HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/2/1985Wednesday, January 2, 1985
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,
January 2, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard
N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also
present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary
Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners;
Jeffrey R. Barton, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy
Clerk.
Attorney Brandenburg called the meeting to order, and
announced that today is the annual organizational meeting of the
Board.
Flag.
Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Attorney Brandenburg then reviewed the procedures to be
followed in electing new Commission officers, and opened the
floor to nominations for Chairman.
Commissioner Scurlock placed the name of Commissioner Lyons
in nomination. There were no further nominations.
Attorney Brandenburg declared the nominations closed and
/announced Commissioner Lyons 'elected Chairman by acclamation.
Commissioner Lyons took over the Chair and opened the floor
to nominations for Vice Chairman.
Commissioner Bowman placed the name of Commissioner Scurlock
in nomination. There were no further nominations.
Chairman Lyons declared the nominations closed and announced
&/tommissioner,� Scurloc elected Vice Chairman by acclamation.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Administrator Wright wished to add an item dealing with
rejection of the sewer line bid.
L-
1
a00K 9 FA, -1 991
JAN 2 1995 F
Attorney Brandenburg wished to add a discussion regarding a
proposed Resolution amending the previous Resolution setting
density at one unit per acre on the barrier island as required by
the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
added the above items to today's agenda as re-
quested by the Administrator and the County
Attorney.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 28, 1984.
Commissioner Bowman requested that the first two paragraphs
on Page 18 be reworded to read as follows:
"Commissioner Bowman asked if the area was on the sand ridge
which is environmentally sensitive (because the shallow aquifer
is beneath it), and Mr. Shearer confirmed that the property was
pretty close to the sand ridge."
"Commissioner Bowman then asked if there would be any toxic
waste associated with heavy industry that could adversely affect
the aquifer under the sand ridge, and Mr. Shearer felt there was
not."
The above correction having been made, ON MOTION
by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner
Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of November 28, 1984, as
written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 5, 1984.
There were none.
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
December 5, 1984, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
,,yA. Approval of Appointment of Part-time Deputy Sheriff
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the appointment of Part-time Deputy
Sheriff Edward R. Goodfellow by Sheriff Dobeck.
JB. Budget Amendment - (Save Our Coast) - Perlini Property
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Barton, as
follows:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 21, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT: Perlini Property/ Save our Coast
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
Per your meeting of September 19, 1984 authorizing approximately $3,500 for closing costs
the following budget amendment is necessary to correctly allocate the funds.
Account Title
Account No.
All Land 001-101-511-66.11
Reserve for Contingencies 001-199-581-99.91
Balance in reserve
$318,343 as of 12/6/84
Increase
2,400
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the above budget amendment allocating.
closing costs for the Perlini Property.
I. norromeo
3
JAN 2 1985 800K NJ
2,400
JAN: 2 1985
BOOK 59 ;F
�C• Approval of Modification of Service Agreement - Emergency
Management
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO:Board of County CommissionerDATE: December 15, 1984 FILE:EM84-0159
THRU: H.T. "Sonny- Dean, Direr
General Services Division
SUBJECT:Indian River County's Maintenance
and Service Agreement
(Modification)
FROUStephen J. wells ,Die, tofIEFERENCES:
Emergency Management
BACKGROUND
The Department of Emergency Management enters into an
agreement with the State of Florida Division of Emergency
Management each year for matching funds on Maintenance
and Services of Emergency Management equipment.
DPr)P 1C AT.
The previous Director requested that $312 be placed in the
Commercial Power Category, which was in error and should
have been placed -.in, the Preventive and Actual Maintenance
Cost Category. To transfer these monies it is required
that the Commission Chairman sign five original copies of
the attached modification.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Chairman sign the five copies
of the attached modification in order that the Indian
River County Emergency Management Department may complete
its required financial report for Fiscal year 1984.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the Modification to an Agreement for Maintenance
and Services Funding with the Department of Commun-
ity Affairs for the Emergency Management Department
and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
4
Modification 1
Contract #84EM78-10-04-10-018
MODIFICATION TO AN AGREEMENT FOR
MAINTENANCE AND SERVICES FUNDING
This modification to the Agreement entered into between the
Department of Community Affairs and the Indian River Board of
Commissioners (hereafter referred to as the GRANTEE and the
respectively), shall govern Maintenance and Services
Program activities to be financed by the Grantee.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following
amendment:
I. TERM OF AGREEMENT:
b. The Grantee agrees to allocate the Subgrantee the
maximum sum of $882.00/50% which the Subgrantee will match with
$882.00/50% for a total subgrant of $1,764.00/100% for the
successful completion of the items of performance agreed to
herein.
EXHIBIT A. Budget Summary
Transfer $312 from Commercial Power Charges Category to
Preventive and Actual Maintenance Cost Category, per the attached
Exhibit A - Budget Summary.
All other terms and conditions remain the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and the Subgrantee hereby
execute this modification effective January 2, 1985 .
FOR THE SUBGRANTEE:
BY
Airthorized County O ficia
Patrick B. Lyons, -Chairman
Board of County Commission-&rMl
Indian River County, Flori; a App
Name/Title and
1
FOR THE GRANTEE:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS
Y
Secretary
form
to
5randen urg
Atto r
5 BOOK. DO F',GE 295
1
I ON
1
Modification No. 1
Contract # 84EM78-10-04-10-018
Indian River County
STATE OF FLORIDA
BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PVTJTMTT T — "rrr%/ "m ....
Object Class Categories
Budget Requested
Budget Approved
Amended Budget
1. Recurring Char es
Commercial Power
2. Charges
Preventive and
3. Actual Maintenance
Charges
$ 570
312
$ 570
312
$ 570
-0-
312
Date
4. Lease/Rental Charges
5. Replacement Cost
15,000
Local Share
15,882
882
882
Federal Share
15,882
882
882
Total
$ 31,764
$ 1,764
$ 1,764
* Any labor cost in excess of $2,000 associated with repair, replacement, or installation
of equipment funded under this program must comply with provisions of the Davis -Bacon
Act.
1
ca
0
0
yrn
1985 RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AGREEMENT
1
The Board reviewed memo of the Emergency Management
Director, as follows:
TO: Board of County DATE: December 13, 1984 FILE: EM -84-0157
Commissioners
THRU: H.T. "Sonny" Dean,r ector
General Services
SUBJECT: Indian River County 1985
Radiological Emergency
Preparedness Agreement
FROM: Stephen J. WeTW REFERENCES:
Emergency Mana$ me t Director
BACKGROUND
Nuclear Regulation 0654 and Florida Statute Chapter 252
required that a utility operating a Nuclear Power Plant
provide and negotiate funding with the local political
subdivision to support the subdivisions participation.
Indian River County is a "host county" and as such is
tasked with monitoring; decontaminating; and sheltering
evacuees from the St. Lucie County area.
vunvncnr.
The Department of Emergency Management, State Division
of Emergency Management and Florida Power & Light nego-
tiated the contract for calendar year 1985 in August of
this year. Attached are three copies of the agreement
in the amount of $26,654.00 that required three original
signatures of the Commission Chairman.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Chairman sign the three copies
to enter into the agreement for the year 1985.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the 1985 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Agree-
ment with the Department of Community Affairs and
authorized the signature of the Chairman.
7
JAN 2 1985 BOCK 59 u(U 297
JAS, 2 1985
THE STATE OF
This Agreement
Affairs (hereinafter
(hereinafter called
I. PURPOSE
THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
AND
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
is between the State
called "Department")
"Coun,y").
BOOK 59 PfkCE 2,98
of Florida, Department of Community
and the County of Indian River
A. Certain responsibilities have been defined by the U. S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "NRC") in its Rule
10 CFR 50 and 70 and NUREG 0654, FEMA -REP -1, "Radiological Emergency
Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants".
There exists a possibility of duplication of effort in meeting those
responsibilities, which effort would be expended by the Department and
County. The resultant increased financial burden on taxpayers and con-
sumers can be avoided by the development of a cooperative relationship
between state and local public agencies. The Department and County are
authorized in §252.35, F.S., and §252.60, F.S., to participate in such
cooperative relationships, and are further authorized in §252.37, F.S., to
accept services, equipment, supplies, materials or funds for emergency
management. The Department may assign the right(s) to accept such ser-
vices, equipment, supplies, materials, and funds to any appropriate local
governing body or agency. The purpose of this Agreement is to define cer-
tain aspects of the relationship between the Department and the County.
B. The NRC regulations cited above are incorporated in this Agreement by
reference. All activities which are the subject of the Agreement must
be consistent with those regulations.
II. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION PROGRAM
The Department shall establish procedures for continuing a public
education and informati-on program. Any or all of the Department's
responsibilities for the preparation and distribution of materials and
for continuing the program may be delegated or subcontracted.
III. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
The County shall assure.only to the extent of funds available under this
Agreement:
A. The maintenance of local radiological emergency plans and implementing
procedures;.
B. That the requisite personnel complete required radiological emergency
training;
C. Participation as is required in exercises and the evaluation thereof;
D. Continued and further radiological emergency planning as required by
the above regulations and "Florida's Radiological Emergency Management
Plan for Nuclear Power Plants."
IV. FUNDING
A. The Department will provide funding to the County to enable the County
to carry out their responsibilities above and to comply with 10 CFR
Parts 50 and 70, NUREG O654, and to carry out the provisions of the plan
mandated thereby. At execution, the Department will furnish to the County
copies of the Regulations and revisions as they are enacted.
3
M
B. The parties have agreed to the budget attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Said budget
provides that the County will require the sum of $ 26,654.00 to
carry out its responsibilities hereunder, which sum i'nc u es the
approved County administrative overhead rate.
C. The County shall account to the Department by submitting a quarterly
financial report which reflects the actual costs incurred by the
County. This accounting shall be provided to the Department within 30
days of the end of each quarter. Unless such reports are received in a
timely manner, the Department may withhold funds pending receipt of the
report. The quarterly financial report forms to be used will be sent to
the County upon execution of the Agreement. In addition, the County will
submit an annual program report and an inventory of all equipment
purchased and retired during the year as outlined in Exhibit "B" within
30 days of the end of the Agreement period.
D. Within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of this Agreement,
the Department shall provide to the County one-third of the total
contract amount. The Department shall thereafter, quarterly in
advance, pay over to the County one-third of the total contract
amount to be utilized by the County to carry out its responsibilities
under this Agreement. Expenditures by the County shall be based upon
approved budget attached hereto and incorporated herein. Over -
expenditures of any budget category of more than ten percent (10%) will
not be allowed without prior written approval. The County may transfer
amounts between various categories of the attached budget provided that
any such transfer does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the budgeted amount
of the category into which the transfer is being made. Without said prior
approval, the Department shall have no obligations to honor reimbursement
requests from the County inconsistent with the attached budget.
E. In the event that the Department and County are unable to resolve dif-
ferences regarding funding -For preparation, testing and implementation
of radiological emergency response activities, the Secretary of the
Department shall convene an informal meeting to attempt to mediate the
dispute. If an informal mediation fails, the affected parties will be
given the opportunity for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S.
V. TITLE TO EQUIPMENT
Any equipment purchased by the County under this Agreement shall be the
property of the County, to be used for the activities described herein for
the term of this Agreement and subsequent Agreements between the parties.
Upon termination of the Agreements and cessation of the County activities,
the equipment will remain the property of the County.
VI. PAYMENT OF VOLUNTEERS
Certain of the Counties utilize service agencies during scheduled exercises
whose members desire compensation for their time spent participating in such
exercises. Funds will be provided to the County equal to the approved County
rate to the extent that such compensation is requested and justified in
Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
VII. INTEREST
The unexpended portion of advance payments shall be invested and earn,interest
at the prevailing rate. All such interest earned shall be returned to the
Department at the end of the Agreement period. Said payback shall occur
within 90 days after completion of the agreed audits required herein.
JAN
1985 y BOOK 59 F,'GE 2.99
Viii. AUNT
BOOK 9 Pao 'F 00
The County ;hall provide to the Jr-,parbnent, as part of their regular
annual audit, a copy of the Audited Financial Statements of the Board�of
County Commissioners for the fiscal year in which this program was in
operation. The County shall, at any time during normal business hours and
with notification, make available for examination to the Department and
any of its duly authorized representatives, all of the records and data
with respr.ct to all matters covered by this Agreement and shall permit the
Department and its designated authorized representatives to audit and
inspect all cost and supporting documentation for all matters covered by
this Agreement. An annual audit will be performed by the Department at
termination of the Agreement.
IX. TERMS OF AGREEMENT
A. This Agreement shall cover, the period from January 1, 1985 through
September 30, 1985.
B. However, either party may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part
without cause, by providing sixty (60) days notice in writing to the -
other party. Upon termination of this Agreement, all funds unexpended
shall be returned to the Department and an audit performed in accor-
dance with the terms set forth above.
X. MODIFICATIONS
Any modifications to the Agreement shall be in writing and signed by
officials of both parties.
By their signatures below, the following officials have agreed to these terms
and conditions.
FOR THE DEPARTMENT
BY:
Secretary
Department of Commun i t
(Tit16)
(Atf;est) �-�---
(U6C5
Affairs
BY:
FOR THE COUNTY
Patrick B. Ly
Board of Coun
(title) ---
Chairman
f Commissioners
(Attest:) Fre a ri— perk
January 2. 1985
(UaLe)
10
Approve 'itn for
and leg sufflciDf'
,ant y j. c�randerburg
omer y
CAttorney --
0
1-3
UM
CAD
cz
EXHIBIT "A"
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COST
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ESTIMATES
COST ITEM
PROPOSED AMOUNT
PROVISIONS
1.
Radiological Instruments
$ 1,250
Funds to be used for the purchase of 5
pancake probes, calibration of each
instrument the probes are used with, and
batteries.
2.
Telephone Service Charges
$ 300
3.
Training
$ 5,550
A. Salaries
4,8.00
B. Materials & Supplies
750
4.
Plan Maintenance
$ 5,800
A. Salaries
4,854
B. Travel
446
C. Materials & Supplies
500
5.
Exercises
$ 3,500
1
1
0
EXHIBIT "A"
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COST ESTIMATES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
COST ITEM PROPOSED AMOUNT PROVISIONS
6. Lighting for Reception Center $ 568
7. Equipment $ 5,720 Funds are provided to purchase 1,000
foot of 4" fire hose and protective
SUB -TOTAL $22,688 clothing for radiological monitors.
8. Administrative Overhead (17.48%) $ 3,966
TOTAL $26,654
0
0
LKW
C.
Z
L110
CO
co
Lr
EXHIBIT "B"
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS SCOPE OF WORK
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
COST ITEM
SCOPE OF WORK
1.
Radiological Instruments
Funds are provided for modification, calibration, and batteries for five
Radiological Instruments.
2.
Telephone Service Charges
Funding to provide for recurring charges for unlisted phone.
3.
Training
Funding to provide on-going Level I Training to paid professional emergency
services. No funding requested to provide Level I to volunteer personnel.
w 4.
Plan Maintenance
Continued funding of 15% for the Director's and Secretary's salaries is
provided.
5.
Exercises
Funds are provided for costs incurred during the annual exercise for the
activation and mobilization of local emergency response personnel and
resources.
6.
Lighting for Reception Center
Funding to provide lights at the primary reception center.
0 7. Additional Equipment
C>
A. Protective Gear Funds are provided to outfit monitors that will be providing personnel and
cil vehicle decontamination. This gear includes a full suit, filtration mask,
(;.M gloves and booties.
B. Fire Hose 4" Funds are provided for 1000 feet of 4" fire hose for the mobile vehicle
washdown station.
8. Administrative Overhead The administrative overhead rate is 17.48.
JAN 2 1995BooK 9 Fv, 30
RESOLUTION DIRECTING COUNTY DEPOSITORIES TO HONOR CERTAIN
J
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85- 1 directing County depositories to
honor certain authorized signatures, - the Chairman,
the Vice Chairman and the Clerk of Circuit Court.
14
I��
RESOLUTION NO. 85- 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DIRECTING COUNTY DEPOSITORIES
TO HONOR CERTAIN AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES
ON COUNTY WARRANTS AND OTHER ORDERS
FOR PAYMENT.
WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY on January 2, 1985, held an election
for the office of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the County Commission did nominate and
select Patrick B. Lyons as CHAIRMAN and Don C. Scurlock, Jr, as
VICE CHAIRMAN, and
WHEREAS, FREDA WRIGHT was elected CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY effective January 4, 1977,
and has been reelected, and also serves as a CLERK TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS pursuant to Florida Statutes §125.167,
and
WHEREAS, it
is now
necessary
to reinstruct the
County's depositories as
to the
signatures
necessary to honor
County warrants, checks
or other
orders for
the payment of money
drawn in the Commission's name.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
sitting in regular session that:
1. The
County Commission has
in the past
designated
certain banking
institutions as official
depositories
of County
funds, such designations are hereby ratified and affirmed, and
2. That each designated depository of the Commission is
hereby requested, authorized and directed to honor checks,
warrants or other orders for the payment of money drawn in the
Commission's name, including those payable to the individual order
of any person or persons whose name or names appear thereon, when
bearing the facsimile signature of the Chairman of the County
Commission and the facsimile signature of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court, when said check, warrants or other orders for the payment
SII
of money equals or does not exceed the sum of Three Thousand
Dollars ($3,000.00).
15
JAN 21985
nv 59 305
r
JAN 219859
BOOK F!;Cr •��J
3. That if a check, warrant or other order for the
payment of money drawn
in the Commission's name
exceeds the sum of
three thousand
dollars
($3,000.00), said designated depositories
are authorized
and directed to honor checks,
warrants or other
orders for the
payment
of money drawn in the
Commission's name,
only when such
check,
warrant or other order
for the payment of
money bears
the facsimile signature of
the
Chairman
and Clerk
of
the Circuit
Court and further bears
the
original
signature
of
either the Chairman, Vice Chairman or Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Said actual and facsimile signatures appear below:
(1) Freda Wright ) '
Clerk of the Circuit Courti
(2) Patrick B. Lyons
Chairman
(3) Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice Chairman
Actual
Al 9
Facsimile
Z
Actual
Facsi
� G
Ac ual
I �
Facsimile
d BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above-named
signatories are hereby authorized to execute any and all signature
cards and
agreements as
requested by the respective
banking
institutions
designated as
official depositories by the
Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the use of
facsimile signatures is as authorized by Florida Statutes Chapter
116.34, the "Uniform Facsimile Signature of Public Officials
Act."
16
I
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Scurlock and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B.
Lyons
Aye
Vice -Chairman
Don C.
Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Commissioner
Margaret
C. Bowman
Aye
Commissioner
Richard
N. Bird
Aye
Commissioner
William
C. Wodtke, Jr.
Aye
The Chairman
thereupon declared the
resolution duly
passed and adopted this
2nd
day of January
, 1985.
BOARD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
OF IN I RIVER
By
=LORIDA
Chairman
By -
Don—M Scurlock, Jr.
Vice Chairman
Attest
FREDA WRIGHT
Clete
APPRED S�F
AND E L S I C:
0
F1 l6 iia • D 11 A 1\ L
oun y Attorney
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
Before me personally appeared FREDA WRIGHT, PATRICK B.
LYONS, as Chairman DON C. SCURLOCK, as Vice -Chairman
, and t`ToRme known and known to me to
be the persons who executed the foregoing instrument and having
been placed under oath have indicated that the foregoing are their
actual and facsimile signatures, this day of ,
1985.
I- MURMA f �q�
Notary �blic
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UND,
MY COMMISSION, EXPIRES JULY A. 1986
17
JAN 2 1985 BOOK
-I
JEAN- 21985 renn
BOOK F1GE 1
,COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR DEPARTMENT OF DETENTION
General Services Director Dean made the staff presentation,
as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 26, 1984 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
Thru: Michael Wright Computer System for
County Administrator SUBJECT: Department of Detention
FROM: H • T . "Soy Dean REFERENCES:
General Ser ices
Director
Prior to October 1, 1984, while making preparations to transfer the
Indian River County Jail over to the Board of Commissioners we
anticipated the need of computerization for keeping of records in the
jail. Using funds left over from fiscal year 1983-84 an IBM System
36 was purchased to accomplish the desired goals. Delivery of this
hardware will be during the week of December 24, 1984. We have
$17,640.70 left to purchase the software that will be used.
After long hours of discussion and searching for software that would
accomplish all the tasks associated with our Department of Detention
and relying on Indian River County Data Processing Department for
programming, we are without any commitment to get the job done. As
detailed in the attached correspondence, you can see we have made all
the efforts.
It is, therefore, requested we be allowed to contract with H.T.E. of
Orlando for a total of $18,000 to supply us with a complete program.
Using the JAM II program as a guideline, H.T.E. will develop a
customized program to meet all our needs. This price is half the
price usually charged for this work. However, H.T.E. has a selfish
interest as they will be developing something that can be used in
other -detention facilities throughout the state of Florida. Our
advantage is this special rate for the work performed and the
availability of their company to see the program works without extra
charges.
We have extended the use of our system to the Sheriff since the two
records are so closely related.
18
77
December 4, 1984
To: Captain Baird
From: Carol Stowe
Re: Programs for System 36
Programs for the System 36 to be purchased for the Detention
facility may be obtained by one � �f the following methods.
1) Purchase programs from South Dakota, which were written for a
System 38 and use them on the County's System 38, having it
operation on a 24 hours a day, seven day a week basis.
E) Purchase the above program and have It re -written for use in
the System 36 equipment presently on order for the Detention
Center. Due to the language these programs are written in, a
programmer experienced with both System 38 and System 36,
would be needed. The programmer who does this work should be
available to assist with training and also to support the
programs in the future.
3) Have a program written specifically for the Detention Center,
using the JAMS II as guideline for these programs. Should
copies of the reports become available from South Dakota,
these could used as a guide also
After speaking with representatives from South Dakota regarding
their program presently being used in their gall, Rarl Newton
programmer for the County, Bill Davenport from IBM and ,lack Harwood
from H. T. E. , I would like to recortimend that the programs be written
for els by a programmer familiar with law enforcement, and by someone
who would be available for the training and supported needed with any
programs. By having a programmer working specifically on our
programs, the programs would be available must sooner and therefore
would allow the time needed for proper training. I have also been
advised that due to the languages used by both the System 36 and 38,
as ;Much effort and time would be involved to
write a program as would
be to convert one. The end result from re -writing a program from one
language to another wo=uld be a poorer product and One that Would be
must less effecient should a program be written specifically for our
use.
Due to the lack of response from South Dakota, in both returning
phorrie calls regarding the possibility of their writing these programs
for us arta forwarc i n g copies of sample reports, I would recommend
option 3 for obtaining programs for our facility. By having H.T.E.
contracted to write these programs the needed support and training
will be readily available to us.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if the funds referred
to for purchase of this program were from the part of the
Sheriff's budget that was transferred, and this was confirmed.
He then noted that in the contract he sees'no specific criteria
to be met, and thirdly, wished to know if we could do this under
the Competitive Negotiations Act.
19
BOOK 0 F'GE=.. 09
r -
JAN 2 1995
BOOK 59 FD,E 11,10
Attorney Brandenburg reported that the law says if it is a
planning or study activity over $5,000, it is necessary to use
the Competitive Negotiations Act. This, however, is not actually
a planning or study activity, and he did not feel it would be
necessary for the Board to use that act.
The County Attorney briefly reviewed some problems with the
contract, noting that while they are indicating they will do this
work, they are not guaranteeing that it will meet the county's
needs or that there will not be any problems nor warrantying that
if there should be, that they would fix them. Also, on the front
page of the contract it says that whatever they attached on the
back is only an estimate and whatever their actual cost is in
doing this work is what the County will pay. There is no
attachment A, however, to indicate the rate at which the County
would pay. Attorney Brandenburg felt sure the intent is clear,
but there should be some modifications. Another thing he pointed
out is that the contract provides that if we sue them, we have to
sue them in Orange County, and if they sue us, we have to pay
their attorney's fees even if we win; we also waive our right to
a jury trial. He felt this should be deleted.
Commissioner Wodtke was concerned about the legality of us
purchasing something and not being able to make it available to
somebody else, if this company retains the right to sell it.
Director Dean noted that this is just a modification of the
existing JAM II program (Jail Administration and Management
Prpgram), and the Administrator did not believe we would be
prohibited from giving it to someone.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that it appears there is some
difficulty within our Data Processing Department; either it is
understaffed or there are not enough competent people presently
on the Clerk's staff to accomplish some of these tasks. He asked
if we have considered the cost benefit ratio of paying the price
to bring someone on staff who could accomplish these kind of
things that seem to be very difficult to get to.
20
Administrator Wright believed that is what Mr. Wodtke's Data
Processing Study Committee is trying to do. We felt it is
premature for us to get into this at this time and that what we
need is to go for a long term cure.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he has no recommendation
regarding an overall system down the line at this time, but he
concurred this is one of the first things that should be run
through the Data Processing Study Committee.
Administrator Wright explained the reason staff went with
the supplemental type machine, the IBM System 36, is that it is
compatible with the existing computer, and we had some mechanical
problems getting from the jail to this building, i.e., a distance
problem.
OMB Director Barton further explained that another reason is
that there was nothing written for the 38 System. The 36 System
can run on weekends self-contained, and then during the rest of
the time can transmit information back and forth to the 38 in
Data Processing. It is in essence, a smaller system that talks
to the larger system.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we budgeted a computer for
the Sheriff, which he now has, and wished to know if these
systems can be interphased. He was informed that they cannot.
Director Dean reported that he personally has talked with
the Sheriff twice about this, and we have extended the
opportunity for him to use this machine. Records in the jail and
the Sheriff's records overlap, and it is to his advantage and
ours to have them on the same machine. Also, this package allows
us to tie in with the Clerk's office, which is a necessity. Mr.
Dean noted that a month ago we had nine sentenced inmates waiting
to be transferred to the State, who stayed in the our Jail nine
days longer than they should have simply because we couldn't get
the paperwork out.
Chairman Lyons asked if the Judge's secretaries would be
able to transmit the releases, transfers, etc., through this
21 c��q
BOOK 59 Flk' =x.11
L_ JAN 21985
JAN
2 1985
8001( 59 PdGc e� 2
computer directly to the jail. and Mr. Dean confirmed that it
would enable staff to update the inmates' records almost
immediately.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired if it would be acceptable if
we waited a week and authorized the Attorney and staff to
negotiate the modifications discussed in the meantime.
Director Dean felt it would be preferable to have the Board
approve the contract based on correcting the language as
discussed.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to authorize
staff, with the assistance of the County Attorney,
to make the necessary adjustments to the contract
with H.T.E., setting a figure not to exceed $18,000
and to authorize the signature of the Chairman upon
approval of the contract by the County Attorney.
Commissioner Bird wished to be assured that language is
included that will give us an assurance the finished product will
work as desired.
It was noted that is what Attorney Brandenburg will be
working on, and the Administrator further noted that we will be
doing this in phases, and if it should get out of hand, it can be
stopped. Director Dean pointed out that it is to the company's
advantage to make the program work as they want to sell it to
other people.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Fully executed contract with H.T.E., Inc., for Jail
Management and Information Tracking System Computer Program is on
file in the Office of the Clerk.
22
P 0. 9011 136a
APPLICATION FOR FLORIDA SMALL CITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT 1� 6
The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
vtxo B>A®
INDIAN 111YER COUNTY
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
STATE OF FLORIDA
TELEPHONE 962-3315
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 newspaper published at Vero
Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that
a disolay ad measuring 33 inches at 95.s7 ..r
column inch for I.R.C. Housing Authority
billed to Indian River County Housing Authority
vas published in said newspaper in the issue(s)
Of ne,o,h.r of.. ane.
i on Pade-2*
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
2A+h day of ne.ae+abaF
_AA. D. 1aAA
''••
BusinessManager
^
�/
(SEAL) t
'
-
Nam" Pubtrc, State of Florida at L.ree.
••.••;'
My Commluian Expire, June 14, 1986.
.F asap �) vy+ ate.-- :.• .�'rn '• rti E. t h , $� 'Itifn.is°a.t} f :3'." •-P`v :. �• 4-X:
.He6t n Notice:2nd. Publicg n
�. ..p - ,' ... ;l: .i 'ir t• YA. , _ , t: mss'-}�yg �'s-� 4i A, �
:The County of Indian River,. Florida Is. applying to• . the ,Florida n.
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for agrant- under the Regular
Program Housing Category In the•amount.of $650,000 under the Small... '
Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program:' For each
activity that is proposed, at least 51% of the'funds must benefit low and
---moderate income persons. The activities, dollar amount and estimated
percentage benefit to low and moderate income persons for which the
County is applying are:
Xy 4 {r 1 �:i N,S-$ � 71,1 i � .t. l '• M - 1.'!'7.Se i 1' % �•.; .
- ' ` 9 'c .: PJ't >+tnwti�`1i 4.'y )tea i"'r 'i4. 1, .s•-�Fh r aF<s.
BENEFIT TO
ACTIVITY p.Y
DOLLAR AMT "1 "LOW/MOD
t
Street Improvements ""'' '° m'$120,000 I�sa,s X81 ���,
Clearance v i r' { " q e: '� 4.'34 000,r -j,,-". ' 8 81
Relocation �..;�.,., . , _., ',.x;25,000 `' j
Rehabilitationy 330,000 81 `<
Code Enforcement r • '721,000 98
. 1`tr4 ...•r i 20,000.E
7 :Acquisition
Planning & Urban Environmental Design
General Administration. ; 90,000 ` '•98
Total: _ 1 ! $650,000
The County of Indian River plans to minimize displacement of persons
as a result of planned CDBG funded activities in the following manner:
Acquire for demolition only three occupied units :(3) out of a. total of
eighty-seven (87) units.. ti + -, t •N:.", Ian) b_;.
1f any persons are displaced on a permanent basis through ,
Acquisition, the federal * "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Act" of 1970 shall apply. If they are displaced on a
temporary basis because of substantial rehabilitation under our local
plan, reasonable benefits will be provided.'.-,:*",-,
A public hearing to provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the
.,application will be held in., the County Administration ..Building,
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 32969, on',,..
-'-January 2, 1985, at 9:00 A.M. A copy of the application will be available_.. 3
for review at County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960, in the County Commissioners office (1st floor) on ,
Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. To
obtain additional information concerning the application and the public
hearing, contact Guy L. Decker, Jr., 1840 25th Street, S-319, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960, Telephone 305-567-8000, Extension 327.
Date: 12/26/84
Housing Authority Director Regan made the following
presentation:
23
JAN 2 1995
BOOK � ��4LF13
J
JAN 2 1985 . BOOK 59 Fnuc.114.
TO: Board of County DATE: December 24, 1984 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: County Commissioners'
Approval to Execute
and Submit a Florida
Small Cities Community
Development Block Grant
Application at the
FROM: Edward J . Re January 2, 1985,
g REFERENCES: Public Hearing
Executive Director
IRC Housing Authority,
The purpose of this required public hearing is to seek approval from
the County Commissioners to submit an application under the Florida Small
Cities Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), authorized by
Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended,
and administered by Florida's Department of Community Affairs. The primary
purpose of these grants is allowing local governments to undertake activi-
ties which will benefit low and moderate -income persons, help eliminate
slums and blight, or meet other urgent community development needs. The
local government must ensure that not less than 51 percent of the funds
are used for activities that benefit low and moderate -income persons.
There are three (3) program categories: Housing, Neighborhood and
Commercial Revitalization and Economic Development. All applications are
scored and ranked competitively based on community -wide needs (400 points),
program impact (500 points) and outstanding performance in equal opportunity
employment and affirmatively further fair housing (100 points).
The grant ceiling for a jurisdiction with our population is $650,000
and application contents are scored as to being clear, concise, complete
and responsive. Submission deadline is Monday, January 7, 1985, and no
application will be considered that does not meet the established deadline.
All activities are to be carried out in distinct target areas where condi-
tions of slum or blight exist and where there is a concentration of low and
moderate -income persons.
In determining a program for preparation, the Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee provided excellent input concerning the areas of need throughout the
jurisdiction and decision was made and concurred in by staff to submit an
application in the Southeast Gifford Project Area (Geoffrey Subdivision)
Vero Beach, Florida, under the Regular Program Category: Housing, where
the feeling prevails we are most effective competitively under the State's
present system of ranking and scoring.
Boundaries of the Target Area are: On the East by Groves (Hospital
Node), on the West by U. S. Highway #1, on the South by 37th Street (Barber
Ave. Hospital Node) and on the North by Groves and vacant land.
Activities will include:
Street Improvements $ 120,000
Clearance 34,000
Relocation 25,000
Rehabilitation 330,000
Code Enforcement 21,000
Acquisition 20,000
Planning & Urban Environmental Design 10,000
General Administration 90,000
Total $50� 0�0
This Community Development B1ock.Grant will meet the needs of the
people living in the target area, provide additional employment in the
County and revitalize a highly visible old minority neighborhood in this
jurisdiction. The application is submitted for comments from the public
as we seek the approval of the Board of County Commissioners and their
authorization for their Chairman to execute the resolution and application.
24
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird asked if this is the same grant we tried
to obtain for the Oslo area last year, and Mr. Regan explained
that we did submit for a grant for Oslo last year, but it was for
a jobs training grant. He continued that we are trying to
overcome the problem that in the scoring system they average
overall income. The Oslo area did not score well, and this year
they used Gifford because of the scoring in that area.
Commissioner Bowman inquired what General Administration
covers as it amounts to about 14%, and Mr. Regan stated that it
covers personnel - himself, Guy Decker, clerical assistance, some
office expense, etc. The state does allow 15%.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 85-2 authorizing the execu-
tion of the application for a Florida Small
Cities Community Development Block Grant.
Said application is on file in the Office of the Clerk.
25
JAN 2 1985 BOOK 59 F'ru
i
BOOK c 116
RESOLUTION NO. 85-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD TO EXECUTE AN APPLICATION
FOR A FLORIDA SMALL CITIES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT TO CREATE VIABLE COMMUNITIES BY PRO-
VIDING DECENT HOUSING AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVI-
RONMENT AND EXPANDING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES,
PRINCIPALLY FOR PERSONS OF LOW AND MODERATE
INCOME.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has reviewed this proposal and has received the recommen-
dation from the Executive Director of the Indian River County
Housing Authority,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Chairman
and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners are authorized
oto execute the attached application to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs for a Florida Small Cities
Community Development Block Grant.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bir.di.,; and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock,Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 2nd
day of January , 1985
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Il
ATTEST:
F a Wright, �.
Clerk
APPROVEDT0'�
AND LEGA FIrC.�Y'E'N2�/.,--��
J..+i CLLLucLL
y
Coun *Attorney
g
Commissioner Scurlock inquired if the buildings to be
rehabilitated are brought up to standard and inspected, and this
was confirmed. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he also would
like the Community Development group to look at whether the
County should take a more aggressive role in bringing
sub -standard housing up to County Code. He noted that there has
been a lot of discussion that if we do take an aggressive
approach, we, in fact, remove inventory, and that a house, no
matter what the condition it might be in, is better than no
house. He, however, was concerned that we may have been taking
the wrong approach and instead should be extremely aggressive
about removing units that are substandard and forcing the issue.
He felt we could condemn buildings that were vacated rather than
put people out on the streets.
Director Regan agreed that he would take this to the
Advisory Committee for study. He informed the Board that they
have a pilot program where they have done rehabilitation in
specific areas. This pilot program just involves health and
safety improvements (plumbing, wiring, etc.); no cosmetics are
allowed. Mr. Regan felt it might be possible to expand slightly
on this program for which the FHA provides the funds.
REZONING - .64 ACRES TO C-2 (SARKEES) S. GIFFORD RD. & 43RD AVE.
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:
27
JAN 2 1985 Boos 59 Ft,-LE317
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 .o,BA_fxJ_i&&eZ
BooK 59 HU'lE 318
NOTICE — PUBLIC NEARING'
Notice of hearing to consider the adoptlon'of
:ounllyy, ordinance rezoning land from R-1, Sin-.
i-Familly District to C-2, Heavy Commercial
Arict. The owned
FRED and Y DIect ErSARKKEESrty Isp and Is located
uth of South, Gifford Road (4181 Street. west
43rd Avenue and n6ft and east of the Vero,
ach City Limit Urm a+-3, v ° 1.a
r.. m,MoM n.nnn.w'ie A6m raMA _ ':..e
acres of.the East 1
- In Indian I
`A public h+
Ind citizensshall have annilyr to, be
ieard, will be held by the Camty Cora'
of Indian River County, Florida, In the
unmission Chambers of. the _ Counryry
tion'' Building;"located- at 1840 9th
ro Beach, Florida on Wednesday,
1985, at 8:15 a.m
arson decides to appeal any decision
he 2bo5e' matter, he/she will need . A.
the proceedings. and for ,such pur-
in the Court, was pub- Admyniffin
Street, V
mac. UC , ,� ` . JaIt nuary 2
lished in said newspaper in the issues of madany
i
record of
poses, he
on record
eludes tea
appeals I
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at �w
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore ;Y .Not`
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been -1$-2
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 _q4__0ay o f01A.D. 19 v '
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River
(SEAL) '
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation,
as follows:
W
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 17, 1984FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
SARKEES REQUEST TO
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REZONE .64 ACRES FROM
R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY
4:�2 4 t =', SUBJECT: DISTRICT, TO C-2,
Ro ert W. Keatin , AF P HEAVY COMMERCIAL DIST.
Planning & Developme t Director
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Sarkees Rezoning
Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of January 2, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Fred and Byrdie Sarkees, the owners, are requesting to rezone
.64 acres located one-eighth mile south of South Gifford Road
on the west side of 43rd Avenue from R-1, Single -Family
District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District.
The applicants are proposing to develop this property for a use
allowed in the C-2 district.
On November 15, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. In addition, the
Commission voted 5 -to -0 to instruct the staff to review the
zoning of properties around the subject property for possible
rezoning to C-2.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the
application will be presented. The
description of the current and futur
surrounding areas, potential impacts
utility systems, and any significant
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
reasonableness of the
analysis will include a
e land uses of the site and
on the transportation and
adverse impacts on
The subject property and the land immediately north of it are
undeveloped. Further north is a mobile home park, zoned R-1.
East of the subject property, across 43rd Avenue, are several
single-family residences, two mobile homes, and two auto repair
businesses, zoned R-1. Further east is the new County jail
site zoned R-1. South of the subject property is a mobile home
and two single-family residences which are zoned R-1. West of
the subject property is the police pistol range,'in the City of
Vero Beach, which is zoned Airport. Further west is
undeveloped land that is zoned LM -1, Light Manufacturing
District, and the Humane Society property that is zoned M-1,
Restricted Industrial District.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and
all of the land around it (except the property in the City) as
29
JAN 2 1985 moo 59 F+iA, 19
_I
BOOK 59, NCE 3?®
part of the Gifford MXD, Mixed -Use District (up to 14 units/
acre). The Gifford MXD allows residential, commercial, or
industrial land uses which will be regulated by the zoning
ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan states that, within MXD
areas, the County shall encourage redevelopment in accordance
with the dominant land uses and the health, safety, and welfare
of area residents. In addition, under the description of the
Gifford MXD in the Comprehensive Plan, the text states that the
predominant land use in the Gifford area is residential and
that future expansion of commercial uses shall be regulated by
the County to ensure that these uses will not be in conflict
with one another.
Based on the existing land use pattern in this area (including
the police pistol range and the auto repair businesses) and
considering the recent site plans that have been approved in
this area (for the County jail and the Humane Society), the R-1
zoning of the subject property and the land around it no longer
appears to be appropriate. The proposed C-2 zoning would not
allow industrial uses but would allow redevelopment in
commercial uses. Moreover, based on the existing land use
pattern, the County should consider rezoning additional
property in this area to C-2.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to 43rd Avenue
(classified as a primary collector street on the Thoroughfare
Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under
the C-2 zoning would attract up to 112 average annual daily
trips (AADT).
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
r7i-i 1 i f -i ac
County water is available at the intersection of 43rd Avenue
and South Gifford Road. County wastewater facilities are not
available for this area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, particularly the existing land use
pattern and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommenda-
tion, staff recommends approval.
Mr. Shearer noted that staff feels this is an area that is
in transition and, therefore, recommends approval of the rezoning
since they feel the R-1 is no longer appropriate.
Commissioner Bowman asked whether they anticipated Gifford
growing to the North. Mr. Shearer felt possibly there would be
some growth to the north, but noted there still is undeveloped
land to the east of 43rd Avenue. Further, there is scattered
industrial to the west of 43rd and the airport flight pattern
30
goes over the west part of Gifford. Staff, therefore, did not
feel we should encourage further residential growth in that area.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the growth is going to take
place along King's Highway; there already are some nice homes
going up there and an effort to move out of some of the blighted
areas. Chairman Lyons further pointed out that just to the west
of this property is the City of Vero Beach.
Commissioner Wodtke felt most of the land in this area is
rural residential; he noted that we had a request for commercial
further north on 43rd Avenue and turned it down, but realized
that the jail will be in this area.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Michael O'Haire appeared representing the
applicant, and emphasized that this property is close to the
Police pistol range and will be in the area of the jail. He also
stressed that the area is changing, and people are actually run-
ning auto body shops out of their garages in this neighborhood.
Johnny Cooper, owner of an acre of land just north of the
Sarkees, stated that he had intended to build a home there, but
obviously the property will be more valuable as commercial and he
is in favor of the requested change to C-2.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 85-1,
rezoning .64 acres south of S. Gifford Rd. and west
of 43rd Ave. to C-2 as requested by the Sarkees.
Chairman Lyons expressed concern about rezoning just this
small piece of property, and Planner Shearer stated that they
31
BOOK 59, mUE V1
pr -
BOOP( 5 Q F,,4CFo �
have recommended to the Planning & Zoning Commission that there
be a County -initiated rezoning of the larger area to C-2.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition.
ORDINANCE NO. 85-1
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
0
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 North 100 feet of the South 247 feet of the North 7
acres of the East 10 acres of Tract 9, Section 28,
Township 32S, Range 39E, according to the Plat of Indian _
River Farms Company Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book
2, Page 25, Public Records of Indian River County Florida;
Said lands now lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida.
Be changed from R-1, Single -Family District to C-2, Heavy
Commercial 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 2ndday of January ,
1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF IND4IAN IVER COUNTY
By
Z -AL
r c L ns
Chairman
32
ly-POTEAT APPEAL OF DENIAL OF REZONING
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
F pliOTi�E -: 'PUBLIC HEARING-
Vero Beach, Indian River Count Florida
County,
Naflce cf head;;;; consider the adoptiongc
n m C-1.CCmnmeecielhDismtricf.ATh,
cul�al sari
b�pct pi0p'e�y"is precently owned by WILLII
FLORENCE
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
:P(3TFA' . and is located west c
Kings L
�uthorstHiga .(59th Avenue?C.R.505A) an,
ofld1r0
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
Thesubjeopro yledscribe
party fa d
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
Tact 9, ti . .
;� The west 20�awes of Tract 9, Section
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
Township 335, Range 39E, according to
the IsSt'sertirall plat of lands of the In -
than' Rtwer Forms Company -filed in the
a � ��
St. Lucia Conni�ykFlorida Circuitof
Plat Book 2,' "
/ /
Page 25-.001d land not
Indian Rives Coup and taring in r
Florida
-
in the matter of b-f�QT
The Board of ung ers will con.
educt a public hearing r gazrdi
g�g a appeal
the applicant of the decision by flea Planning anc
Zoning _CommisIdon to recommend disapprove
Of the rezoning request. The public hearing, a1
Which parties In interest and citizens shall have
On opportunity 'to ba heard. will be held by the
CounlY Commissioners of Indian Rive,
CuMd
in the Court, was ub-
P
yof
FIQHda, in` the County Commission
frhamber8
/ 7
the.Couhty Administration Building,
1NO 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
"
Iished in said newspaper in the issues of i ./�
2.1
gnWednesdaY: lanuary955,at9:15am.It
e ort appeal Person d8cklft to
above- matter,
madshe will need a
/
reWd of the Proceedings, and for such pur-
Che/she may deed to Insure that a verba-
racwd of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is newspaper
the proceedings is made, which in-
dudes testimony and evidence upon which the
ei>t ie based: g,
a published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
111fm tVvC )"Co
t.�untYComrtdsataners
been continuous) published in said Indian River Count Florida, each daily and has beengB�o.ard
Y P Y, Y
`on C Scurlock Jr.
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for
h
C airman
a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of�1s�a�''•x
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or cordoration 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 ay of .D. 19
•
(B s,' VMan er)
!� 4q-
/ .
\1 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, orida)
(SEAL)
Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the following staff memo and
recommendation:
33
JAN 2 1985
BOOK 5 9 FA, H.923
F_
JAN 2 1995
BOOK 59 �,AUF.124
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 18, 1984FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keats g, P
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
POTEAT APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COM-
MISSION'S_DENIAL OF HIS
REQUEST TO REZONE 20
ACRES FROM A, AGRICUL-
TURAL DIST., TO C-1,
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
ZC-101
CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of January 2, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Michael O'Haire, an agent for Willie Florence Poteat, the
owner, is appealing a November 8, 1984, decision by the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission to deny a request to rezone 20 acres
located 600 feet west of Kings Highway on the south side of
State Road 60 from A, Agricultural District, to C-1, Commercial
District.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to deny the
subject request, and they gave several reasons for the denial.
Those reasons are as follows:
1) They did not feel that the subject property could be
included in the Kings Highway/S.R.60 commercial node.
2) Commercial zoning should not extend indefinitely along
State Road 60.
3) The line between commercial and noncommercial zoning
had to be drawn somewhere.
The applicant proposes to develop this property for commercial
uses.
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 contains a single-family dwelling, a fruit
stand, and an old citrus grove. North of the subject property,
across State Road 60, is undeveloped land zoned C-1. East of
the subject property is an undeveloped parcel of land zoned
C-1, Commercial District. South of the subject property is
undeveloped land zoned Agricultural. West of this property is
Mueller Center of Indian River Community College. West of the
subject property is a citrus grove zoned Agricultural.
34
M
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the subject
property and the land around it as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). In addition, the Plan
designates a 140 acre commercial node at the intersection of
Kings Highway and State Road 60 which extends eastward to 43rd
Avenue. The applicant is requesting to include the subject
property in the node.
Presently, this node contains 139.19 acres of land that is
zoned C-1, C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, or R-1,
Single -Family District. This acreage is broken down as
follows:
1)
Winn Dixie and adjacent commercial
6.38
acres
uses on 43rd Avenue
2)
Indian River Farms Drainage District
.59
acres
office and service station
3)
Ed Schlitt Agency office
.19
acres
4)
First Bankers West Side Facility
1.79
acres
5)
Ryanwood Shopping Center
18.68
acres
(site plan approved)
6)
Oak Terrace Restaurant
7.82
acres
(site plan approved)
7)
Infill property zoned C-1 or C-lA
49.58
acres
8)
Infill property zoned R-1
16.23
acres
9)
Other property zoned commercial
37.93
acres
west of Kings Highway
There is only .81 acres of unallocated land available in the
node. There is not sufficient acreage in the node to include
the subject property at this time. In January, the applicant
may apply for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to enlarge
the node at Kings Highway and State Road 60.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to State Road 60
(classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan).
Commercial development of the subject property could attract up
to 14,000 average annual daily trips (AADT) with approximately
1200 trips in the peak hour.
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, particularly the fact that there
is insufficient acreage available to include the subject
property in the node, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation, staff recommends that this property not be
rezoned to C-1 at this time.
35
JAN 21985 Boa 59 FnUE.325-
JAN 21935 BOOK .� ' FX26
Planner Shearer reported that the applicant has the
alternative of applying for amendment of the Land Use Plan, but
at the present, staff did not see any way for the property to be
rezoned.
Commissioner Bowman noted that they could file for that
redesignation right now, and Mr. Shearer agreed, but noted that
the process takes 2h-3 months. He further noted that they can
apply for rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment at the same
time, and, in fact, are allowed a reduced rate if they do so.
Attorney Michael O'Haire appeared representing the Poteats,
who have lived on this property about twenty years. Mr. O'Haire
presented a colored sketch depicting the node as presented by
staff, which he felt clearly demonstrates that this is a wierd
stretched -out node. Mr. O'Haire pointed out that there are 49
acres of commercial in -fill in this node and 39 acres of
residential in -fill ("in -fill" being property for which the
owners have expressed neither an inclination nor need to have
rezoned). He did agree with staff that the line has to be drawn
somewhere, but did not believe this is a good rezoning in
relation to what is actually taking place in this area. Mr.
O'Haire felt it would make more sense to eliminate this long
skinny node and have two nodes - one at 43rd Avenue and one at
King's Highway, and he did not believe staff would have a problem
with what his client is requesting except that there is no more
property in the node other than the "in -fill." He, therefore,
requested that the Commission dip into the in -fill category to
provide his clients with what he felt is a reasonable request.
Director Keating felt if you don't consider in -fill, you
really don't have a node.
Attorney O'Haire contended that this is not a rational node
and that it was artificially created.
Commissioner Bowman believed we are kidding ourselves if we
think we are not going to have a strip of commercial all along SR
60.
36
Commissioner Scurlock felt we will have to expand the node
for this request to be considered and believed it would be
reasonable to square it off with the boundary of the commercial
to the north of SR 60; it seems there is existing residential
west of that.
Commissioner Bird could understand why the Poteats did not
want a delay, but he did feel this should wait until the acreage
is in the node. He concurred it would be logical to include this
property, which would square it off.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we postpone the public
hearing on this and consider it at the same time we amend the
Plan and enlarge the node.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that it seems all five Commis-
sioners are in favor of the requested rezoning; so, why can't we
go ahead and approve it? He felt we had done this before.
The County Attorney pointed out those rezonings were based
on a provision of the Comprehensive Plan which involves a finding
by the Board that the property is not suitable for inclusion in
the node; that is not applicable in this case.
Chairman Lyons concurred that the Commission is pretty much
in agreement this property should be in the node, but we have to
follow the steps to get there.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously post-
poned this hearing on the Poteat property so that
expansion of the node and the rezoning appeal can
be considered at the same time, and directed staff
to expedite initiating the necessary process.
37
mm i
BOOK. 9 F' c _�", 9
JAR 2 1985.
BOOK
/AMENDING COUNTY CODE "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES- RE DISTANCES FROM
CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, ETC.
`The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
59 Fn -E .928
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA ''<
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oat
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
�n it
a
in the matter
t WOTICE Ok OR�INANCE AMENDMENT
cAiB hereby given that. the Board of County
' issioners will hold a public hearing on
h� etlnestlay, lanUary �;°(985. to°tOhSider an or-
dinance amending Sections.2-2 apd 2-3 of Chap-
ter 2.` "* hglic Beverages'116t Indien' River
County's Coda vi. Laws -and. Ordinances.. This or-
dinance is entitled r,
IND16N RIVER NOUr� ORDNANCE,;;;
,AN' ORDINANCE OF'TH7r BOAR O�
' COUNTY COMMISs64ERS OF .IN TAN
f✓ RIVER COUNTY�.t ,'ORIDA.' AMENDI i'
"-CHAPTER': °2, iALCOHOLIC BEVER q
nnGa" nF rwr nni ihmv-a rnnc neo :'
in the CC'oourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of ��%o %ur
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
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit
day of D. 19
usiness Manager)
DurLAdian River County, Florida)
FOR
SOF
SCHOOLS-, ` RENtJAABERIN6 " SOF SE
TION 2-4 CODIFICATION; SEVERA'
ITY; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVI�';:
SIONS; AND EFFECTIVE DATE 48
This public hearing will' commence at 9130
a.m. or as soon thereafter as ma be heard.:
The,hearino willbe h d'in t Courli Com-
mission Chambers at-the'County Administration
Building looatetl- at 1840 25th Street; "`Vero
Beach, Florida.',,
All partes in interest and citiz@ns'shall neve
an opportunity to be heard at this public hearing.
If any, person'. decides, appeal'any decision
made op the above matters. he/she willneed a
record ot'the,proceedings,, and for, such pur-
poses, he/she-majy need, to insure that a verba-
tim record of. the proceedings is made, which
record -includes the testimony An evidence on
Mltuch-the agpeat'is based; ; � , s . �� a, fi� .-
�; Indian River Count(r
Board of County Cbmmisslone
By s buira:C , curlock Jr
R ��.
Chairman':' w.
I , 1984
Planning Director Keating made the staff presentation, as
follows, and noted that the change in the Sunday hours allowed
for sale of alcoholic beverages was dealt with at an earlier
meeting:
38
s � �
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 20, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
SUBJECT: 2, "ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES", OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY'S CODE OF
LAWS & ORDINANCES
FROM:Robert M. Keating, AICD' REFERENCES:
Planning & Development Director
It is requested that the following information be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting on January 2, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Staff has been requested to evaluate Chapter 2, "Alcoholic
Beverages", of Indian River County's Code of Laws & Ordi-
nances. This request was made because of problems with the
implementation of certain sections of the ordinance. While
the entire ordinance was considered in staff's review, it
has been recommended that two sections be changed.
The recommended changes were considered at a workshop
meeting on August 22, 1984. At that time, the Board of
County Commission members who participated in the workshop
recommended that the proposed revisions be considered at a
public hearing.
These recommended changes were also considered at the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on September 27,
1984. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
ordinance amendments.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The two sections of Chapter 2 for which changes have been
recommended are Section 2-2, "Zones for sale established",
and Section 2-3, "Distances of vendors from church or
school."
Section 2-2 establishes two areas in the County where
alcohol sales (excluding beer sales) are prohibited. While
Indian River County does have the right to prohibit alcohol
sales, this prohibition must be uniform. If alcohol sales
are prohibited, this must be done throughout the entire
County, after being approved by a majority of voters in an
election. Therefore, staff has recommended that Section 2-2
be deleted from Chapter 2.
The existing Section 2-3 of Chapter 2 establishes required
separation distances between alcohol sales establishments
and schools and churches. Because of the restrictive nature
of this separation distance, there have been problems with
implementing it. The ordinance currently requires that
there be 2500' between alcohol sales establishments (exclud-
ing those places where beer is sold for off -premises con-
sumption), and churches and schools.
W
BOOK 9 FtgGE:329
BOOK � F'.G1330
In trying to evaluate whether this 2500' separation distance
is excessive, staff contacted other jurisdictions to deter-
mine what regulations they used and whether these regu-
lations were effective. In doing this, staff outlined the
objectives which this type of ordinance is meant to achieve.
Staff also tried to find uniform distance standards which
correlate a specific separation distance to the objectives
identified by staff.
This work aided the staff in reaching the conclusion that a
separation distance between churches and schools, and the
alcohol sales establishments, sould be enforced. However
this separation distance should be modified. Staff has also
recommended that the ordinance be changed so that alcohol
sales establishments where on -premises consumption of
alcohol is permitted be differentiated from alcohol sales
establishments where the on -premises consumption of alcohol
is prohibited.
Staff has recommended that Indian River County's required
separation distance be changed to -require a 500' separation
distance between churches and schools, and alcohol sales
establishments (excluding beer sales) where on -premises
consumption of alcohol is prohibited. Staff further
recommends that a separation distance of 1000' be estab-
lished between churches and schools and alcohol sales
establishments where the on -premises consumption of alcohol
is permitted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt the proposed revisions to Chapter 2, "Alcoholic
Beverages" of the County Code.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 85-2
amending the County Code re zones for sale of
alcoholic beverages.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that we would be going to 500'
rather than 2500', and Director Keating stated that this would be
true only where on -premises consumption is not permitted; other-
wise it would be 1,0001.
40
_I
r
Commissioner Bowman asked if this corresponds to the Vero
Beach City Code, and Director Keating explained that the City of
Vero Beach only sets a required distance of 500' and does not
differentiate between on -premises and off -premises consumption.
Commissioner Wodtke asked in what zones such establishments
are allowed, and it was noted that these are only allowed in a
commercial zone, which in itself would be somewhat restrictive.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 85-2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, "ALCO-
HOLIC BEVERAGES" OF THE COUNTY'S CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI-
NANCES; REPEALING SECTION 2-2 REGARDING ZONES FOR SALE;
PROVIDING FOR DISTANCES OF VENDORS FROM CHURCHES AND
SCHOOLS; RENUMBERING OF SECTION 2-4; CODIFICATION;
SEVERABILITY; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1
Section 2-2, Zones for Sale Established; of the Code of
Laws and Ordinances is hereby repealed in its entirety; and
Section 2-3 is renumbered as Section 2-2 and amended and
reenacted in its entirety as follows:
Section 2-2, Distances of Vendors from Church or School.
A. The following separation distances shall be required
between alcohol sales establishments and any church or
school -in the County.
(1) Alcohol sales establishments where on -premises
consumption of alcohol is permitted shall not _
locate within 1000 feet of an established church
or school.
(2) Alcohol sales establishments where on -premises
consumption is not permitted shall not locate
within 500 feet of an established church or
school. Alcohol vendors licensed under para-
graph (a) of subsection (1) of Chap. 563.02 of
the Florida Statutes are exempt from this
provision (vendors of alcoholic malt beverages
commonly known as beer for off -premises consump-
tion only).
B. This required separation distance shall be measured
by following the shortest route of ordinary pedes -
41
BOOK 9 APE
BOOK..
JAN 2 1985 BooK 59 fns ,3e3
trian travel along the public thoroughfare from the
main entrance of such place of business to the main
entrance of the church and, in the case of a school,
to the nearest point of the school grounds in use as
part of the school facilities except:
(1) Where such established church or school is
within the limits of an incorporated city or
town and the applicant for such license is
outside such incorporated city or town and
outside any other incorporated city or town,
then and in that event, the place of business of
such vendor in the county may be the same or a
greater distance from such church or school as
is required by the ordinance of the incorporated
city or town wherein such church or school is
located.
(2) Should a church or school be established after
the establishment of a place of business of any
vendor for the sale of alcoholic beverages, the
subsequently established church or school shall
not affect the location of the place of business
of any such vendor nor shall it affect a
subsequent renewal or transfer of any license of
such a vendor.
(3) Where such established church or school is
located in the county outside the limits of any
incorporated city or town but so near the limits
of one that under the ordinances of that city or
town such a vendor in such city or town could
receive a license within a distance less than
stipulated by this ordinance of such church or
school, then and in that event, the place of
business of such a vendor in this county outside
any city or town may be the same or a greater
distance from such church or school as any such
vendor duly licensed within such city or town.
SECTION 2
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of
the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of
Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of _
this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict.
SECTION 3
INCORPORATION IN CODE
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated
into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
42
M M -
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the
sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to
accomplish such intentions.
SECTION 4
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this"ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not
affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed
to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 5
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective
upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River•County, Florida on this 2nd day of January
1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1
/DETERMINE VALIDITY OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL — RIVERBENDn,,-�
The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
43
JAN 2 1995 mor. 9 F°CE333
I
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 zi—rv�r
in the matter of
BOOK 59 FilGE *MP3
NOTICEOR`PUSLICHEARING F'
TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF'
TWO APPROVED SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS
The Indian, River County Board of County
mmissioners will conduct a public hearing, re-
arding the,vagdUy of site pian approval for the
urf ltd Racquet Club, owner Robert Catms;
and :,.the Riverbend condominium complex,
Owner Florida Land Company. The public hear-
ing. at which parties in Interest and citizens shall
have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by
said Board of County Commissioners In the
County Commlasion: C.tiambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 184o 26tH
Street, Vero Beach;. Florida on Wednesday,
January 2,1986 at 9:45 A.M.
If any person decides to appeal 'any decision
made on the above matter, he may need to en=
sure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is
in the Court, was pub made; which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based
y� . Indian River County
JC JeG. /o? Board of County Commleaion�. -, a
lished In said newspaper in the issues of �� i gy.-s-DonC.Scurlockldr,chairman
Deo 21,1984. 1
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 thisday A.D. 19
�. wi
•
f
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Cou
(SEAL)
Chief Planner Mary Jane Goetzfried reviewed the staff
presentation, as follows:
44
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:. December 21, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RIVERBEND
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
SUBJECT: FILE: #IRC -8I -SP -115
Robert M. Keatifg,
Planning & Development Director
OM: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried REFERENCES: Riverbend
Chief, Current Development Section DIS:MARYJ
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of January 2, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Pursuant to Section 23 (h)(1) Appendix A of the County Code,
the Board of County Commissioners is afforded the authority to
evaluate the validity of an approved site plan, when there is a
question with regard to commencement or abandonment of con-
struction.
The Code specifies that construction will have commenced when
the developer has built a portion of a structure shown on the
approved site plan (e.g. the pouring of footers), or has made
substantial improvements to the site, other than land clearing,
filling or grading, evidencing a good faith effort to diligent-
ly pursue construction to completion.
In cases where construction has commenced, and subsequently
been abandoned or suspended, the site plan approval shall
terminate and become null and void after notice and hearing by
the Board of County Commissioners. Construction shall be
considered abandoned or suspended if at the hearing it is shown
that an active building permit has not been maintained for the
construction of a structure in accordance with the approved
plan, or it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of County
Commissioners that construction at a level indicating a good
faith effort to proceed with the completion of the project has
not occurred for a continuous period of six (6) months, unless
the inactivity is attributable to the deliberate and scheduled
phasing of a multiphase project which has been approved as such
by the County.
Florida Land Company has submitted several site plan applica-
tions involving the proposed Riverbend multi -family residential
project.
County records reflect the following CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS with
regard to the site plan approval process of Riverbend:
September 17, 1980 Site plan application submitted
by Florida Land Company to
construct 504 multi -family
units.
Application was subsequently
terminated, at applicant's
request, to allow for the
County's consideration of an
inland marina.
45
2 1995
JAS R'�01K 519, olrr.13
IM
BOOK 59 F�Au 336
September 8,.1981 Site plan application submitted
to construct a 96 -slip, private
yacht club for Riverbend.
December 17, 1981 Planning and Zoning Commission
conditionally approved site
plan to construct private yacht
club.
January 27, 1982 Board of County Commissioners
approved appeal by Audubon
Society of approval of yacht
club site plan.
February 26, 1982 Florida Land reactivated site
plan application to construct
486 multi -family units.
April 22, 1982 Reactivated site plan approved
by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
July 22, 1982 Application submitted to revise
Phase 1 of site plan approved
on April 22, 1982.
August 26, 1982 Planning and Zoning Commission
conditionally approved Phase 1
site plan.
December 1, 1982 Board of County Commissioners
approved appeal by Florida Land
to the extent of the terms of
an agreement between the County
and Florida Land.
November 27, 1984 Florida Land submitted applica-
tion to reactivate site plan
for 486 multi -family units.
November 28, 1984 Board of County Commissioners
adopted Resolution No. 84-101
suspending development review
approvals of any project,
located on the barrier island,
where the project's density
exceeds one residential unit
per acre.
November 29, 1984 Applicant notified of pending
action by Board of County
Commissioners.
No building permits were applied for or issued subsequent to
any site plan approval received by Florida Land.
ANALYSIS:
The rationale behind authorizing the County Commission to
terminate site plan approval relates to the public's interest.
The process allows the County to ensure that projects which are
not constructed within a reasonable time after site plan
approval will conform to applicable regulations which have been
M
46
M
M
I
enacted since that approval was granted. By adopting new land
development related ordinances, the County Commission has
determined that the adherence to the requirements set forth in
said ordinances is in the public's best interest.
Since approval of Riverbend, the following applicable ordi-
nances have been adopted.
1) Stormwater Management & Flood Protection
2) Off-street Parking Pavement Types
3) Off-street Parking & Loading Regulations
4) Tree Protection
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Plan did
consider Riverbend and the anticipated 1,734 average daily
trips when assessing bridge capacity; however, the recently
updated North Beach Unit Allocation report, prepared by the
Planning Department, did not include the average daily trips.
This was due to the fact that the applicant did not hold an
active building permit when the report was prepared.
CONCLUSION:
Considering the effects of the aforementioned, recently
approved ordinances on large scale residential/commercial
development proposals, and the effect of this project on the
barrier island's principal transportation system and the
development restrictions proposed by the Hutchinson Island
Resource Planning and Management Plan, it would be in the
public's best interest to terminate approval of the Riverbend
site plan application.
Termination of the existing approval would still permit the
applicant to submit a new site plan application in conformance
with the County's current Code of Laws and Ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approved site plan to construct Riverbend
at 9025 State Road A -1-A be terminated.
Planner Goetzfried displayed slides of the construction site
of the subject project taken last Friday, which demonstrate that
the only construction has been the removal of fill from the lake
and noted that it is obvious this site was approved prior to a
number of ordinances now in effect.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his real problem is that
we need to find a vehicle to have a much tighter control on this
whole process; there are those who want to carry out their
project in good faith but have financial problems, and then there
are those who obviously have no intention of proceeding, but have
options on the property and try to get vested so they can sit
with the property and speculate. We have seen this all over our
county, not just on the barrier island.
47
BOOK 59 F°GE.P37
_I
JAN 2 1995
BOOK 59
.138
Director Keating noted that a project on the mainland was
the reason for implementing the change to the ordinance. He
stressed that it is very difficult to set specific criteria as to
what constitutes a "good faith" effort and this, therefore, was
left for the Commission to determine. He felt, as with other
projects that will be considered today, that the site plan
approval might have been premature since this does not have to
adhere to later ordinances such as the Stormwater Management
Ordinance, Landscaping, etc.
Commissioner Bird noted that another problem in this
particular area is the allocation under the Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan, which necessitates our determining
which projects really are active and which are not. He asked
Attorney Brandenburg if he had anything to add to staff's
comments as to what the Commission should be looking at to
determine whether the site plan is valid.
Attorney Brandenburg felt the Board should confine its look
at the criteria set out in the ordinance as opposed to arguments
about vested rights and equitable estoppel, and the Ordinance
sets out that construction at the site itself should be used to
determine what constitutes a "good faith" effort. The County
Attorney felt if the individual wants to pursue arguments re
vested rights, etc., they should pursue them at the courts. He
noted that the criteria is that if construction of the site plan
itself, at a level indicating a good faith effort to proceed with
completion of the project, has not occurred for a continuous
period of 6 months, the Board has the ability to determine the
site plan is void.
Commissioner Bird asked if that would include pulling
building permits, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that would be
one of the factors that would enter into it.
Chairman Lyons asked if he had not heard that the site plan
has expired, and Planner Goetzfried reported that on December 1,
1982, the Board approved the appeal by Florida Land and granted
48
r � r
an extension of their site plan; that would have been the last
site plan that would have been a valid site plan, and it would
have expired in December, 1983.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the first question at this
point then is whether or not construction ever commenced. If it
did, then the site plan would not have expired. The second
question is re the good faith effort to complete the project. If
construction never commenced, the site plan automatically expired
just because of the period of time that has gone by.
Gerald Chancellor, Vice President of Florida Land Company,
came before the Board and stated that no specifics ever have been
cited to Florida Land with regard to ordinances adopted since
their site plan approval, but they certainly would intend to
comply with any that would be applicable to their project.
Chairman Lyons emphasized that there are only two pertinent
questions to be considered - have they actively pursued the site
plan and have they started construction and diligently
constructed the site plan.
Mr. Chancellor stated that it is their belief and contention
that they have been continually active on the site plan since it
was approved. He noted that in 1982, they and some other
companies were instructed to form a water company and construct a
regional water facility. As everyone knows, two of the main
constraints to development anywhere are utilities and financing,
and in the North Beach area utilities and a potable water source
are a primary problem that has existed for many years. Mr.
Chancellor continued that they have proceeded in conformance with
what the Board directed in 1982 ever since, and the North Beach
Water Company is on Florida Land Company's property and was shown
on their site plan. They have been under construction on that
project for the past two years, and by April of 1985, when they
intend to open the first major phase of the ultimate reverse
osmosis plant, they will have spent close to one million in this
joint venture simply on water, not to mention money spent in the
49
JAN 2 1995 alp 59 91,39
I
JAN 2 1,985 BOCK �� �', E 140
last two years on obtaining other regulatory permits. If their
project now is essentially dead in the water, they are wondering
why they are spending all these dollars for a reverse osmosis
plant for development on the North Beach.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if this still is the same
company that submitted the site plan, and Mr. Chancellor
explained that the parent company changed and there has been a
restructuring of the company itself. The entire holdings of
Florida Land were purchased by another group out of Connecticut,
which, of course, does cause some delay. He emphasized that they
have been trying to reactivate and work on Riverbend for the last
three months, but were informed that their site plan is not
valid.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired if the number of taps Florida
Land has vested is sufficient to build out at their site, and Mr.
Chancellor reported that they have 380 taps purchased in the
utility company. There are another 500 taps available for
purchase, and there is sufficient capacity in the water plant
that will be on line in April of 1985 for all of theirs plus
additional units.
Commissioner Bird asked what they feel would evidence
continuous work on their project other than participation in the
water company and wished to know if they are ready to start hard
construction as soon as water is available.
Mr. Chancellor confirmed that they are ready to start
construction and, in fact, wanted to build models for this season
but have not been able to because of the question of the validity
of the site plan. He further noted that they have been working
with staff and the County Attorney on the question of restoration
of the riverfront along Jungle Trail and have consummated an
agreement to perform that work along the length of their
shoreline. They also are pursuing obtaining the necessary
permits for that work from the Corps of Engineers, DER, etc.
50
Commissioner Scurlock inquired if they plan to build under
that specific site plan and just what specific construction
activities have taken place.
Mr. Chancellor stated that the North Beach Water Company is
the only specific construction, and noted that they would like to
work with staff and possibly revise the site plan.
Commissioner Bird asked if any revisions would be in
concurrence with all new ordinances, and Mr. Chancellor assured
him that they would.
Attorney Michael O'Haire emphasized that the main issue the
Board is being asked to determine relates to a "good faith"
effort, and he felt that not only has the Commission not seen any
evidence of "good faith," they have seen positive evidence of bad
faith as demonstrated by the rape of island, which is clearly
shown in the slides presented by staff. He further noted that
clients of his have been shown this property as being available
for purchase. He believed the new company has a mandate to sell
it.
Chairman Lyons made the point that as far as the water plant
being used as evidence of their good faith is concerned, they had
an agreement to do that in conjunction with other parties, and
were, therefore, more or less forced into pursuing it.
Mr. Chancellor stated that they wanted to construct the
plant because they could not build without a potable water
supply.
Planner Goetzfried informed the Board that the site plan
originally approved for the permanent reverse osmosis plant for
North Beach was preceded by a site plan request for a temporary
R. O. plant that has been on line at Sea Oaks since they were
originally approved.
Attorney Brandenburg stressed that the site plan for the
water plant was totally separate from the subject site plan and
that does not meet the specific requirement for substantial
improvement to the site.
51
ENEWATwou
MOO F4.,�341
-I
JAN 21985
BOOK 59 PCE 3 42
Chairman Lyons agreed that what he was trying to establish
earlier was that the water plant was an independent operation.
As to "good faith," Mr. Chancellor noted that the water
plant is half on their property and half on Sea Oaks. He felt
the expenditure of approximately one million dollars by April of
this year does constitute a good faith effort on their part.
Commissioner Bird asked how it would really hurt them if the
Commission ruled this site plan invalid since it apparently is
not their present intention to build according to that plan.,
Mr. Chancellor pointed out that they then probably would get
back to a density question. This property originally was
purchased at a density of 12-15 per acre and that was the basis
of the purchase; now it is down to 6 per acre and there comes a
point when the project is not feasible.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the only way the density question
would come in would be if the Hutchinson Island Resource Manage-
ment Plan were enforced.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the lakes were built according
to the site plan, and Mr. Chancellor stated that those are two
large storm water retention ponds, and land clearing and grubbing
was done also.
Edward Green, resident of Summerplace, asked if this is the
same company which a couple of years ago tried to build a bridge
on Jungle Trail, and if so, he would wonder about their
credibility.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that it is a different company,
but the same group.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to approve staff's recommenda-
tion to consider the site plan of Riverbend terminated
on the basis that they have not complied with the
ordinance's criteria relating to a "good faith" effort
since construction was never started.
52
� � r
Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern about the plant and
what will happen to the utilities situation.
Commissioner Scurlock did not anticipate anything negative
happening with the plant as he was sure there is more demand for
utilities in that area that there is an ability to supply it.
Commissioner Wodtke continued to discuss the fact that the
county did not want to allow a proliferation of utility plants
and, therefore, asked these people to work together on forming
this water company and building a plant. He noted that this all
takes time. Other than that, he agreed that he could not see
that any other work has been done.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the question is do you vest a
site plan forever. This has been going on for quite a few years.
Commissioner Bird asked if the County Attorney is saying
that the site plan for the water plant should be treated
separately, and Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that you must
start construction'on your own site plan -with something other
than just filling or grading. Mr. Chancellor has not indicated
they have done anything other than filling or grading so it does
not seem that construction of the project had commenced.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the North Beach Water Company is
a separate company and they are in the process of building a
utility whether or not any of these projects commence or fail.
Commissioner Bird agreed that North Beach Water Company has
gone on as an independent entity, but it began because of the
cooperation of these people whom we asked to cooperate and move
ahead this way. He stated that he probably would vote in favor
of the Motion, however, based on Attorney Brandenburg's
explanation that construction on the site is what should be
considered.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition.
53
BOOK 9 F''H'1343
I
JA 2 1985 RR AA
BOOK `; �E 144
/DETERMINE VALIDITY OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL — SURF & RACQUET CLUB
The hour of 9:45 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
I
R ' NOTidEOFPUBUCHEARINii'—
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
TO ROVED iNE THE VALIDITYAT
TWO APPROVED SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
' The Indian River County Board of County
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
g��9 Commissionerswill conduct a public plan o� for,
Surf and Racquet Club, owner Robert Caims;i
a
and .the Rhrerbend condominium compiex,i
owner Florida Land Company. The public hear
Ing. at which parties In Interest -and citizens shalt
have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by
In the matter ofeaid
Board of County Commissioners in th
County Commission Chambers of the Coun
Administration Building, located at 184o 25
Street, 'Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday,
January 2. 1985 at 8:45 A.M.
i If any person decides to appeal ary decision
made on the above matter, he may need to .
i
sure that a verbatim record of the proceeding I
in the Court, was pub-
which Includesy and evidan
upon wh ch the appeat�ibam
/
lished in said newspaper in the issues of >�e G - �� . t� ! I ! ��
Indian River County
Board of County Co ,
-s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Dec. 12, 21,1984. k, I
i
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 day LA.D. 19 O
B iSess ag
�.
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Coun , Florida)
(SEAL)
Chief Planner Goetzfried made the staff presentation, as
follows:
54
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 20, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SURF & RACQUET CLUB
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
SUBJECT: FILE: #IRC -81-36-644
M .
Robert M. Kea ing AICP
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried REFERENCES: Surf & Racquet Club
Chief, Current Development Section DIS:MARYJ
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of January 2, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Pursuant to Section 23 (h)(1) Appendix A of the County Code,
the Board of County Commissioners is afforded the authority to
evaluate the validity of an approved site plan, when there is a
question with regard to commencement or abandonment of con-
struction.
The Code specifies that construction will have commenced when
the developer has built a portion of a structure shown on the
approved site plan (e.g. the pouring of footers), or has made
substantial improvements to the site, other than land clearing,
filling or grading, evidencing a good faith effort to -diligent-
ly pursue construction to completion.
In cases where construction has commenced, and subsequently
been abandoned or suspended, the site plan approval shall
terminate and become null and void after notice and hearing by
the Board of County Commissioners. Construction shall be
considered abandoned or suspended if at the hearing it is shown
that an active building permit has not been maintained for the
construction of a structure in accordance with the approved
plan, or it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of County
Commissioners that construction at a level indicating a good
faith effort to proceed with the completion of the project has
not occurred for a continuous period of six (6) months, unless
the inactivity is attributable to the deliberate and scheduled
phasing of a multiphase project which has been approved as such
by the County.
The site plan application to construct the Surf & Racquet Club,
approved in June of 1981, depicts 60 midrise units, attached
duplex units, one manager's residence, recreational amenities
and one dune cross-over.
County records reflect the following CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS with
regard to construction of the Surf & Racquet Club:
April 3, 1981 - Site plan application submitted
by Robert Cairns.
June 11, 1981 - Site plan approval granted by
Planning & Zoning Commission.
June 2, 1982 - Request submitted for site plan
approval extension.
55 BOOK 59 345
JAN 21985
r _
JAN 2 1985 1
BOOK 59, r",UE-46
July 7, 1982 - Board of County Commissioners granted
a one year extension of site plan
approval (new expiration date 6/11/83).
June 7, 1983 - Building permit issued for the construc-
tion of a single, 2 unit building.
A field investigation shows that 4
courses of a stem wall were constructed
during this time; however, no building
department inspections were requested or
performed.
April 11, 1984 - Soil density test report received certi-
fying the suitability of floor slab
fill.
Dec. 4, 1984 - Applicant notified of pending action by
Board of County Commissioners.
Dec. 7, 1984 - Application to renew building permit
submitted.
Dec. 10, 1984 - Renewed building permit issued for one
duplex.
ANALYSIS:
The rationale behind authorizing the County Commission to
terminate site plan approval relates to the public's interest.
The process allows the County to ensure that projects which are
not constructed within a reasonable time after site plan
approval will conform to applicable regulations which have been
enacted since that approval was granted. By adopting new land
development related ordinances, the County Commission has
determined that the adherence to the requirements set forth in
said ordinances is in the public's best interest.
Since approval of the Surf & Racquet Club, the following
applicable ordinances have been adopted.
1) The Comprehensive Plan
2) Stormwater Management & Flood Protection
3) Off-street Parking Pavement Types
4) Off-street Parking & Loading Regulations
5) Tree Protection
The Hutchinson Island Planning Committee, when determining that
development on the barrier island should be limited, included
the 242 average daily trips anticipated to be generated by the
Surf & Racquet Club; however, the recently updated North Beach
Unit Allocation report, prepared by the Planning Department,
deducted these trips from the traffic impact calculations.
This was due to the fact that the applicant did not hold an
active building permit when the report was prepared.
W
0
CONCLUSION
Mr. Cairns received site plan approval for the Surf & Racquet
Club approximately 3h years ago, and to date has done only a
minimal amount of construction on a duplex for which a building
permit was pulled 1h years ago. On December 7, 1984, 3 days
after being notified of pending action by the County Commission
regarding termination of his site plan approval, Mr. Cairns
applied to renew the building permit for that duplex. It is
the Planning staff's opinion that a good faith effort to
complete construction of the entire project has not been
demonstrated.
Considering the effects of the aforementioned, recently
approved ordinances on large scale residential/commercial
development proposals, and the effect of this project on the
barrier island's principal transportation system and the
development restrictions proposed by the Hutchinson Island
Resource Planning and Management Plan, it would be in the
public's best interest to terminate approval of the Surf &
Racquet Club site plan application.
Termination of the existing approval would still permit the
applicant to submit a new site plan application in conformance
with the County's current Code of Laws and Ordinances. Addi-
tionally, construction that has begun on the duplex could be
incorporated into the revised, overall development plan. Due
to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan subsequent to the
approval of the original site plan, however, the project
density will have to be reduced from the approved 7.6
units/acre to a maximum of 6 units/acre.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approved site plan to construct the Surf &
Racquet Club at 8600 State Road A -1-A be terminated.
Mrs. Goetzfried noted that this is very much the same
situation as the Riverbend project except that building permits
have been pulled. She then displayed slides of the site showing
the wall around the project and overgrown duplex construction,
and reported that there has been further activity at the site in
the last month since notification was sent of possible termina-
tion of site plan approval.
Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing
Robert Cairns, owner of the subject property. He passed out
additional pictures of new construction at the site, plus the
original building permit and the renewed permit issued on Decem-
ber 10, 1984.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know how many water taps
have been reserved for this project, and Attorney Henderson
stated that the project consists of 69 units, and they have
57
JAN 2 1995 BOOK 5q Fr,nE47
\ I
_I
JAN
2 1985
BOOK
14 8
reserved and paid for
69 taps in the North Beach Water
Company.
Attorney Henderson felt the Board is associating bad faith with
mere delays in construction, and he wished to assure them that
the delays that have taken place have been a result of the water
problem and also the financing requirements for the entire 69
unit project. He pointed out that most construction lenders
require presales, and presales generally are based on having a
unit to show. The two units being constructed are being built
out of pocket without financing, and there currently is a valid
building permit with construction taking place.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how it is that projects such as
Bay Tree and some others have been able to proceed in spite of
the water problem.
Attorney Henderson noted that they had a temporary reverse
osmosis plant, and water was not the only problem. He felt if
the Board is going to start cancelling site plans, they should do
so only on a showing of bad faith. He disagreed with Attorney
Brandenburg's views and questioned the ability of the Board to
take away vested property rights. He also felt the money spent
should be taken as an evidence of good faith, and they have
expended over $200,000 including the water, not to mention
engineering, and soft costs. Attorney Henderson informed the
Board that both Mr. Cairns and his construction supervisor, Rick
Taylor of Rux Construction, are present to answer questions. He
further noted that plumbing was recently inspected and approved,
and the foundation and footings were inspected and approved in
1983.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Mr. Taylor if he has a contract
to complete the units, and Mr. Taylor replied that he has a
letter of intent, not a formal contract, but the letter states
that a contract will be written in the near future. He stated
that at present they are in the process of working out some of
the fine tuning as to what actually is going in the units, and he
is being paid on a cost-plus basis.
58
M M
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Taylor had a complete set of
building plans, and Mr. Taylor confirmed that he did.
Developer Robert Cairns informed the Board that they have
not gone into a formal contract yet as they need to know what
their formal situation is after this meeting. He continued that
they plan to complete the two townhouse models and start sales
from that showroom, and they have contracted for and paid a
substantial part of $138,000 for water and are stockholders in
the North Beach Water Company because of that. The Surf &
Racquet Project is scheduled to open officially in April of 1985,
and a portion of the water is available right now from a tempo-
rary plant to support the two units. Mr. Cairns emphasized that
they do intend to complete this project.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Mr. Taylor if they have any
contracts for doors, hardware, etc., and Mr. Taylor said he did
not for those items, such as windows, which still have to be
decided on, but he did for the plumbing and foundations that were
put in.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that a lot of these things
require quite a bit of lead time, and Mr. Taylor stated that
there are no purchase orders for the future.
Mr. Cairns hoped that this would make the Board aware of the
predicament they are in.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that in reviewing the past
three years, it is apparent there has not been much activity on
the site until just recently, and Mr. Cairns agreed that there
had not been much activity until they finally knew they had
water. He noted that they did put in a sewer plant in conjunc-
tion with Bay Tree, and it is partially on their property.
Question arose as to whether the plant is part of their site
plan or part of Bay Tree's, and Mrs. Goetzfried stated that there
is no wastewater or water plant shown on this plan, but it does
depict water lines and a sewer main going across the street.
59
JAN 2 1995
BOOK '59 F'OF r,49
I
BOOL(Fp:GE5O'
Mr. Cairns stated that the plant actually is on the
adjacent land - it has been built and is operating.
Attorney Henderson did not feel there was any question here
as to whether construction was commenced in the time limits as
might have been true in the Riverbend site plan, and thus the
issue being considered is strictly one of abandonment. He
submitted that the construction of the sewer plant on the
adjacent land is an indication of good faith.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that is the key issue; it is
obvious they started construction, but the question is whether it
will be continued.
Attorney O'Haire commented that he has looked at plans that
Mr. Cairns has submitted in the county for fifteen years, but he
has never seen anything completed. He believed the schedule
reviewed by Mrs. Goetzfried proves that permits were only pulled
just before expiration. There has been a rush to construct now
just as there was a rush to get the site plan. This is a
speculative venture, and not only has there been no evidence of
good faith, Mr. O'Haire believed there has been affirmative
evidence of bad faith.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that it is obvious that there
has not been an effort to move ahead with construction until just
recently.
Director Keating reported that the plant was not shown on
the site or as part of the site plan of the Surf & Racquet Club.
It is a separate utility company, and they have a separate
franchise for that system. It serves Bay Tree and this project.
Commissioner Wodtke did not see how the subject site plan
could have been approved without availability of sewers.
Question arose as to whether site plans would have been approved
that way in 1981, and it was confirmed that it was approved in
1981 without the availability of sewer.
Director Keating stated that he was not here at that time,
but we now not only require that a plan be submitted for a plant,
60
� � r
but that all applicable permits be obtained prior to a building
permit being obtained.
Further discussion ensued as to the belief that it is
necessary to treat this plant separately and the same as the one
by Florida Land Company, and, therefore, the question relates
only to the construction that has been done on site.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve staff's
recommendation to consider the site plan of the
Surf & Racquet Club invalid on the basis that
they have not complied with the ordinance's provi-
sions in regard to a good faith effort to move to
completion of the project as evidenced by lack of
continuous construction on the site.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he will vote against the
Motion because he felt it is evident the utility is a very
important key, and he cannot see how we can expect someone to go
to construction when they don't have water or sewer.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that Bay Tree went with a
temporary system until such time as the other system is
available; they also are participants in the North Beach Water
Company, but they are moving ahead and building. He felt this
project is no different from other projects in the county which
are putting in temporary systems until the county system is
available, and they are moving ahead.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3 to 2 with
Commissioners Bird and Wodtke voting in
opposition.
61
JAN 2 1995 60'_J�, UI �,-u .301
1
BOOK 35
,DETERMINE VALIDITY OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL — SEA OAKS HOTEL t�'t
The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
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 ofd Oa�S
in the �jCourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of .CC, e�4,914
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 thiso Jam. day of A.D. 19
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Mv`dr ou PTofida)
(SEAL) ;,
NOTIEEWPu6Clc REARINQT-"�
TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF
AN APPROVED SITE PLAN APPLICATION
The Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners will conduct a public hearing, re -
Ing the validity of site planapproval for the
Sea Oaks Hotel, owner Gordon Nut- The public
hearing, at which parties In Interest and citizens
shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be
held by said Board of County Commissioners in
the County Commission Chambers. of the County
Administration Building, located at. 1840 25th)
Streat, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday.
January 2,1985 at. 10:30 am. tl
If any person deckles to appeal any deci-
sion made on the above matter., he may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding
is made, which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is Weed.;;
Indian RiverCoun i
Board of County CommHsionere
By- -a-Don C r ,Chairman
Dec: 13,21.,19W-,& � f .
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he has received
a letter from Mr. Nutt's attorney requesting postponement of the
public hearing, as follows:
MEA
I
LAW OFFICES
MCKINNON & STEWART
CHARTERED
POST OFFICE BOX 3345
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32964-3345
CHARLES R. MCKINNON
WILLIAM J. STEWART
ROBERT C. NALL
33SS OCEAN DRIVE
TELEPHONE (313SI 231-3500
December 26, 198+
HAND DELIVERY
Gary M. Brandenburg
County Attorney
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Sea Oaks Hotel site plan/Gordon Nutt
Dear Gary:
l : E
This firm represents Gordon Nutt, the holder of a site plan
approval for the Sea Oaks. Hotel.
Pursuant to our telephone conference of December 21st, I
understand that the Board of County Commissioners has scheduled
a public hearing to review whether Mr. Nutt has diligently pursued
construction of the project. The public hearing is scheduled for
January 2, 1985.
As I advised you, neither Mr. Nutt nor I will be available
on January 2, 1985 and you agreed to re -schedule that hearing for
January 23, 1985.
I have agreed on behalf of Mr. Nutt that the telephonic
notice given of the January 23rd meeting is adequate notice of
the public hearing and any other notice is hereby waived. I
would appreciate it if you would send me a copy of the original
notice which was sent to Mr. Nutt on December 10th.
I appreciate your cooperation and consideration in this regard.
Sincerely yours,
William J. Stewart
Since Mr. Nutt has agreed to waive notice, Attorney
Brandenburg recommended that the Board postpone the public
hearing as requested.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, to continue the public
63
1ATINERN •!
•
BOOK t9 F UE9.353
JAN 2 195 aoo�59 PAGE35
hearing in regard to the validity of the Sea Oaks
Hotel site plan to January 23, 1985, as requested
by the owner.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if this delay will give them the
ability to run out and do more work on the site, and the Attorney
believed it would.
Planning Director Keating confirmed that they do have an
active building permit and have been maintaining it.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that staff take photos of
the site now and also before the next meeting to see what has
been done in the interim.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
,/REQUEST TO EXEMPT SUBDIVISION FROM REQUIREMENTS OF SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE - DAN POWELL e
Planner Stan Boling reviewed the following memo and staff
recommendation of denial of Mr. Powell's request for exemption:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: December 19, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REQUEST TO EXEMPT DAN
POWELL'S EXISTING AND
de SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
Robert M. RealtinV AICP FROM THE REQUIREMENTS
Planning & Development Director OF THE SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
FROM. E. Stan Boling REFERENCES: D. Powell
f A`/J 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 January 2, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In March of 1983, Mr. Dan Powell had his property at the 16th
Street S.W./4th Avenue intersection surveyed as eight lots by
Carter Associates, Inc. No survey or separate deeds were
recorded, and no plat was submitted for County approval.
64
Three lots ave been sold -off by metes and bounds descriptions
based on the survey. Two of these lots were sold -off after the
adoption of the new subdivision ordinance (83-24) on July 20,
1983. These two lots and the remaining parent parcel consti-
tute a subdivision (3 or more subdivided parcels) according to
ordinance 83-24.
In November of this year, staff discovered that this three lot
subdivision had been illegally crated, and that the owner had a
survey describing an eight lot subdivision. On November 14,
1984 staff sent a letter to Mr. Powell explaining that he had
created an illegal subdivision. The letter stated that Mr.
Powell would either have to re -combine lots to fall below the
three lot subdivision "threshold" or plat the subdivided
property.
Mr. Powell has requested that he be allowed to develop eight
lots on his property by "grandfathering -in" his survey and
exempting his property from the requirements of the subdivision
ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The survey done in March of 1983 did not create or in any way
legally establish any of the eight lots described. The lots
could only have been created by platting or by conveyance with
deeds bearing metes and bounds descriptions. In a meeting with
staff, Mr. Powell has stated that he was assured that by
selling -off lots one at a time from the ends of the parent
parcel, he could "get around" the old subdivision ordinance.
The practice circumvented the old ordinance (75-3) by repre-
senting each lot conveyance as merely a "lot split" from the
parent parcel.
However, this practice is specifically prohibited in section
6(a)(2) of the new ordinance.....
"The dividing of land into two (2) parcels without
filing a plat under the provisions of this ordinance,
where the land divided was the result of a previous
division of land into two (2) parcels which occurred
after the date of adoption of this ordinance, is
prohibited"
Mr. Powell continued this practice after the new subdivision
ordinance was adopted, and has created an illegal three lot
subdivision. Granting his request would allow him to create a
seven lot subdivision under the new ordinance without having to
comply with the subdivision ordinance. Granting his request
would also set a dangerous precedent that could allow develop-
ment based solely on unrecorded plats and surveys claimed to
have been completed prior to the adoption of the new subdivi-
sion ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny
Mr. Dan Powell's request to grandfather -in an eight lot subdi-
vision on his property located at 16th Street S.W. and 4th
Avenue.
65
JAN 2 199
� I
J SUBJECT
' PROPERTY
1'13
I �'
•- a 1 TR
73
68 >• .+
•� sr
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
\ \ 15th LN 8W W
�\ •a , �
F
, :c
18th 8T 8W
I
I \ \260' jO• RECORDED
\\'i76cop o i AUG. 7. 1984
\ �oe'4.3�
\ \ .• p; yam, N 10th r L
00
\ aoo'a
IRECORIDED
\ oy n
SEPT. I289* 1983 \ \\off
' RECORDED
JUNE 27. 1983
M
,� ....__
teth ST ew
17th
8\ sw_.-
66
I"
1
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Board has the ability to
grant Mr. Powell's request, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that
it would be necessary to grant a variance from the entire
ordinance, which he felt would be a very questionable thing to
do. He noted that there is no provision in the current ordinance
re surveys existing prior to the date of the ordinance as
constituting valid platted subdivisions, and the reason for that
was that people would come up with ancient surveys and use them
as a basis for circumventing current rules and regulations.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the applicant did have
conversations with the Planning staff and our Legal staff, as set
out in the following letter from his agent, Dana Howard of Carter
Associates.
67
JAN 1985 BOOK 59 F4,C357
JAN 2 1985 BOOK 59 pd � .1, 9,
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC,.
CONSUL'T'ING LNUINI EUS AN.1) LAND SURVEYORS
MARVIN E. CARTER, R.L.S.
DANA HOWARD, R.L.S.
DEAN F. LUETHIE, P.E.
December 11, 1984
Michael Wright, County Administrator
1840 25th Street
County Administration Bldg.
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
l7ff8 - 21st STREET,
VERO BEACH, FL. 32960
305 - 562-4191
Re: Property of Dan Powell
Dear Mr.. Wr=ghr:
c
DEC 1984
RECEIVED
Adrainisl'atoes Orn"
As agent for Mr. Dan Powell we respectfully request that he be placed' on the
next available County Commission Agenda. This request is with regards to
the status of a metes and bounds division of 'property established by Mr.
Powell in March 1983, located on 4thAvenue S.W. and Algiers Rd, Section
25, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian River Co.
Prior to affecting the metes and bounds subdivision, as previously stated,
Mr. Powell sought our assistance.to accomplish a division of the land in
question, by the least costly method. We inturn contacted the County's
Planning Department and Legal Staff to ascertain the County's policy
regarding the dividing of land fronting on public rights of way. Several
conversations with the County's legal staff affirmed that the position
of the county, under the existing ordinance of that time, was lots with proper
frontage consistant with zoning, on an existing public right of way, could
be created and sold by metes and bounds description without going through
the subdivision platting process. This policy was due to vague and riot
easily enforcable language of the existing ordinance.
With this information, Mr. Powell had his property, which has frontage on
two public rights of way, divided in 8 lots through metes and bounds '
description and began to sell the parcels in March, 1983. Subsequently the
County adopted new Subdivision regulations in July, 1983 which are much more
specific about the requirements of the platting process. 11r. Powell still
has 5 lots to sell and wishes to have the County Commission confirm that the
properties which he had divided by metes and bounds prior to the adoption
of the present subdivision regulation is considered "Grandfathered In" with
the adoption of the new ordinance. Mr. Powell wishes to be able to sell
the remaining lots without,the confusion and disruption to the buyers
that will occur in observing the platting requirements which would be
imposed under the present regulations.
Thank you on behalf of Mr. Powell for your attention to this matter.
Should you have any question please contact my office. Please let me
know of the time and date when this matter will be on the County Commission
Agenda.
Sincerely,
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Dana Howard
68
� � r
In view of the information in the above letter, Commissioner
Wodtke did not feel it is correct to say Mr. Powell tried to "get
around" the ordinance. He believed he tried to do it in the way
he thought was proper, and did not feel it should be indicated
that he attempted to circumvent the ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we need to make that clear as
staff's memo quotes Mr. Powell as stating that he was assured by
proceeding as he has that he could "get around" the old subdivi-
sion ordinance. Possibly that statement should be deleted.
Planner Boling clarified that at the meeting with Attorney
Brandenburg, himself and Mr. Powell, he was assured that was a
way under the old ordinance that he could get around having to
subdivide, and that is what he was getting around - having to
come in and plat. You could do this under the old ordinance, but
what he did was continue that practice after the new ordinance
was adopted.
Attorney Brandenburg agreed that Mr. Powell has been acting
in good faith and confirmed that Mr. Powell was told by his
office that it was a way he could do this legally because there
was a loophole in the ordinance. That was the kind of advice
everyone was given back then. The difficulty is that Mr. Powell
didn't create the lots prior to the adoption of the new
ordinance, and he didn't sell the lots off early enough. If he
had sold the lots prior to the adoption of the new ordinance, he
would have been okay.
Administrator Wright stressed that there was no intent by
staff to cast a shadow on Mr. Powell's reputation.
Dana Howard, as agent for Mr. Powell, explained that Mr.
Powell had acted under the provisions of the old subdivision
ordinance; he met the Health Department's requirement for septic
tanks and wells, etc., and what he has done is created a division
of property along platted right-of-ways.
Commissioner Bird asked if we could grandfather in the three
M.
JAN 2 1985 BOOK 5
F -
JAN 2 1.985
nox 59
lots that have been sold, but require the remainder of the subdi-
vision to be built according to the present Code.
Attorney Brandenburg recommended, if the Board wished to
proceed in that direction, that they require Mr. Powell to do a
boundary plat of all the lots and put it on record and then grant
a variance to other requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Powell then will have a plat on record showing these lots as
legally constituted and he will have met the requirements of the
current Subdivision Ordinance so that when someone buys one of
these lots, they will be able to get a building permit. He noted
that it will be an additional expense to plat the lots.
Mr. Howard did not believe Mr. Powell would be upset with
subdividing and platting the property, but the tremendous
hardship would be paving the roads and paving a right-of-way all
the way out to Old Dixie as had been suggested.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt the County Attorney's
recommendation and provide a vehicle for this property,
which has been caught between the new and the old, to
conform and allow the owner good use of his property,
i.e. require the applicant to plat the boundaries of
the lots and where necessary give him variances for
certain requirements of the subdivision ordinance,
such as paving, etc.
Mr. Howard asked if it is necessary to go through the
Planning Department for all this or just go to the Commission,
and Attorney Brandenburg explained that in order to grant a
variance, there will have to be a public hearing, but he felt
the Board has indicated their position.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
70
,/DISCUSSION RE ATTACK ON SEEING EYE DOG ERIC GASKELL
Eric Gaskell, who is legally blind, came before the Board to
present his complaint that the leash laws are inadequate in
respect to the recent attack on his seeing -eye guide dog, which
occurred in front of the Patio Restaurant. He stated that the
Animal Control Officer did require the owner to sign a letter
indicating that his dog was a "dangerous animal," but Officer
Campbell advised him that someone has to be attacked three times
before more specific action can be taken, which Mr. Gaskell felt
is outrageous, especially in his case where a $15,000 seeing -eye
dog is involved. He noted that fortunately he has enough sight
to enable him to identify the attacking animal, but what about
'those who are totally blind? Mr. Gaskell felt that not only are
the present laws inadequate, but they are not being properly
enforced. He further felt that all the agencies he has been
going through - the City Police, Animal Control, and the County
Attorney's office - have been giving him the runaround.
Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull informed the Board
that Animal Officer Campbell personally undertook an investiga-
tion, located the owner of the dog, and cited him per the
ordinance, which requires a three step procedure. Attorney Paull
explained that the first step is to cite the owner; upon a second
incident, the owner would be advised and required to take certain
additional precautions; and on a third incident, the dog would be
forfeited to the county. Attorney Paull continued that he has
advised Mr. Gaskell of other violations of the ordinance which
could be prosecuted through the State Attorney's office, such as
failure to have the animal under restraint, but as of this
morning it does not appear that Mr. Gaskell has made an appoint-
ment with the State's Attorney to pursue this.
Commissioner Bird asked what restraint the dog is under at
this time, and Attorney Paull stated that the owner has received
the first warning that upon a subsequent offense, the dog would
be declared a vicious animal and would be subject to additional
71
JAN 2 1985 BOOK 59 F'GE _��
JAN 2 198 59 P'.�E362
restraint requirements, such as muzzling, etc. The restraint
requirement applicable today is a leash requirement.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have had other complaints
on this particular animal; Attorney Paull was not aware of any.
Mr. Gaskell stated that he just came from the State
Attorney's office and he did file an affidavit, but it still
seemed to him that he is getting the runaround. He then told the
Board of a further incident involving a vicious dog when he was
going to church on Christmas Day and another time near the 2001
Building on December 7th where there were Dobermans running
loose. Mr. Gaskell expressed his fear of possible retaliation by
the owner of the dog and stressed that he did not feel the
present laws are adequate.
Attorney Paull agreed that the Ordinance does warrant
strengthening in regard to enforcement, and noted that we took a
step in that direction by working towards enabling our Animal
Control Officer to issue a citation himself without having to
call the Police. That action is not available today, however.
Commissioner Wodtke did feel that a seeing -eye dog warrants
some special regulations, but it appears that there is nothing we
have right now that will assure Mr. Gaskell this dog will be
penned up.
Animal Control Officer Dan Campbell explained to the Board
that the animal in question was not running loose; it was in a
vehicle parked near the Patio Restaurant and jumped out of the
station wagon. Officer Campbell stated that he has never had any
other complaints about this dog and he did not find any record of
the 2001 incident referred to by Mr. Gaskell. He felt the owner
and dog are in this vicinity only occasionally.
Chairman Lyons assured Mr. Gaskell that we would try to help
him as much as possible.
Mrs. Gaskell, Eric's mother, came before the Board. She
felt strongly that people should be made to pay a fine upon a
first attack and made to realize that they must be responsible
72
for their animals. She did not see why her son, who is so
disabled, should have to go through all these complicated
procedures just to accomplish this.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the owner currently is
subject to a fine for violating the leash law, but this must go
through the State Attorney's office, and he has a long list of
misdemeanors to deal with. The only way to impose the fine is
through court. There is a process whereby the County Attorney's
office could initiate the procedure upon the approval of the
State's Attorney, but we would have to specifically request that
authority.
Attorney Paull reported that he has been in contact with the
State's Attorney about initiating a case. He agreed that if
people are made more aware of the leash law and possible fines,
it would be helpful in enforcing the law.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock, that Attorney Paull be authorized to meet
with the State's Attorney in order to try to accomplish the steps
discussed.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to be sure we have some vehicle
for deciding what cases we should move ahead on as he did not
want to pursue innumerable incidents of a minor nature.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if a dog attack occurs in the City
of Vero Beach whether it is the Animal Control officer's respon-
sibility to investigate and get witnesses.
Attorney Paull stated that the ordinance contains standards
which it was felt would be best applicable on a countywide basis;
this would include any municipality which did not have an
ordinance inconsistent with ours. The City repealed their Animal
Control law and now the County does enforce this ordinance in the
City of Vero Beach.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that just because the
county has an ordinance countywide, our staff does not
73
JA
2 19.95 BOOK 5 9F:s. -�`10 611
JAN; 2 1985
BOOK 59 FnF,364
necessarily have to enforce it; the City can have their own
officers enforce it in their limits.
Discussion continued regarding enforcement within City
limits, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that the City has, in
effect, adopted our ordinance as applicable in their limits, and
they should enforce it unless they have an agreement with the
County that the county people will come in and enforce it.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he also agreed with the
Motion, but he did not want to relieve the State's Attorney of
his obligation. He preferred to state just that we would be
willing to assist them in some way. Attorney Brandenburg
concurred that we do not want to relieve the State's Attorney of
these obligations entirely.
Chairman Lyons noted that the State's Attorney's office is
so bogged down that they don't want to bother with this, and he
felt it is very important that we are in a position to enforce
this ordinance and have some teeth in it.
Administrator Wright suggested that the Board ask the
Chairman and the County Attorney to meet with the State's
Attorney and report back to the Board as to what could be
accomplished in this regard. It was generally agreed that all
the Board wishes is the ability to enforce our own ordinance.
Chairman Lyons stated that he would be glad to contact the
State's Attorney and see what can be done.
Commissioners Bird and Scurlock agreed to reword their
Motion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman and the County Attorney to meet with the
State's Attorney to see what can be worked out in
regard to enforcement of the Animal Control Ordinance.
74
,SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
11:45 o'clock A.M. in order that they might reconvene as the
District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River
County Fire District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 11:55
o'clock A.M. with the same members present.
V AGREEMENT WITH JONEAL MIDDLETON, SUPERVISOR, BLUE CYPRESS LAKE
Administrator Wright informed the Board that the proposed
contract is merely an extension of the old contract.
Commissioner Bird noted that once we have a sewer system in
place out there, he would like to explore expanding our camping
abilities, which would require some type of fee structure;
therefore, he would like to include a further provision under the
contract to enable Mr. Middleton to collect any such camping
fees, keep records, etc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved a new contract with Joneal Middleton
as Supervisor of Blue Cypress Lake Park, including
the above provision recommended by Commissioner Bird.
75
L -
JA
N 2 1985 aooF. IJ
Boor, 59 HCUE 366
A G R E E M E N T
WHEREAS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY is the owner and operator
of Blue Cypress Park located on Blue Cypress Lake; and
WHEREAS, in order to enforce County regulations at the
park, it is necessary to have someone representing the County at
the park at all times;
NOW, THEREFORE, in the consideration of the following
mutual covenants and agreements INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
hereinafter called "County" and JONEAL MIDDLETON, hereinafter
called "Supervisor" do agree as follows:
1. County appoints Joneal Middleton as Supervisor of
the Blue Cypress Lake County Park with full authority to enforce
rules and regulations as established by this Board for the park.
2. Supervisor shall have the following duties:
a. Keep park premises clean and free of all debris
and trash.
b. Mow grass in park.
c. Maintain restroom facilities in a clean and
working condition.
d. Maintain the following County equipment:
i. Number 004782, Mower, Fly mo
SN 128810
ii. Number 007181, Honda Mower
SN HR215DL
iii. Number 004704, John Deere Weed Eater
SN 85G13362
iv. Number 002900, Myers Jet Pump, 1977
SN 16673476
e. Insure 24 hour supervision of the park.
f. In the event that the County opens camping
facilities when new wastewater facilities become available, the
Supervisor shall then assume the following additional duties:
i. Check all campers in and out of the park and
collect the appropriate fees.
ii. Maintain records on all camping fees
collected and pay such fees to the Board of County Commissioners
on a monthly basis.
3. The County will be responsible for the following:
a. Periodic grading of roads in the camp area.
b. Furnishing required equipment as County shall
determine.
c. Provide maintenance service for the furnished
equipment.
d. Provide all institutional and janitorial sup-
plies for County owned property.
e. Provide list of County owned equipment.
4. The County authorizes Supervisor to maintain the
following on park premises:
a. Bait and tackle shop
b. Utility buildings
c. Boat rentals
5. Both parties agree Supervisor is an independent con-
tractor and not a County employee. As such, Supervisor agrees
to pay all taxes lawfully levied against Supervisor's business or
County owned land upon which business is conducted; all sales tax,
other levies, assessments or taxes; agrees to maintain liability
insurance with County as an additional insured; agrees to hold
County harmless from damages arising out of any act of the Super-
visor, his family or employees.
6. Supervisor's books and records shall be opened to
County inspection and audit at any time.
7. This Agreement shall continue for a period of five
(5) years.
8. Either party may revoke this Agreement at any time
by giving the other party sixty (60) days notice in writing.
9. County recognizes that Supervisor is providing a
governmental service that County normally would provide and this
Agreement will result in savings of tax dollars to the citizens of
Indian River County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto
set their hands and seals this2nd day of January , 1985.
Signed seal and delivered INDIANN COUNTY, FLORIDA
in the presence of:
w
Aj�onea1 Middleton,
Supervisor
VATRICK B. LYONSrou hai an
of the Board of nt
Commissioners
Attest: c� k_(< L._ • /�
Freda Wright, C' rk
---- ---- - - -
DISCUSSION RE HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOLUTIONg6-072�-w
Attorney Brandenburg noted that on November 28, 1984, the
Board adopted Resolution 84-101 in regard to a moratorium on
building on the Barrier Island over 1 dwelling unit per acre,
which is still in effect, so that currently the Planning
Department and the Planning & Zoning Commission are not supposed
to be reviewing or making a recommendation on anything over 1
unit per acre.
Planning Director Keating noted that staff brought this
matter up at the meeting after the Governor and Cabinet, in
77
JAN 2 1995
L
r
JAN 2 1995 BOOK 56 F."cc `968
essence, exempted Indian River County from this provision and
asked if the Board wished to repeal this Resolution. He
continued that at this time staff has had no new applications
come in in that area, but they still have the same feeling that
without any kind of structure in effect that would curtail
development in some way, some kind of moratorium should be kept
in place. He informed the Board that the Last Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting, Tom Collins, a developer, had a subdivision
application that had been submitted previously and staff had
reviewed it, but put him on hold when Resolution 84-101 was
adopted. Mr. Collins was on the agenda and demanded to be heard.
Staff informed him that the Planning & Zoning Commission could
not legally take action and approve the plan, but they did. Mr.
Keating reported that he has appealed their action because it is
in conflict with the existing Resolution.
Commissioner Bird stated that he did not particularly want
to be bound by the one unit per acre limitation, but, he did not
particularly want to have the gates wide open either.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested a limited moratorium at 3
units per acre until our Transportation Study is in.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that to accomplish that, the
Board would have to adopt a Resolution modifying the previous
one, and at the same time authorize staff to send out notices of
a full fledged moratorium at three units per acre until such time
as the study is done.
Commissioner Scurlock reported that he has talked with the
Town of Orchid, and they have verbally agreed they would reduce
density consistent with the County. He believed they would
cooperate.
Commissioner Bird asked if we did modify our previous Reso-
lution whether the Attorney felt Mr. DeGrove and the Governor
might take this as a breach of good faith.
Attorney Brandenburg believed that is difficult to predict;
although We never made any formal promises. He noted that one
"rZ3
alternative would be to rescind the Resolution and not have a
moratorium, and then just review cases relative to trips
available and require the developers to lower their density
accordingly. That would exempt us from the one unit per acre
requirement.
Commissioner Scurlock did not believe the Committee can
start the action again for a year, but he felt a moratorium would
be more consistent than having to consider each case that arose.
-acre.
Further discussion ensued re a moratorium at three units per
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, to adopt Resolution 85-3
amending Resolution 84-101, as discussed, by proceed-
ing to institute a moratorium at 3 dwelling units
per acre and instructing staff not to review any
projects above that level until we receive our traffic
consultant's analysis and recommendation.
Nancy Offutt wished to know if hotel and motel development
would be considered residential as in the original Hutchinson
Island Study, and Attorney Brandenburg confirmed they still would
be considered a residential traffic generator under our
Resolution and proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it would be at more than a
residential level, however, i.e., at around 10 trips a day.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously instructed
staff to advertise and send out notices as required
to institute a moratorium as described above.
C 79
JAN 2 1985 BOOK 59
la�
BOOK 5 9 F,4cE 3 ! O
RESOLUTION NO. 85-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84-101,
PROVIDING FOR THE SUSPENSION OF
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL REVIEWS UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS THE COUNTY CONSIDERS AN
INTERIM MORATORIUM TO ENABLE THE
FULL EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
SUCH DEVELOPMENT ON THE FRAGILE
ENVIRONMENT OF ORCHID ISLAND.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Resolution
No. 84-101 on November 28,
1984, providing
for the
suspension
of certain development approval
reviews when the
project
in question exceeded one unit per gross buildable acre, and
WHEREAS, subsequent to that date, at the urging of Indian
River County, the Governor and Cabinet declined to proceed with the
designation of Indian River County as an area of critical State
concern, and
WHEREAS, the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida
made this decision based upon Indian River County Resolutions Nos.
84-104 and 84-105,
containing assurances that
certain
implementation deficiencies set out in the
Hutchinson
Island
Resource Planning and
Management Report would
be corrected, and
WHEREAS, as
part of said assurances,
Indian River
County
agreed to complete a
transportation study of
the barrier
island
traffic system and concurrently implement a coordinated land -use
and transportation plan with the necessary funding to assure that
development on the barrier island will not cause the roadway system
to exceed safe and efficient operation standards, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners cannot
forecast the outcome of the transportation study and now desires to
assure that development in the interim will not jeopardize the
transportation system and health and welfare of those individuals
using the system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
that:
1. The foregoing recitals and the recitals contained in
Indian River County Resolution No. 84-101, not specifically
modified in this Resolution, are adopted in their entirety.
-1-
2. The County hereby amends Resolution No. 84-101 by
substituting a suspension of the review of development approvals as
set forth in the attached draft interim moratorium ordinance for
that formally appended to Resolution No. 84-101 until the attached
draft interim moratorium ordinance is finally rejected by the
County Commission at a public hearing or, if adopted, the
moratorium imposed duly expires by virtue of the terms of the
adopted ordinance.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon
adoption by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock and, being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 2nd day of January 1985.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIA"IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B y -0"
at ick B. Lyons,
_IrChairman
Attest: 4-
Freda Wrigi-lit, Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY4-"n
Lo
la. Branaenourg,
ty Attorney _
-2-
JAN 2 1985 Boon uu` 71
JAN 2 1985 BOOK 9 � ��
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER =41ENDING ADOPTION
OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian River County Planning and
zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency, shall hold a
public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an
opportunity to be heard on February 14, 1985, in the County Commission
Chambers located in the County Administration Building, 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may
be heard, to make a recommendation concerning a land use restriction to
unincorporated areas of the County on the barrier island through the
adoption of an ordinance as follows:
�,u �• •• • V • r •
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY CSSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON
THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
EXCESS OF THREE UNITS PER ACRE ON ALL PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF THE BARRIER ISLAND IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR: AUTHORITY;
ADOPTION OF TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF HUTCEINSON ISLAND
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN; DEFINITIONS; MORATORIUM;
DURATION OF MORATORIUM; DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIC�TS FOR
APPLICATIONS AFFECTING ROADS CURRENMY BEYOND CAPACITY;
INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY; AMID EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Orchid Island in the unincorporated area of Indian River
County harbors a highly dynamic and ecologically sensitive coastal
ecosystem, which is of substantial economic and ecological importance
to the Treasure Coast region and the State of Florida, and
WHEREAS, the Atlantic beaches and dunes on Orchid Island in the
unincorporated area of Indian River County represent one of the few
remaining naturally functioning beach -front systems in the southeast
Florida region, and
WHEREAS, Orchid Island in the unincorporated area of Indian River
County harbors some of the most biologically productive and expansive
wetlands in the southeast Florida region, and
WHEREAS, Orchid Island in the unincorporated area of Indian River
County is presently served by limited public water and sewage
facilities, and
W11ERRFAS, Orchid Island in the unincorporated area of Indian River
County is served by three bridges, two in the City of Vero Beach and
one at Wabasso, and one major arterial, AIA, and
_ M
WHEREAS, the existing plus approved development on Orchid Island
will place these existing transportation facilities at, and in some
instances above capacity, creating serious health and safety problems
including traffic congestion and evacuation concerns in case of
hurricane, and
WHEREAS, the existing plus approved development on Orchid Island
has also begun creating other land use problems, possible degradation of
the waters of the Indian River, the beach -front systems, and the
wetlands of Orchid Island, and
WHEREAS, there is a substantial amount of additional developable
land remaining on Orchid Island in the unincorporated area of Indian
River County, which if developed under the County's existing
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance will exacerbate these recognized
health, safety and welfare problems, and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 1982, Governor Bob Graham, as Chief Planning
Officer of the State of Florida and in recognition of the environmental
and economic treasures of the Hutchinson Island area and the health and
safety problems that exist there, appointed the Hutchinson Island
Resource Planning and Management Committee ("the Committee") pursuant to
Section 380.045, Florida Statutes, a portion of which includes the
unincorporated area of Indian River County on Orchid Island, and
WHEREAS, the objectives of the Committee were to organize a
voluntary, cooperative resource planning and management program to
resolve the land use, environmental, transportation, hurricane
evacuation, and public facility problems in the area, and prevent future
problems which may endanger the area's resources, and
WHEREAS, the Committee developed the Hutchinson Island Resource
Management Plan ("Management Plan") to accomplish these objectives, and
formally adopted the Management Plan on October 6, 1983, and
WHEREAS, the Committee readjourned on November 15, 1984, to
evaluate each local government's compliance with the Management Plan and
found partial compliance with the Management Plan in Indian River
County, noting certain deficiencies particularly with respect to the
transportation facilities, and
JAN 21985 BOOK � `���
�.bcF
JAN 2 1985 BOOK 59 F'GE3174
WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that procedures be initiated
to designate the Hutchinson Island area, including that portion of
Indian River County on Orchid Island, as an area of critical State
concern pursuant to Section 380.05, Florida Statutes, unless the local
governments within the area, including Indian River County, come into
full compliance with the Management Plan, and
Wf MM, the Committee indicates that to ccoply fully with the
Management Plan, Indian River County must conduct a transportation and
public improvements study and make the necessary Comprehensive Plan
amei ments and zoning changes to implement the conclusions and
recommdations of the study, so as to resolve the present health,
safety and welfare problems on Orchid Island in the unincorporated area
of Indian River County, and that these efforts must be approved by the
Florida Department of Cmw-mity Affairs, and
WHEREAS, the Committee indicates that until the study is completed
and the Ccmprehensive Plan its and zoning changes adopted, Indian
River County should not approve additional residential development at a
density in excess of three residential dwelling units per buildable
acre, and
WHEREAS, under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida,
Indian River County has the authority to undertake planning studies to
address recognized land use, transportation, hurricane evacuation, and
public safety problems, and amend its Comprehensive Plan and change its
zoning and land use regulations to resolve such problems, Section
163.3161 et. seq., Florida Statutes, and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 1984, the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners, in recognition of these state and local concerns
about the present land use, transportation, and hurricane evacuation
problems on Orchid Island initiated a study to assess these problems and
recammend for adoption Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning changes
to insure their resolution as well as implementation of the
recommendations of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County ("County Commission") to insure that no undesirable
construction is established which would frustrate the goals of this
s - �
ongoing study and pending Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning
changes, it is the desire of the County Commission to impose this
interim moratorium on the development of residential property on Orchid
Island in the unincorporated area of Indian River County, and to give
notice that any development applications it has received shall be
subject to these pending Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning
changes, and
.,9.. �.ia�: �a• : • e • :• 4.� :,• •jiti•Ii1�1M`�K•T�iu� -� iii �9Q-
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SEMON 1.
AUTHORITY
The Board of Commissioners has authority to adopt this ordinance
through its general non -charter county powers pursuant to Article VIII
of the Florida. Constitution and Chapters 125, 163, 252.38, and 380 of
the Florida Statutes, and all other applicable laws of the State of
Florida.
SECTION 2.
For the purpose of this interim moratorium Ordinance, the
Transportation section of the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan
("Management Plan") is hereby adopted as if fully set forth herein (see
Appendix 1), including but not limited to the analysis of the principal
transportation system, the assumptions upon which the study is based,
and the trip generation rates set forth in the Management Plan.
SECTION 3.
DEFINITIONS
(a) Barrier Island shall mean that portion of unincorporated.
Indian River County lying east of the eastern mean high -rater line of
the Indian River.
(b) Development Approval shall mean any action of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, Board of County Commissioners, Board of Adjustment,
administration, committees, boards, or employees of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, approving, authorizing, or recom-
mending in favor of any Comprehensive Plan amendment, site plan approval
JAN 2 1985 eooK' F,8 r
rJAN 2 1985 BOOK 59,
or preliminary plat approval.
(c) Residential Unit shall include all types of development that
provide lodging on a temporary or permanent basis including, but not
limited to, single-family residential units, multi -family residential
units, hotels, motels, recreational vehicle parks and similar uses.
SECTION 4.
Development approvals for projects on the barrier island shall not
be granted or reviewed for any project where the project's density
exceeds three -residential units per acre. In calculating the maxim=
density allowed pursuant to the Section, the County will apply the
three -units per acre criteria to the gross buildable acreage of the
project site, as defined in the Management Plan.
sEC oN 5.
I 1i1; Vy�oisfiamj��
This moratorium shall remain in full force and effect until Indian
River County completes its ongoing planning study of the land use,
transportation and hurricane evacuation problems on the barrier island,
adopts relevant Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning regulations to
properly address these problems, and receives approval fran the Florida
Department of Cm=nity Affairs that the study and Canprehensive Plan
amendments and zoning changes implement the reccanendations of the
Management Plan.
SECTION 6.
ROAD CURRENTLY BEYOND CAPACITY
Not withstanding the foregoing, approval shall not be granted for
development application during this interim moratorium, if at the time
of its review, any link in the transportation network of the barrier
island that is significantly impacted by traffic from the proposed
project is beyond Level of Service C (average annual) or Level of
Service D (peak season) considering only existing traffic.
I
SECTION 7.
INCORPORATION IN CODE
This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code 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 accamplish such purposes.
SECTION 8.
SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held invalid, it is the legislative intent
that the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of
this Section which can be given in effect without the invalid provision
or application, and to this end, the provisions of this Section are
declared severable.
SECTION 9.
E FECI'IVE DATE
The provisions of this Ordinance shall became effective upon
receipt fran the Secretary of the State of Florida of official
acknowledgment that this Ordinance has been filed with the Department of
State.
If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above
matter, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such
purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Planning & Zoning Canni.ssion
By: -s- Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
To be advertised January 24, and February 5, 1985, as a regular size
legal ad.
Please send proof of publication to:
T. K. Kimbrough
Planning Technician
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
NORATORIUM NOTICE
PNOT
JAN2 1995 BOOK 9 G.e " 9,77
JAS 2 1985
-I
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS
BOOK 59 F I f,
, 178
The Board reviewed a list of Committee appointments and
reappointments and made the following recommendations:
Board of Zoning Adjustment - Recommended that Maureen Poole
be appointed to District #1 to replace Rita Thomas.
Planning & Zoning Commission - Recommended the vacancy for
District #3 be filled by Ben Bailey, III.
Finance Advisory Committee - Commissioner Scurlock requested
that this committee be expanded to include Merrill Barber.
Vero Beach Recreation Committee - It was agreed that
Commissioner Bird would replace Commissioner Bowman.
Drainage Technical Advisory Committee - Commissioner
Scurlock recommended it be abolished as nothing is on-going.
Parks and Recreation Committee - Commissioner Bird reported
that Rebecca Hampton is the replacement for Rene Van de Voorde.
Transportation Planning Committee - In discussion, it was
noted we do not know if the cities will want the same appointees,
and it was felt that the Chairman should write to the munici-
palities indicating that these appointments need attention.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board approved the
following list of Committee appointments and
reappointments with the recommendations described
above.
80
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS
A. Economic Opportunities Council_
Present incumbents: (1 year terms)
Helen Wright (District 5)
Carol P. Hayslip (District 3)
VACANCY (District 4)
No appointment (District 1)
No appointment (District 2)
B. Board of Zoning Adjustment
Present incumbents: (2 year terms)
VACANCY (District 1)
Maureen Poole will replace Rita Thomas
Fred Plair (District 3)
C. Planning & Zoning Commission
Present incumbents: (4 year terms)
Richard Parent (District 5)
Ruth Stanbridge (District 1)
VACANCY (Distribt 3) - . .
to be filled by Ben Bailey, III
D. Building Code Board of Adjustments
and Appeals (4 year terms)
Present incumbents:
John Ca.lmes
Paul Jacobi
Russell Trimm
E. Board of Trustees of Law Library
Present incumbent: (2 year term)
Patrick B. Lyons
F. Mobile Home Advisory Board
Present incumbents: (2 year terms)
Richard Baker - At large member
Henry Donatelli - Park Owner
Edward S. Davis, Jr. - At large member
G. Liaison between County and Emergency
Management
Present incumbent: (1 year term)
William C. Wodtke, Jr.
H. Local Energy Management
Present incumbent: (1 year term)
Stephen Wells
81
BOOK
59 F'� uE 379
BOOK 159 UGE 380
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS - CONTINUED
I. Regional Energy Action:
Present incumbent: (1 year term)
Stephen Wells
J. Board of Directors, IRC Library
Association
Present incumbent: (1 year term)
Patrick B. Lyons
K. North County Fire District Board
Present incumbents:
Margaret C. Bowman, Chairman
William C. Wodtke, Jr., Vice Chairman
i L. Finance Advisory Committee
Present incumbents: (2 year terms)
Joseph Minotty
Harold Putnam
Bill Lewis
Merrill Barber - Added
M. Local Health Council
(J. B. Norton is resigning)
(2 year terms)
N. Vero Beach Recreation Committee
Present incumbent: (1 year term)
Margaret C. Bowman - REPLACE with
Richard N. Bird
0. IRC Council on Aging
Present incumbent: (1 year term)
Margaret C. Bowman
P. South County Fire District
Advisory Committee
Present incumbents: (1 year term)
Chairman of Commission
Vice Chairman of Commission
Daniel Richey, Member at Large
Q. Vero Beach Bicycle Path Committee
Present incumbent: (1 year term)
Richard N. Bird
ainage Technical Advisor Co
een ent: (1 erm)
ABOLISH
curok, Jr
S. Public Safety Committee
Present incumbents: (2 year terms)
Arthur C. Scheeren (Board appointment)
Gary C. Wheeler (Sheriff appointment)
Joe H. Earman (Joint appointment)
82
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS - CONTINUED
T. Parks and Recreation Committee
Present incumbents: (1 year terms)
Richard N. Bird
Terry Goff
George Schum
Al MacAdam
Valarie Brant
Jean Carter
Pat Callahan
Susan Wilson
Rebecca Hampton
- REPLACING Rene Van de Voorde
U. Transportation Planning Committee
Present incumbents: (1 year terms)
Vice Chairman of Commission
William Cochrane (Vero Beach)
Kenneth Roth (Sebastian)
A. J. Todd (Indian River Shores)
Judson P. Barker, Jr. (School Board)
Howard Ward (Fellsmere)
Pearl Jackson (Gifford)
Jeannette Lier (Orchid)
V. Extension Overall Committee
Present incumbents: (2 year terms)
CHAIRMAN TO WRITE
MUNICIPALITIES RE
THEIR APPOINTEES.
Kathryn Dean (District 3)
Helen Summerall (District 1)
VACANCY (District 2) (term will expire
January, 1986 due to resignation of
Sally Jones) - Appointee needed.
6WATER MAIN SR 60 - CHANGE ORDER #3, CONTRACT #3, BOYCE CO.
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:'
83
BOOK 59
r
L •;
800K 59 PA, Ic 182
TO: The
Honorable
Members of DATE:
December 19, 1984FILE:
The
Board of
County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. Pinto SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 PROJECT
Utility Service Dirc r U84-1 CONTRACT NO. 3 WITH
BOYCE COMPANY
FROM: Joseh A. Baird REFERENCES:
Assistant Utility Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Change Order is to extend a 16" diameter water main. on.State Road
60, 450 feet.west of 90th Avenue (otherwise known as boring location
at station 535 and 55) at an increased cost of $10,282.50.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSES:
1. Terminate the 16" waterline at 90th Avenue and disallow the
450 feet extension westerly.
2. Extend the 161! waterline 450 feet west of 90th Avenue at an
additional cost of $10,282.50.
,RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend the approval of Change Order No. 3 Project U84-1
Contract No. 3 with Boyce Company to extend the waterline 450 feet
west of 90th Avenue.
Discussion ensued as to whether this was included in the
original assessment, and Utilities Pinto confirmed that it was.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order #3, Project U84-1,
Contract #3, Boyce Company, in the amount of
$10,282.50.
84
I
UNITED ', i A•I I.S lit PAW! VI '• F Ur •%Gh;C I.- I +
rt^ im1iA +:4.7 i Al; ER:) IIt_) I,
! t)`. l'lt :t'T f_ Il X ()ItDha;
CONTRACT FOR
Indian River County Wats r 11rct.iert 11811-I
CANER
Indian River Colint:v
M
' OWO AMf't:OVEC) OMD No 0575.60:2
3
(L nctober 211, 1984
{ ST:.' E
t 1'l ori da
Indian Rive
Boyce Company
You ate herby requested to c•o^ipll. vk1th the I•Illoau:l', from tliv contract phut, .sits ;.lo-ci(irations:
Descriphun of Oanves DECHLASE I%CREAS F:
iSunniemental Plans and Attachedl in Contra( I Pill. in Ciintract Price
3
Description: extend 16" 0 water 1150'
west from Station 535 + 55± to Station
540 + 05- or Route 60.
Item Quantity Descri1)t.iuii Unit Price
3 450 LF 16" 0 W.M. $ 21.75
$9,787....5.0.. .......... -_
10 1 8" N G.V. 495.00 iJTALS
S
1195_.UO...............
NhT ('IIANGI-: Iti t'uti fh'A(' 1 PRICE.
e
1.0 82. i:0
it is necessary to extents t.fie wator 1 int: feet WC -0t t.,) pvcivittc: s'(u• a Itot.ihle.
�:atr•: de:n:3nd west of the rsi,,t.iny, pt-,ljcct, tcvntincit.ion pit itit .
Th.` irtount of the Contra::r w.il Fiei+� � ! lit' i-wo t'. t H% i lit- M;::..01 'rerl Thousand Two flunt:red
F;ivhty Two and 901100's ...1 :,• :. it), ri: -,( ___ .
To!al Including this and pr:.ila;, Cha:iev (}! ;• r. 16 ill Be .Seven Huntlr_t:o(i_I•'ttir Thc;;i4<.n(i _N ine
fluniired Ninety FA ht rind 10,/100';
Th:- `-antfai Period P.ro%ided I.lr C'ut• 111.11 ,n 'Aill
t :JCL':at•nt ! t•E:q.^'.r .r .;I'1'�Ir• Yrtll t., 0.1.t ,.u';.rrt ,U.. ,11, Irrnt l -,1••n utll .iI ; 1� •!,
it,
13% i:;n11:1 - - ------ -_ _ �.
I T•�!t 1.,.: .,•,en w:.. De u:eC as record ..t any Pi: t.rr •lef rr.r .�.e i " .. . , ...: y.1 n! .. :I .t,.;•c. tnli
G):1StructI011 C91tt:,{.tntand a, ) 1 ' •t , rt- t:'. r, re,t•.—.... t)y
. U S G:N7 1961.0 -NA -W911570 r, B 1 r^r •'s ' I ..I 1. i 4-,-; I 11C%,
�ary
85
JAN 2 1995
L_
Boor 5 9 c `,83
Fr
JAN 2 1985 1 Boy. 59, f,ALF 8
.J ROUTE 60 WATERLINE PROJECT - ENGINEERING CONTRACT, CHANGE ORDER
ul t_1
The Board reviewed the following staff memo:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 19, 1984 FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
THUR: Terrance G. PintoSUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER 1 IN THE AMOUNT OF
Utility Service D',,e r $7,150 FOR ENGINEERING CONTRACT
ON THE ROUTE 60 WATERLINE
PROJECT
FROM: Jose A. Baird REFERENCES:
Assistant Utility Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In order to facilitate the Route 60 waterline and stabilize water
pressure throughout the South County Water System, there will be
the need for additional altitude valves and chambers to be added to
the following water tanks.
1. The 5.00,000 gallon -elevated water storage
tank at the water plant.
2. The 150,000 gallon elevated water tank near Velde
Ford.
These modifications will require additional engineering design and
resident inspection work to be performed by Sippel, Masteller,
Lorenz $ Hoover, Inc., the Consulting Engineers on the Route 60
Water Project.
The additional work will mean an increase in engineering fees of
$7,500 on the Route 60 waterline project
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES:
There are no alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order
No. 1 from Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz F Hoover, Inc., the Consulting
Engineers on the Route 60 Water Project.
Commissioner Scurlock had a question re the financing on the
water tank itself and whether we will need interim financing.
Utilities Director Pinto noted that the interim financing
doesn't have anything to do with just the water tank; it relates
to the whole project and would be necessary with or without this
increase.
� � r
Commissioner Scurlock noted that there would be an addi-
tional $7,100 that we will have to borrow somewhere, and if there
is added financing, there will be added cost.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the added cost will not
change by virtue of this change order because we have the 2.7
million issue to pay off, and that is it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order #1, Project U84-1, Sippel,
Masteller, Lorenz & Hoover (Engineering) in the
amount of $7,150.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FORM APPROVED OMB No. 05754"2
torrn FmHA 424-7 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATIONORDER NO.
�.
(Rev. 6-11-80) .�
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER DATE
November 15, 19811
.
STATE
Florida
CONTRACT FOR COUNTY
Indian River County Water Project U84-1 Indian River
OWNER
Indian River County
To ..-.Si��elt Mastellerr Lorenz & Hoover; Inc. _ --
_.. .... .._. _.._..-•---..-.__.._____---.__ ..---------------
(Contractor)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications:
Description of Changes DECREASE INCREASE
(Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price
SECTION B — COMPENSATION FOR ENGINEERING SERVIC S
Additional Engineering Design: Two (2) Proposed Altitude Valves/Chambers at:
A. Existing 500,000 gallon elevated water storage tank at water treatment plant
B. Existing 150,000 gallon elevated water storage tank near Velde Ford
(U.S. Highway #1)
Perfoxm the necessary site field work to locate all above ground physical
features required for our design; research and locate as much underground ac-
tive piping, conduits, etc., as possible within the design area; size and select
the altitude valve to be used based on your flow and pressure requirements;
design, engineer and prepare contract plans for the alteration of the tank pip-
ing so the new altitude valve controls all tank inflow and outflow, necessary
new piping, valves, fittings, altitude valve and chamber; -prepare and submit
necessary permit to Florida D.E.R.
Lump Sum Fee Increase for Section B +$ 5950.00
87
JAN 2 1985 BOOK 59���
a1 A N 2 1985 BOOK 59 Fn)E 18
SECTION C — COMPE@ISATION FOR RESIDENT INSPECTION
Additional Resident Inspection: The altitude valves/chambers construction
will require additional resident inspection.
Lump Sum Fee Increase for Section C
TOTALS 1 $ ...0..00
IC
J USTIFiCATION:
$ 1200.00
$ 7150.00
The new 750,000 gallon elevated water storage tank design elevation is set to
provide safe and dependable water pressure and flow for the Route 60/90th Avenue
vicinity. In order to fill the new tank to its design overflow elevation, it
is necessary to provide altitude valves to the County's other two (2) existing
elevated tanks. If the existing two (2) tanks are not equipped with altitude
valves, the existing tanks will overflow prior to the new 750,000 gallon tank
being completely filled.
The amount of the Contract will be fte(AM (Increased) By The Sum Of. - ^PVPn thntaand one
hundred and fifty & 00/100's Dollars ($ 7,.15n_nn
The Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be: Fifty two thousand, eight
hundred sixty and 001100's . Dollars ($ 52, 860.00 �.
The Contract "Provided for Completion Will Be (Increased) (Decreased) (Unchanged): n/a Days
This docuy&ntpiY become a supplemVt to the contract and all provisions will apply hereto.
(Owner)
t/ (
Owner
's
Architteect/Engineer)
Accepted
(Contractor)
Approved By FmHA
(Name and Title)
This Information will be used as record of any
changes to the original construction contract.
Date)
Z Q
(Dat )
If A= /RV
(D rete)
(Date)
Number copies required: 4 No further monies or other benefits may be paid out under this
Time to complete: 30 min. program unless this report Is completed and filed as required by
existing law and regulations Q C.F.R. Part 1924). -
*U.8.OPO:1191114 84 11570 Position 6
ApprOv
and leg
[!q
FmHA 424-7 (Rev. 6-11-80)
M
M -
ROUTE 60 WATERLINE PROJECT - ENGINEERING CONTRACT, CHANGE ORDER
NO. 2
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE:
The Board of County Commissioners
i
December 20, 1984 FILE:
THRU: Terrance G.l iYYCo SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 IN THE AMOUNT
Utility Service Director OF 5,100 FOR ENGINEERING CONTRACT
ON THE ROUTE 60 WATERLINE PROJECT
FROM: Jose A. Baird REFERENCES:
Assistant Utility Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Future plans of the County for road improvements in the vicinity
of Kings Highway north of Route 60 have encouraged the Utility
Department to consider extending the 20" water main from the corner
of Route 60 and Kings Highway, 1500 feet north on Kings Highway.
If the work is permitted and constructed before the new road improve-
ments are done, it would save the Utility Department a considerable
amount of money.
The engineering design and resident inspection to extend the 20"
water main 1500 feet will increase their contract price an additional
$5,100.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSES:
1. Disallow the engineering design and resident inspection cost to
extend the waterline 1500 feet.
2. Allow the engineering design and resident inspection costs for
extending the waterline 1500 feet.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend Change Order No. 2.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order #2, Project U84-1, Sippel,
Masteller, Lorenz & Hoover (Engineering) in the
amount of $5,100.
MWO
JAN 2 1995
L_
BOOK F'CE�
JAN 2 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FORM APPROVED OMB No. 0575.0042
Form NmHA 424-7 FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION ORDER NO.��
(kev.6-11-80) OK 2ro F��GE.
-1 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER DATE
November 15, 1
CONTRACT FOR
Indian River County Water Project U84-1
OWNER
Indian River County
STATE
Florida
COUNTY
Indian River
To Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz & Hoover, Inc.
(Contractor)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications:
Description of Changes I DECREASE INCREASE
(Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price
SECTION - B - COMPENSATION FOR ENGITJEETNG SERVICES
Additional Engineering Design: Prepare Contract Plans for the extension of 20"
0 watermain from the northwest side of the intersection of King's Highway and Route
60 approximately 1500 lineal feet to the south side of Poinciana Avenue (23rd Street)
including the approximate locations of all underground utilities and storm
drainage. Prepare necessary permit application to Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation.
Lump Sum Fee Increase for Section B ................................#$ 3,000.00
SECTION - F - SPECIAL PROVISIONS (ITEM
Additional Land Surveying - Water Main Contracts: Conduct field surveying to ob-
tain information indicating the location of County and Drainage District rights -
of -ways in relation to existing paving, utilities and storm drainage facilities along
Kings Highway from Route 60 to fifty (50') feet beyond Poinciana Street (23rd Street).
Lump*Sum Fee Increase for Section F (Item 1)
SECTION - C - COMPENSATION FOR RESIDENT INSPECTION
+$ 900.00
Additional Resident Inspection: The additional construction of water main along
Kings Highway from Route 60 to Poinciana Street (23rd Street) will require addi-
tional resident inspection.
Lump Sum Fee Increase for Section C... .......... ..................j+$ 1,200.00
------------- _-_—.._---- -
TOTALS
JUSTIFICATION:
*ti In the future, the County, in coordination with the Florida Department of
Transportation, pians to make improvements in the vicinity of Kings Highway
north of Route 60. In order to not disturb those improvements once completed,
it is advisable to preceed the road improvements with the installation of water
main. It is also prudent to complete the water main construction under the present
construction contract that Indian River County has entered into with Boyce Com-
pany of St. Petersburg, Florida.
The amount of the Contract will be ( (Increased) By The Sum Of: Fifty One Hundred & 00/100's
Dollars (S — 5100.00 )
The Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be: Fifty seven thousand,
nine hundred and sixty & 001100's ' Dollars ($ 57,960.00 ).
The Contract
This docume
Requested _4
Recommended _
Accepted
for Completion Will Be (Increased) (Decreased) (Unchanged): n/a Days
a sup,9leme$t to the contract and all provisions will apply hereto.
(Owner)
(Owner's Architect/Engineer)
(contractor)
Approved By FmHA
-
Na"jpd Title)
/ (Date)
/A V
(Date)
(DT
(Date)
/ROUTE 60 WATERLINE PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, CONTRACT NO. 1 -
CALDWELL TANKS
The Board reviewed utility staff memo, as follows:
TO: The Honorable 2.1embers of DATE: December 19, 1984 FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. P nto
Utility Service Director
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 ON PROJECT
U84-1, .CONTRACT NO..1 WITH.CALDWEI
TANKS, INC.
FROM: Joseph A. Baird REFERENCES:
Assistant Utility Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Change Order No. 2 for Caldwell Tanks, Inc., includes the following
modifications to the original contract:
1. The foundation of the new 750,000 gallon elevated storage
tank on Route 60 was bid originally with 106 piles of 45'
lengths each. The results of the test piles indicated that
a lesser length could be used on many of the piles. The total
reduction in length from all 106 piles was 204 feet yielding
a reduction in the contract amount of $816.00 in the contract
price.
2. The elevated tank contract was originally bid with a rein-
forced concrete floor in the tank as an alternative. The floor
was bid separate from the base contract in order that it could
be easily removed from the project if sufficient funds were
not available for the total Project. A reinforced concrete
floor will reduce the problem of corrosion in the tank. Since
the tank contract did, infact, meet the project budget, it is
felt that the additional $7,200 for a reinforced concrete
floor in the tank is a prudent expenditure.
The net effect of both the reduction in the length of pilings that will
be necessary and the addition of a reinforced concrete floor in the
elevated tank, requires an increase of $6,384 on the contract price
of Caldwell Tanks, Inc., original contract.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSES:
1. Construct the elevated tank without a reinforced concrete floor
in the tank.
2. Construct the elevated tank with a reinforced concrete floor
that will reduce the problem of tank corrosion.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that Change Order No. 2 for Caldwell Tanks in the
amount of a $6,384 increase be approved.
91
JAM 2 1985 BOO'
KPaF.
I
JAN 2 1995
BOOK 59 Fv� j -390
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order No. 2, Contract No. 1,
Caldwell Tanks, Inc., in the amount of $6,384.
FORM APPROVED OMB No. 0576.0042
Form FmHA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
424-7 "v FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION ORDER NO.
(Rev, 6-11-88 0) 2 ( Contract #1)
OJR� CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER DATE
October 26, 1984
STATE
Florida
CONTRACT FOR COUNTY
Indian River County Water Project U84-1/Contract #1 1 Indian River
OWNER
Indian River county
To ._...Caldwell Tanks , Inc,
(Contractor)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications:
Description of Changes DECREASE INCREASE
(Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price
ONR% amount of the Contract will be (DWIre .(Increased) By The Sum Of: —Ri Y Thnnaand Three HrnnrirPti
Eighty Four and 00/100 Dollars ($ 6,384.00 ).
The Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be: Seven Hundred Thirty Four Thousand
-Fight Hiindrart Righty Pour and nn/inn Dollars ($ _ 7-J4,884.00 )_
The Contract Pe ' Provided for Completion Will Be ) (Unchanged): 350 Days
This docu nt I become a supplement t the contract and all provisions will apply hereto.
Requeste
(Owner) (Date)
Recommended aa��r C.
( wner's Architect/Engineer) (Data)
Accept �QR-, ������ 11/20/84
CbKuun r. C:alawell, Pre sIcient(Contrectat) (Dere)
Approved By FmHA
(Name and Title) (Date)
92
1.
Foundatiuon Pile Length Reduction $
$
2041 @ $4.00/LF-816.00
2.
Add 6" thick reinforced concrete floor
in interior of elevated tank '
7200.00
v+
TOTALS $ ...� -816.00)
_ . _-M7200 : 00_
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE $..._.._................_....___...__...................................
56384.00 _ .
FICATION:-
M
data reduced required lengths of production piles
resulting in a reduction
topile
°09;h
ost. Tank floor bid originally as an alternative to be
added if desired by
c
Ift
an River County.
Ca-
a
�o
m :o
ONR% amount of the Contract will be (DWIre .(Increased) By The Sum Of: —Ri Y Thnnaand Three HrnnrirPti
Eighty Four and 00/100 Dollars ($ 6,384.00 ).
The Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be: Seven Hundred Thirty Four Thousand
-Fight Hiindrart Righty Pour and nn/inn Dollars ($ _ 7-J4,884.00 )_
The Contract Pe ' Provided for Completion Will Be ) (Unchanged): 350 Days
This docu nt I become a supplement t the contract and all provisions will apply hereto.
Requeste
(Owner) (Date)
Recommended aa��r C.
( wner's Architect/Engineer) (Data)
Accept �QR-, ������ 11/20/84
CbKuun r. C:alawell, Pre sIcient(Contrectat) (Dere)
Approved By FmHA
(Name and Title) (Date)
92
l
U
,REJECTION OF SEWER FORCE MAIN BID
Administrator Wright reported that one bid was received for
the construction of the force main for the sewer on SR60 from a
company called Erskine Florida Properties, Inc., of Stuart. We
were in competition on bid opening that day with another large
project in Fort Pierce. The bid came in at $1,031,150. That is
under the engineering estimate and is very close to what we
estimated for the job. However, staff felt that with only one
bid and not knowing the company very well that we should rebid it
even though it will cost us about three weeks delay.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired if it has been verified that
others will bid this time, and Utilities Pinto commented that
they have said so, but this cannot be guaranteed as some said so
last time and did not bid. He suggested that we go ahead and
rebid just on the basis of receiving only one bid, and if we
should receive just one again, then award it, if it is in line.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to express concern about the
time frame and whether others will bid, and Administrator Wright
informed the Board that staff has taken the liberty of tenta-
tively readvertising on this.
Director Pinto stated that he did not feel there is any
problem with the project, and believed people will be interested
in bidding.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
rejected the one bid received on the sewer
force main and authorized staff to proceed with
rebidding same.
,-AWARD BID - PUMPING STATION & FORCE MAIN TO COUNTY JAIL
The Board received memo of the Public Works Director:
93
BOOK � PdnE 391
IAN 2 1995
BOOK
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: December 18, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THPCUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
SUBJECT:Award of Bid - Pumping Station and
Force Main to County Jail
FROM: James W. Davis, P. REFERENCES: Earl H. Masteller, P.E. , Sippel,
Public Works Director Masteller, Lorenz, and Hoover, Inc.
to Jim Davis dated Dec. 14, 1984
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids were received December 13, 1984, at 10:00 AM in the County
Commission Conference Room, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, for
the subject project. Prior to receipt of bids, the advertisement for bids
were published in the Local newspaper, and all legal purchasing requirements
as required were followed.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
As described in the above referenced letter, the three low bidders
were as follows:
1) Collee Mechanical, Inc. - Vero Beach, Fl. $73,715.00
2) Owl and Associates, Inc. - Vero Beach, F1. 75,595.00
3) Jobear, Inc. Melbourne, F1. 91,328.50
Three bids were received. The low bidder, Collee Mechanical, Inc.,
is presently constructing the force main system to Whispering Hills and
Ixora plants.
RECOYMMATIONS AND FUND]NG
It is reammended that the bid be awarded to Collee Mechanical, Inc.
of Vero Beach, Fl. for the Indian River County Jail Pump Station and Force
Main in the amount of $73,715.00. Funding to be from proceeds of 1¢ sales tax.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
awarded the bid for the County Jail Pump Station
and Force Main to low bidder, Collee Mechanical,
Inc., in the amount of $73,715., as recommended
by staff.
BOND - SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS (ADDED ITEM)
Chairman Lyons explained that the newly elected Supervisor
of Elections, Ann Robinson, is taking office a week earlier than
94
anticipated, and, therefore, an additional bond is needed to
cover the period from January 1, 1985, until January 8, 1989,
rather than from January 8th, 1985. He requested that this
emergency matter be added to the agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
added the above emergency item to today's agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the Bond of Ann Robinson, Supervisor of
Elections, and authorized the signature of all
members of the Board.
95
JAN 2 1995 BOOK 5
� I
r JAIL , 2 1995
.1
STATE OF FLORIDA,
County of -------- Indian River
BOND OF BooK 59, F'A' F9.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we .......... Ann.._._.--- Robin________son
________-.__
as principal, and -------------- State Farm Fire & Casualty Company ____ as surety, are
held and firmly bound unto _. Robert-_Graham_________________________Governor of the State of
Florida, and his successors in office, in the sum of ------- Zive Thousand Dollars,
lawful money, for the payment whereof well and truly to be made, we do bind ourselves, our
and each of our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally,
firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals, and dated this.- ��th_._-.day of__ December A. D. 19A4
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That, where, the above bounden
............. n --- Rob in ctn� - ----- ------------------ —--------- ---___.__ .._.__-------- -- ----- --
__.. was, on the 1 s t .-day of._ y , A. D. 1915
appointed _.___.__.___Supervisor of Elections
Indian River County, Florida
to hold his office from the date of January 1, 1985 commission, until
January 8, 1989
and until his successor is appointed and qualified, according to the Constitution and Laws of
the State of Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, If the said—_______Anp RobinsQn _
shall diligently and faithfully perform all the duties of said office as prescribed by law, this
obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue—
The
irtue
State Farm
The above bond is approved
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
re & Casualty Company
19 ---
Commissioners.
This bond is approved this ----- _------------- day of -------------- _------ -------------------------------------- 19 -------
Comptroller.
96
DOCUMENT TO BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES
o� Resolutio 84-69,,) amending the General Development Utilities
Water and Sewer-�anchise Agreement to increase the main
extension service availability charges and adopt the main
extension service availability policy, having been fully executed
and received, as approved at the meeting of September 26, 1984,
has been placed 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
./an�warranissued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury
Fund Nos. 14876 - 15057 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 12:35 o'clock P.M.
Attest:
Clerk
97
BOOK 59,