has a proposed amendment
to that action, and the new language, to which the engineering
firm has agreed, reads as follows:
1.1.2 The OWNER and ENGINEER agree that the Work Tasks
described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein as
though set forth in full, represent the Work Tasks that are
anticipated of the ENGINEER by the OWNER for development of an
estimated budget for the Water System Master Plan Project. Further,
the OWNER and ENGINEER agree that the level of effort by labor
classification set forth in Exhibit B appears reasonable and was used
to develop an estimated budget for the Project. Material
differences between the actual Work Tasks and level of effort
required for completion of the Project and that shown in Exhibit B
will be used by the ENGINEER and the OWNER as a basis for amending the
estimated budget.
Discussion ensued as to whether we are telling the engineer
to utilize our present plant capacity and transmission system to
its utmost ability or that we definitely want another plant in
the North County, and Chairman Scurlock noted that we have
already expanded from the original study with a line to Route 60,
53
DEC 121984 50 F,�cF 205
DEC 1; 14 BOOK 59
and the next consideration was a large line from South County up
to service a D.R.I. that is in process for the Grand Harbor
project. He did not believe there is any question that the South
County plant never could serve the entire county, one factor
being that there is not enough wellfield area, and, therefore, he
believed any study would -tell -the --County to•look at a North
County system.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the possibility of trans-
mitting water to the northern part of the county from the
existing plant so that if we decide to build up there, we then
would have an existing customer base.
Chairman Scurlock felt that is a good possibility, but
stated he would oppose it because he believed we have a plant
that can be acquired up there right now. He felt the analysis
will demonstrate that a 20" line with booster pump would be
ineffective other than to service a private project.
Administrator Wright confirmed that all these factors will
be considered in the analysis. He agreed that we do want to
increase customer base without increasing debt, if possible.
Commissioner Bowman inquired about whether the engineers are
doing a hydrological study or just using current information as
she did not want to pay money for more studies if data is
available.
Utilities Director Pinto felt it will be found that Indian
River County has been studied more than most, and that there is a
great wealth of information available.
Director Pinto informed the Board that another extremely
important factor is that the engineers are going to take our
existing pipe network and computerize it to the point where it
will be possible to determine the effect of a new development on
the overall system. This would enable us to know, for instance,
whether it might be necessary to require the developer to build a
booster pump to alleviate the effects of his development on the
system.
54
M M M
Commissioner Bird asked how we compute fees for the people
who have not paid to connect up to this point, and Director Pinto
explained that an impact fee is being established that will
incorporate the cost for existing facilities, consider the line
extension needed, the size, etc.; this all will be coming to the
Commission for consideration.
Chairman Scurlock expressed concern about expanding the
service area for the South County plant to the point where we
could get in trouble with FmHA if we ended up denying service in
the area originally agreed upon because of carrying service
outside that area. He believed the study should provide answers
to all these concerns and also felt that possibly some of the
cost for the study should be paid for in the D.R.I. process
involved in planning for a proposed 3,000 unit project.
Commissioner Wodtke discussed Exhibit A, which sets out the
study area, as follows:
55
DEC 12 `984 Boor 59 �Ac'.9U�'
pr --
DEC 12 1984
1 AVA
7 �A AM
AJRPAR,11.�
L
LIMITS OF
STUDY AREA
COUNTY LINE -
EXHIBIT. A TO AGREEMENT
56
Boor 5,9 F,,{ 1,; F. ?, ij.8 I
La
tn
INSET
T 31 S -R 37 1
Commissioner Wodtke commented that we do not know what will
happen re annexation into the City of Sebastian-, and it seems we
are leaving an unincorporated area between Wabasso Road and the
City of Sebastian for which we are not planning service.
Director Pinto did not feel the lines or areas are so
specific that a block or half a mile away you are never going to
get service. He noted that once the project is completed and the
model set up, it simply becomes a matter of punching in numbers
to expand the area. Director Pinto stated that he could not
emphasize enough how much this study will mean in relation to
determining where a new project possibly could cause problems in
the entire system.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know where the money for the
study is coming from; Director Pinto explained that most of the
money was budgeted, but some amendments have been made to the
scope of work and that would come out of Utilities contingency.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the MSTU, and Adminis-
trator Wright pointed out that this study will affect the entire
county.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the Master Water Plan Agreement
with Boyle Engineering Corporation and authorized
the signature of the Chairman.
(Said Agreement is on file in the Office of the Clerk)
CITATION AUTHORITY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER
Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull reviewed the following
memo:
57
D E C 1 2 1984 BOOK FAGE�J
800K� i•�
TO: The Board of County DATE: December 5, 1984 FILE:
County Commissioners
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED SPECIAL ACT
PROVIDING CITATION AUTHORITY TO
FROM: Christoph r KJ. Paull REFERENCESANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER
Assistant County Attorney
BACKGROUND
As revised in 1983, the County's Animal Control Ordi-
nance established a variety of enforcement mechanisms including both
an appearance before the Code Enforcement Board (triggered by a
notice"from the Animal Control Officer) or an appearance in County
Court (triggered by issuance of a "Notice to Appear" by a law
enforcement officer). After adoption of the ordinance, the Attorney
General's Office issued an opinion stating that the Code Enforcement
Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce animal control and similar
non-technical ordinances. In light of this opinion, the only viable
method of enforcement against difficult violations involves the
animal control officer summoning a deputy or city policeman to the
scene and convincing him to issue a Notice to Appear in County Court.
This is a cumbersome and often futile process, given the nature of
some animal control violations. The ideal situation would be vesting
the animal control officers themselves with the authority to directly
issue the Notice to Appear in County Court.
General Florida Law presently limits the authority to issue
a Notice to Appear in County Court to certain described "law enforce-
ment officers." The County does not have the authority to adopt an
ordinance vesting.its animal control officers with this authority, in
the absence of some special legislation from the state.
REQUESTED ACTION
It is requested that the Board authorize staff to prepare
and present to the legislative delegation a proposed special act
which would provide animal control officers with the status of law
enforcement officers for the limited purpose of issuing Notices to
Appear in County Court to violators of the County's Animal Control
Ordinance.
Attorney Paull emphasized that the big problem with the
present set-up is that getting a violator in court requires the
police officer to witness that actual violation, and that is why
the Animal Control Officer needs the ability to cite people on
the spot. He noted that there is a December 14th deadline, and
he would like to have this prepared and delivered to Represen-
tative Patchett.
58
Administrator Wright favored the recommended action as he
did not want to have to deputize Animal Control Officers.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
staff to prepare and present to the Legislative Delega-
tion a proposed Special Act as discussed.
d ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS - TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
The Board reviewed letter from Sam Shannon, Executive
Director of Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, as follows:
!: In accordance with Council's Rules of Organization the December meeting is desig-
nated as the Annual Meeting, at which time the appointment of all members and
alternates is to occur. It is, therefore, requested that the Board of County
Commissioners take the necessary action to appoint members and alternates for
the upcoming year. In the case of Indian River County three members as well as
three alternates need to be appointed (two county, one municipal). It'should be
noted that all alternates must be elected officials.
Additionally, the bylaws do not specifically indicate that municipal appoint-
ments must be either appointed or approved by the county. Each county is
assigned the number of appointments and the method for making the appointments
is left to the discretion and cooperation of the local governments in each area.
!. Finally, it would be appreciated if the County would notify the Council of the
appointments, including mailing addresses and telephone numbers, as soon as
possible so that information can be provided to each member in a timely fashion
for the meeting of December 21st.
Should you have any questions on this matter please contact me at your earliest
convenience.
truly
Sam Shannon
Executive Director 59
BOOK 9 F'3GF.
L_ DEC 12 1984 �
rOJ �UMiN�1222,����'
®lunro
1� t,
0G2��
.v
November 21, 1984
C f' • ,er�•,y�
,�� f,c
DISTRIBUTION LIST _
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
The Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Personnel
Indian River County Board
of Commissioners
Public Worcs
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Cornr;,uni: S � :�a�
Cv.
Utilities
Subject: Annual Appointment of Council Members
Finance- ,
Otl.sri I �c
Dear Chairman Scurlock:
�'----- rn
!: In accordance with Council's Rules of Organization the December meeting is desig-
nated as the Annual Meeting, at which time the appointment of all members and
alternates is to occur. It is, therefore, requested that the Board of County
Commissioners take the necessary action to appoint members and alternates for
the upcoming year. In the case of Indian River County three members as well as
three alternates need to be appointed (two county, one municipal). It'should be
noted that all alternates must be elected officials.
Additionally, the bylaws do not specifically indicate that municipal appoint-
ments must be either appointed or approved by the county. Each county is
assigned the number of appointments and the method for making the appointments
is left to the discretion and cooperation of the local governments in each area.
!. Finally, it would be appreciated if the County would notify the Council of the
appointments, including mailing addresses and telephone numbers, as soon as
possible so that information can be provided to each member in a timely fashion
for the meeting of December 21st.
Should you have any questions on this matter please contact me at your earliest
convenience.
truly
Sam Shannon
Executive Director 59
BOOK 9 F'3GF.
L_ DEC 12 1984 �
DEC,
BOOK 59GE�
Discussion ensued in which staff explained that the
appointee of the Town of Orchid becomes the municipal
representative in 1985 with the City of Sebastian supplying the
alternate representative. These municipalities will inform the
Commission of their appointments. It was further noted that
during 1984 Commissioner Lyons served as one member of the
Planning Council with Commissioner Bird acting as his alternate;
Commissioner Bowman served as the other representative with
Commissioner Wodtke as her alternate.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) agreed to reappoint to the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council for 1985 the same
representatives and alternates listed above.
MOORINGS OF VERO PROPERTY OWNERS - RE ACQUISITION OF HUTCHINSON
UTILITIES
Chairman Scurlock referred the Board to the following letter
from the President of Moorings of Vero Property Owners Assoc.:
60
MOORINGS OF PESO
TTWIAT V Calm" AMMATWU
f btO0flu WXua-"AD$afA w"
aM�0YA0�/�a10� 7sY
. i
December 11, 1984
The Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Chairman Scurlock:
Reference is made to our letter of December 5, 1984 (copy
attached) regarding the acquisition of the Hutchinson Utilities, Inc.
waste water system, construction of an effluent return line, and
connection to the municipal system of the City of Vero Beach.
Attached are signatures representing a majority of our property
owners who are in favor of the actions proposed in referenced letter.
To this end we ask the Commission to consider our request at the
County Commission meeting on December 12, 1,984 and we would appreciate
you authorizing your staff to work with us on agreements for presentation
to the various governmental bodies affected.
We again thank you and each of the Commissioners for your past
assistance on this matter.
Yours very truly,
MOORINGS OF VERO PROPERTY OWNERS ASSIN.
J
h
President
The Chairman stated that he put this on the agenda to get
the Board's reaction to what is being recommended. He reported
that with the letter Mr. White submitted a petition in favor of
the request signed by 484 property owners, which petition is on
file in the Office of the Clerk.
Bert Hambleton came before the Board representing the
property owners of The Moorings, as Mr. White was not able to be
present, and informed the -Board that they are continuing to
gather signatures and also are contacting absentee owners. He
61
DEC 12 1984 800K 59 +cF 21
-I
DEC 12 1984 BOOK " ?14
explained that what they would like is some simple action
authorizing them to work with the City, County, and appropriate
agencies, to work out the acquisition of the utility.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he personally has indicated
that he would support the concept presented by the property
owners. The only danger he wished to point out is that if five
to seven years down the line, the City has not moved ahead to
take the effluent back to the affected property, and if the
effluent plant is not in place, the golf course will need another
plan to provide that service.
Mr. Hambleton reported that the engineer tells them it will
take 18-24 months to construct the return lines to bring the
effluent back to the golf course, and they are asking to be
allowed to finance that cost through the same special assess-
ment.
Commissioner Bird believed this is the direction we would
like to head in. He stated that Mr. Hambleton assured him that
the concerns of Hutchinson Utilities and St. Edward's School have
been satisfied as well as those of the Moorings property owners.
Attorney Brandenburg commented that if the County does agree
to participate in this venture, he would suggest that at the
closing when the Hutchinson Utilities system is purchased, that
it go immediately to the City and not to the County at all on an
interim basis.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) endorsed the
basic concept of the proposal presented by the Moorings
of Vero Property Owners and authorized staff to work in
cooperation with them to accomplish their goals.
SECURITY LIGHTS AT FAIRGROUNDS
Commissioner Bird reported that final preparations are still
on-going for the County Fair, which is scheduled for mid January.
62
It is felt that for reasons of security and safety, proper
lighting is needed in the parking area. Florida Power & Light
has been contacted and what is being proposed is five high
pressure sodium lights that would be mounted on five power poles
that have to be put in anyway. These lights would shine out
towards King's Highway and help light up the parking area. For
FP&L to install them just for the fair and then take them down
would run $1,500 plus a $98.00 electric bill. Option #2 would be
to put the lights up and let them burn all year, for which the
total cost for the year would be $1,200. Option #3 would be for
the County to buy the lights and install them ourselves. The
purchase price would be $1,200, and at $98.00 monthly, it would
cost $2,400 to let them burn all year. Commissioner Bird,
therefore, felt Option #2 would be the answer as we anticipate
other events being held at the fairgrounds during the year.
Administrator Wright further pointed out that FP&L would
maintain the lights.
Commissioner Bird reported that Intergovernmental Relations
Director Thomas has recommended that this be funded from the
special escrow fund for Park Improvements, Acquisition and
Development.
Administrator Wright questioned whether it would be better
to do that or to let that fund build and take these funds out of
General Contingency.
Commissioner Wodtke believed we are going to have to
generate a fee schedule for use of these grounds, and Commis-
sioner Bird stated that he would be coming back after the Fair
with recommendations.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
Option #2 whereby FP&L would put the lights up and
they would burn all year for a total cost of $1,200;
the funds to be taken from General Fund Contingency.
63
BOOK E2i5
J
DEC 12 `SSM BOOK 59 ;,+cE 216
REPORT ON POTHOLES IN LIBRARY PARKING LOT
Commissioner Bird reported on the figures obtained from
private firms in regard to repairing the Library parking lot, as
follows:
Trodglen - (for patching only) .................. $1,394
Dennis Smith - (patching & resurfacing with
l" asphalt cap) ................. $3,160
Commissioner Bird further informed the Board that he had
Road & Bridge take a look at the parking lot, and they came up
with three options -
#1.
Just patching ................. ..........$ 800
#2.
Patch and resurface
parking area w/12"
cap.. $3,340
#3.
Patch and resurface
just main traffic
area.. $2,389
It seems that the holes were patched last year, but this did
not hold up and is now even worse; so, it seems that patching is
money wasted. The City of Vero Beach does not feel any responsi-
bility for maintenance; they say it is a County library and
belongs to the Library Association. We do fund them, and the
Library Association is coming to us for help. Commissioner Bird
believed there was some confusion about this being included in
the budget last year, and it did get left out. It is, however,
an emergency situation and has to be addressed.
Chairman Scurlock asked about the idea of us coming up with
half and asking the Library Association to come up with the other
half through a fund drive.
Commissioner Bird felt something of that sort would be fine.
He asked if it is desired that they go out for bids on resurfac-
ing because they don't have comparable bids. It appears our cost
in-house is pretty much the same as Dennis Smith; although, we
would be putting down 12" asphalt rather than 1".
Chairman Scurlock noted that we could do it in-house and
allow them to stagger their payments back to the county.
Administrator Wright pointed out that all we would do
in-house would be contract out to Dickerson.
64
M
-I
Discussion continued in regard to repairing the parking lots
in-house and requesting that the Library Board assume half the
cost of the project; our half to be pretty much an in-kind match.
Administrator Wright again emphasized that this would be
taxing the MSTU, and he felt we should take the General Fund and
pay the MSTU because they are doing the work. He continued to
stress that he would much prefer not to do this in-house because
the minute we do, we will get requests from all kinds of
organizations. If the Board does wish to do it in-house, he
requested that they have the General Fund pay the MSTU.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) authorized repair of the Library parking
lots in-house; the Library Board to assume half
the cost of the project; the County's portion, which
would be mainly in-kind, to come from the General
Fund and the reimbursed portion to be paid to the
General Fund; the money to be received before the
work is commenced.
DISCUSSION ON CLAMMING MORATORIUM
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he has
investigated what authority we might have regarding a moratorium
on clamming activities, and we have no authority whatever; a
state law would be needed. This matter has been put on our
proposed agenda for the Legislative Delegation. We probably
would need a Special Act.
Director Thomas reported that it appears this is being
handled on a regulatory basis by the Florida Marine Commission,
and what was recommended was limiting this activity to 1/2 hour
before sunrise until 1/2 hour after dark, no rakes to be used,
and a minimum size set.
65
WAR I W-19
BOOK 59 PA'UE 217
® E CW
BOOK 9 PA.,� 18
Fred Mensing informed the Board that he works for Sembler &
Sembler, which firm has been in the seafood business in Sebastian
for 80 years. They went into the clam business this year, and
are one of two licensed shellfish dealers in the county. Mr.
Mensing continued that the State has people who regulate the
water quality where clams can be taken and they can close down
certain areas. He noted that in this County there are no
depuration plants where clams which are removed from prohibited
waters can be made safe to be put on the market. All clamming
I
that is going on in Brevard County is in prohibited waters. In
Indian River County clamming is allowed in very restricted areas
from slightly south of Sebastian Inlet to just south of Pelican
Island on the west side of the waterway and in an area from
Indrio on the south to just above Blue Hole Point on the west
side of the Intracoastal. All the rest of the county is either
prohibited or unclassified. Mr. Mensing further informed the
Board that Sembler & Sembler is involved in a lawsuit over a
Brevard County law which specifies that all shellfish taken in
Brevard County must be taken to a Brevard County shucking house,
and this is due to go to court on the 17th.
take.
Discussion continued regarding action the Board wished to
Richard Schuler informed the Board that he does some
clamming periodically, but not on a commercial basis. He did
agree the limitations set by the Legislature are very much
needed; his problem, however, is that if they say you can't
disturb a grass flat, then you won't find any place where an
individual can walk in the river and find a few clams for
themselves. He noted that you don't find clams in the grass
beds, but alongside of them. He did believe this activity needs
to be regulated in some fashion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
66
s
s � �
(4-0) authorized staff to advise the Legislative
Delegation of our concerns re the clamming activities
in the Indian River and ask them to address this
during the next session of the Legislature either
by adopting a Special Act for our county so we can
control this or by working with appropriate state
agencies to initiate rule making procedures.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF.THE MINUTES
Contract with Roland B. Miller for purchase of Trans Florida
Central Railroad Right -of -Way along SR 512 as approved at the
Regular Meeting of October 24, 1984, has been fully executed and
received and is on file in the Office of the Clerk.
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. 14517 - 14652 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 11:30 o'clock A.M.
Attest:
't
Clerk
67
MP --W F -VA WOO' �,-Ms-e
Chairman
DEC 1 19 4 BOOK 59 F,vCE219
----
I