HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/27/1985� r �
Wednesday, March 27, 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,
March 27, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B.
Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; William C. Wodtke, Jr., and Margaret C. Bowman. Also
present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary
Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L.S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Jeffrey K.
Barton, OMB Director; and Barbara A. Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and Commissioner
Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Attorney Wright requested the addition to today's Agenda of
the matter of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for Marsh
Island.
Attorney Brandenburg requested the addition to today's
Agenda of an item re the -DNR application for dune restoration at
Round Island Park. He also requested the addition of a
discussion re an attempt by Seminole County to modify certain
judicial circuits, which would result in Indian River County
being moved to the 18th Judicial Circuit to join Brevard County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
MAR 2 7 1985 BOOK FAG 9
MAR 2 7 1995
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
_I
BOOK 6,0 F c f
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 6, 1985.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 3/6/85, as
written.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. Request Purchase of Additional Memory for the`Clerk's IBM
System/38
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/18/85:
T@41 ""V bn . a trick B . Lyons DATE: March 18 1985 �� SLE rks
coMMI �`� Community Cev.
?MMM - f the Board of County Commsss loners Utilities
Indian_.`=•Iver County
Finance
THROUGH: Freda Wright Other
Clerk of the Courts SUBJECT: The Purchase of Additional
Memory for the Clerk's IBM System/38
FROM: Don Hyl t /O:REFERENCES:
Data Processing Manager
1 respectfully request your approval to purchase an additional
Memory Module for our System/38 at a cost of $7,500.00.
This additional Memory will improve the response time on our
terminals greatly.
It is my feeling we will recover the initial cost very quickly
with the increased production that will result. We are wasting
many hours daily as our users and programmers are forced to
wait. Periods that range from 30 seconds to over one minute.
If you need additional information, please contact me and I will
provide it.
E
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of,an additional Memory Module for the
IBM System/38 at a cost of $7,500; such funds to be
transferred from the salary account.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Budget Amendment - Traffic Engineering
The Board reviewed
the following memo
dated
3/18/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: March 18,
1985
FILE:
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,
OMB Director
SUBJECT: Traffic Engineering
REFERENCES:
The following budget amendment is to correctly allocate the revenue (insurance proceeds)
and the expense ( vehicle repairs) due to the accident on 1/29/85.
Account Title
Ins. proceeds
Maint-Auto Equip
Account No.' Increase Decrease
111400-364-42.00 4,745
111-245-541-34.64 4,745
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by
OMB Director Barton.
3
MAR 2 7 1985 8065 �' F�cr �
;6
MA 2 7 1985 Boos t F Nu 297
B. Budget Amendment - Parks Development
The Board reviewed
the following memo
dated
3/18/85:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: March 18,
1985
FILE:
SUBJECT: Parks Development
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The following budget amendment is to establish•a budget for the Parks Development
Fund to cover expenses relating to Parks Development such as recording fees.
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Other Contrib/Donations 113400-366-90.00 27,000
Other Prof Services 113-210-572-33.19 27,000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by
OMB Director Barton.
C. Budget Amendment - Sheriff's Budget
The Board reviewed the following budget amendment.dated
3/15/85:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by
OMB Director Barton.
4
11
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Sheriff's Department
TO: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Budget Accounts
.10 Personal Services
.30 Operating Expenses
.60 Capital Outlay
64.41 -Auto Equipment
64.43 -Radio Equipment
64.44 --Other Equipment
01
BUDGET ACCOUNT AMENDMENT
3
FY: 84/85
DATE REQUESTED I
March 15, 1985 Form 82-7.4
I hereby request approval for the amendment of the Sheriff's Department budget as set forth below:
R. T. DOBECK, Sheriff
Original Budget or Last
Amended
FY 84/85
$ 2,695,479
650,106
184,988
40,800
5,120
s-
Amendments Requested
(625)
625
Budget Including Amendments
Requested
$ 2,695,479
649,481
184,988
40,800
5,745
Contingency 5,000 5,000
TOTAL BUDGET $ 3,581,493 $ -0- $ 3,581,493
Special Services Department projector broke and could not economically be repaired. No Capital Outlay availability/requesting $ 625 to be
transferred from 521-34.80(Promotional Activities) to 64.44 (Other Equipment) to cover this purchase.
Th�Is:;?knowleddge rec ipt b he Board of County Commissioners
S-
i at re"I.-
Approvedpelyorm
Title: Chairman,Board o Commission ' s and �eg� s ` ici cy
Indian River Count
ry . Brandenburn
This is to certify that this budget account amendment has been
Approved /'Bisap'p7nvM
Date: 0 --2 7— f—
Signature
Title: Director, Office of Management & Budget
R u% .... •. .. . . I. , 1'.. F1 -i
Ln
CQ
i.J
s
ul-
0
co
co
F" -
MAR 27 199
BOOK
D. Budget Amendment - Supervisor of Elections
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/20/85:
TO: Jeff Barton u DATE: March 20, 1985 FILE:
Director of Budget
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
FROM: Ann Robinson REFERENCES:
Supervisor of Elections
Please put a request for amendments to my budget on the
BCC's meeting of March 27, 1985 as follows:
Transfer
$7738
from
001-103-519-11.13
to 001-700-519-11.12
Transfer
700
from
001-103-519-34.02
to 001-700-519-34.02
Transfer
7000
from
001-103-519-34.72
to 001-700-519-34.72
Transfer 2000 .from 001-103-519-34.91 to 001-700-519-34.91
103 is the Flections budget; 700 is the Supervisor of Elections budget
11.13 and 11.12 are salary accounts
34.02 is the travel account
34.72 is the outside printing account
34.91 is the legal ads account
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by
OMB Director Barton.
E. IRC Annual Bid #235 - Hardware, Traffic Signs
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/12/85:
6
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 12, 1985 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #235 - Hardware - Traffic
County Administrator
Signs
FROM:
caroiyn God
Purchasinq D
REFERENCES:
ch, Manager
artment
I. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, March 12, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #235 -
Hardware - Traffic Signs for the Traffic Engineering Department.
7 Bids were sent out. Of the 4 Bids -received, 1 was a "No Bid".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
This is an annual bid. Effective dates to be April 1, 1985 - Sept. 30, 1986
to coincide with all other annual bids. The County reserves the right to order
any quantity of any item throughout the year.
Universal Signs and Accessories, Ft. Pierce, F1. is the low bidder on Items 1 - 3,
and the only bidder on Items 5 and.9. Dave Smith & Co., Ft. Lauderdale, F1. is
the low bidder on Items 4, 7 & 8 and the only bidder on Item 6.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that Items 1-3, 5 and 9 be -awarded to Universal Signs and
Accessories, Ft. Pierce, Fl. and Items 4, 6, 7 and 8 be awarded to Dave Smith & Co.,
Ft. Lauderdale, F1.
Funds budgeted in Account #111-245-541-35.36.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded
Annual Bid #235 for hardware for traffic signs as
recommended by Purchasing Manager Goodrich and set
out in the following bid tabulation.
7
MAR 2Y 1005 BOOK 0 PAGE3 O
MAR 2 7 1985�+ ee��
BOOK 0
I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2145 -14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
/
v
L
BID NO.
IRC BID X235
DATE OF OPENING
March 12, 1985
BID TIT
tARDWARE - TRAFFIC SIGNS
i
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT
1. Posts, Delineator, 6/ft Galv.
1.12/lbs/ft Each
5 15 -NB NB 3 75
2. Posts, Rib-bak, 12/ft Galv.
2.0 lbs ft Each
NB ? NB 10 95
3. Street Name Sign Brackets, Alum.
6 30
per set,
Plus
450 nito-sin bracket Each
NB12.00 C 3 10
no
112.00)C 2 95
° Post -to -sign bracket Each
3 35
NB 12.00 C 2 95
180° Post -to -sign bracket Each
3 30
NB 112.001 C 3 7
ifnr
4- Pnztq- Round Tube- "
rw,
Aluminum 12 ft .156" wall
thickness as per FDOT Specs.
Each
NB
NB 34 02 65 5
BOARD OF,COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
N 2145 -14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
•
BID TABULATION
01
Q
�a w
3� w V° w ry�
^ m�
'`
BID NO.
IRC BID #235
DATE OF OPENING
BID TITLE
ITEM
o.- DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT
5. Sign Brackets, Type I, for 31"
O.D. Round Posts Alum. as per
5 25
6. Aluminum rhannel, n "
x .125" LF
NB
NB 18 52 NB
7. PostRound Tube. 4.5" OD
Aluminum � 12 ft Each
NB
NB 49 68 91 00
8. Post, Round Tube, 4.5" OD
Aluminum. 16 Ft- 'Each
NB
NB 1 56 27 119 35
" OD Round Post Each
NB
NB NB 6• 00
10 Normal delivery e in days
after receipt of Purchase Order
r
Days
30-60
45-60 20-40
F. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
First quarterly report of County Health Dept.
FY 84-85 Contract between HRS & County
G. Final Assessment Roll - 11th Avenue, 2nd St. to 4th St. and
39th Avenue, 10th St. to 12th St.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/18/85:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS DATE: March 18, 1985 FILE:
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
SUBJECT: Final Assessment Roll
Michael Wright, 11th Avenue -2nd St to
County Administrator 4th Street
39th Avenue -10th St to
12th Street
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. PREFERENCES:
Public Works Directo
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The paving of 11th and 39th Avenues is complete. The final
cost and preliminary estimate for the work was:
Final Cost/FF Prelim. Cost/FF Final Cost Prelim. Estimate
11th Ave. $7.158 $7.17 $22,342.74 $22,864.00
39th Ave $7.204 $7.2333 $23,503.45 $24,070.00
The final Assessment Rolls have been prepared and are ready
to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are
to be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the
first to be made twelve months from the due date and the
second to be twenty four months from the due date. The due
date is 90 days after the final determination of the special
assessment roll. The interest rate shall be 1% over the
Prime Rate at the time of adoption of the Final Assessment
Roll.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to be benefited owners is less
than that computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the
only alternative presented is to approve the Final Assessment
Roll.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is
paving
County
Office
recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls
of 11th and 39th Avenues be approved by the
Commissioners and that they be transmitted
of the Clerk to the Board for collection.
for
Board
to
the
of
the
9
MAR 2 7 1985
BOOK
, 0
P"'E 392
MAR 27 1985 BOOK 60 �''� ' 03.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Final Assessment Roll for 11th Avenue, 2nd St. to
4th St. and 39th Avenue, 10th St. to 12th St., and
transmittal to the Office of the Clerk to the Board
for collection at 11h per annum, as recommended by
OMB Director Barton.
(FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK)
H. Conveyance of Property to Dorothy Cannon
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/20/85:
TO: Board of County CommissiE)AM: March 20, 1985 FILE:
FROM:
�es . Wilson,
t. County Attorney
SUBJECT:
Consent Agenda Item
Re: Dorothy Cannon
Lot 20, Block 9 of
Smith Plaza Subd.
REFERENCES:
The above -referenced matter involves property formerly owned
by Johnnie and Carrie Bell Cannon. The Cannons acquired the
property in 1957 but lost it at tax deed foreclosure and sale
in 1964. The Indian River Septic Service, Inc. purchased the
tax deed in 1964. This company was involuntarily dissolved in
1969, and the County reacquired the property through tax lien
foreclosure in 1982.
Despite the tax deed foreclosure, the Cannon family has lived
on the property continuously since 1957. Johnnie Cannon died
several years ago and Carrie Bell Cannon is currently disabled
due to a stroke. Her daughter, Dorothy Cannon, presently
lives on the property and cares for her children and Mrs.
Cannon.
The house is currently in a severe state of disrepair and does
not comply with several building and safety codes. The
Gifford Jaycees have offered to repair the Cannon residence
using volunteer labor and Federal funds obtained through a
grant from the Farmers' Home Administration. The Indian River
County Housing Authority was in the process of securing the
grant when a title search revealed that the County actually
owned the property. The Federal grant is not available unless
the applicant owns the property to be improved. The Cannons'
application is currently on hold until this situation is
resolved.
10
_I
Florida Statutes §197.302 provides a procedure whereby lands
acquired by counties through tax lien foreclosures and which
remain unsold may be conveyed to the former record fee title
holder. Under this Section, the former owners would be
required to repay all delinquent taxes and costs together with
interest. Mr. Tommy Thomas has researched this matter and
found that the taxes and costs presently due are $37.61 plus
Statutory 6% interest from May 1968, for a total amount due of
$75.78.
Chuck Sullivan, an attorney acting on behalf of the Cannons,
has offered to pay the total amount of taxes, costs and
interest due in exchange for the County executing a deed
returning the property to the Cannons. Mr. Sullivan has
advised me that they are in a position to pay all costs
involved as soon as the Commission acts upon this matter.
If the Board decides to approve this item, Mrs. Cannon will be
able to obtain the funds to bring her dwelling into compliance
with applicable codes. If approved, I suggest, that because
of Carrie Bell Cannon's present condition, that any deed
executed name Dorothy Cannon as grantee, in trust for. Carrie
Bell Cannon.
If you have any questions on this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the execution of a deed conveying Lot 20, Block 9 of
Smith Plaza Subdivision to Dorothy Cannon, in trust for
Carrie Bell Cannon, as recommended by the Assistant
County Attorney.
DEED HAS BEEN RECORDED AND IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
PLANNING DEPARTMENT PAY GRADES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/20/85:
TO: The Honorable#Members of DATE: March 20, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Planning Department
Pay Grades
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
ti
The Indian River County Planning Department is continuing
to experience problems in the recruitment of qualified entry
level and experienced personnel. Several months of local,
statewide and trade journal solicitations have resulted in ,
futile efforts to fill three vacancies. Our vacancy, an
entry level Planner I, has been open for more than six months.
11
MAR 21 198
BOOK 60 PA,F.30
r MAR1
2'7 1985 BOOK 60 P UF. 305
_ Positions have been offered to more than a half dozen
applicants and in each instance, the County has been refused
because of low starting salaries.
Attached for your information is a detailed analysis
by Planning and Development Director Robert Keating and some
suggested remedies. While I do not disagree with Mr. Keat-
ing's approach to upgrading the staff salary problem, I be-
lieve it can.be done in increments. My specific recommenda-
tions are:
* The position of "Section Chief" be recognized as
a County job classification with a pay grade of 21.
* The position of "Plannery II" be elevated from pay
grade 19 to pay grade 20.
* The position of "Planner I" be elevated from pay
grade 16 to pay grade 18. If this pay grade is changed,
it will be necessary to increase the pay of two Planner
I's by five per cent. The cost for the remainder of
this fiscal year would be approximately $1850, including
fringe benefits. A chart is attached on the adjacent
page that depicts the changes and the necessary funding
to implement the plan.
Administrator Wright recommended the approval of the above
pay grades as proposed by Planning & Development Director Robert
Keating.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that a master's degree should not
be a requirement in all cases and perhaps that was the reason for
receiving so few applicants.
Director Keating agreed, but felt that a masters degree for
each professional planning position provides an individual with
the necessary background and theoretical basis to do the job and
provides the Planning Director with more flexibility in utilizing
staff.
Commissioner Bird also felt that it was a little far-fetched
to require a masters degree for a Planner I position and agreed
that was the reason for the difficulty in recruiting applicants.
Commissioner Wodtke felt we should find some planners that
have PDs "Practical Degrees."
Administrator Wright stated that even if we drop the
requirement for a Masters Degree, we still would have trouble
bringing people in at the present salaries; he recommended that
the Masters Degree be preferred rather than mandatory.
12
Commissioner Scurlock wanted some assurance that no pay
increases would be proposed for other divisions such as Road &
Bridge or Fleet Management before budget time, and Administrator
Wright stated that he did not anticipate any as Planning and
Engineering are the only two divisions that are experiencing
difficulty in hiring people.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board reduce the
requirement of a Masters Degree for Planners to a
preferred status and approve the above pay grade
increases, as recommended by Administrator Wright;
with the understanding that the Board will not be
looking at any other departments before budget time
except Engineering.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke stated he would vote
against the Motion because he felt the time to make salary
adjustments was at budget time except in an extreme, single case.
Commissioner Bowman believed this is an extreme case, and
Administrator Wright stressed that we need people and cannot hire
any at these salary levels.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that salary was not the only thing
that attracts people to a job.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that the County
Administrator and Director Keating contact universities in the
state to participate in an intern program.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
passed by a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Wodtke
and Bird dissenting.
MAR 2 7 1985
13
BOOK C'0 P"�GE 3 6
J
Existing Positions
Pay Grade Range
Current Pay
Proposed
Pay Grade Range
Code Enforcement Chief
19-$18,337-25,875
$22,045*
21-$20,213-28,516
Long Range Planning
19-$18,337-25,875
$24,232
21-$20,213-28,516
Current Development
19-$18,337-25,875
$21,970
21-$20,213-28,516
Environmental Chief
19-$18,337-25,875
$22,070
21-$20,213-28,516
Planner II
19-$18,337-$25,575
$19,760*
20-$19,250-27,164
Additional
Funds Needed
To Implement
Recommendation
N
Planner I 16-$15,816-22,318
$16,892
18-$17,472-24,648
$944
Planner I 16-15,816-22,318
$16,985
:18-$17,472-24,648
$885
Planner I 16-$15,816-22,318
A*
18-$17,472-24,648
0
* Vacancy
** Total funds needed for
remainder of fiscal year
1
[]I
LJ
� O �
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY - MARSH ISLAND
Administrator Wright explained that several months ago the
Board had instructed him not to issue any more Certificates of
Occupancy for Marsh Island until they had constructed a boat
ramp. He reported that they have completed their clubhouse and
would like to have a C.O. in order to open it. To assure that
the boat ramp will be built, they have agreed to put $20,000 in
escrow with the County while proceeding with construction of the
boat ramp.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the Marsh Island clubhouse, contingent upon the receipt
of a $20,000 cash bond to be held during construction
of the boat ramp.
APPROVAL OF DNR APPLICATION - ROUND ISLAND PARK - CROSS-OVER AND
DUNE RESTORATION
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the application to the DNR for funding of the dune
cross-over and dune restoration at Round Island Park.
APPLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TEMPORARY FEE SCHEDULE AT COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/20/85:
15
MAR 2 7 1995 BOOK. Fr,�F308 I
� I
RIAR 2 7 1995
BOOK 60 m -0F. Q,�09
TO: Board of Count DATE: FILE:
Y March 20, 1985
Commissioners
SUBJECT:
Temporary Fee Schedule
n1 n IRC Fairgrounds
FROM: Richard N. Bird REFERENCES:
Chairman
Fairgrounds Advisory Committee
Because of the numerous requests that the County is receiving for
use of the fairgrounds, the Fairgrounds Advisory Committee
recommends the temporary fee schedule and other requirements per
attached copy.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how we were going to monitor the
10% fee of the gross revenues, and Attorney Brandenburg explained
that this is a temporary fee schedule which handles the smaller
activities at the Fairgrounds with the idea in mind that the
larger activities would be individually negotiated by the County.
During that negotiation process, the County could require some
kind of account if it was felt necessary.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that particular paragraph
would need more work, but agreed that something is needed on the
books now to allow us to get started.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that 10% might be a discouraging
factor in attracting such events as the St. Helen's Festival,
especially until we get a good start. He wondered if the County
could set some type of fee -that would cover the cost of
maintenance and then get a deposit.
Chairman Lyons understood that the last paragraph gives us
the flexibility to operate now.
16
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the temporary fee schedule and other requirements
as proposed by the Fairgrounds Advisory Committee;
with the understanding that the Board will readdress
the situation when further local data is received.
DAILY RATE SCHEDULE FOR USE OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
No. of
Liability
People Attending
Daily Fee Trash Deposit*
Insurance =
1 - '50
$ 25 $ 75
$ 300,000
50 - 100
$ 50 $150
$ 500,000
100 - 200
$100 $300
$ 500,000
200 - 400
$200 $500
$ 500,000
* Any direct costs
such as porta-lets, bleachers, etc.
will be
negotiated with applicant, deposit will be refunded
in part or -f-
full if not used.
All applications must be filed at
least two =
weeks before event
unless waived.
Proper insurance as
required abovd-must be submitted
at least one
week before scheduled event.
R
" A copy of County Park and Fairground ordinances and regulations
will be attached to
the completed application.
All events which charge any admission or any type of fee or sell
any products will pay to the County, ten percent (100) of the
gross charges unless negotiated by the proper County authority on
a different basis.
Signed:
Organization:
Date:
Permit Approved:
Date:
MAR 27 1985
For Indian River County Fairgrounds
17
MAR 27 1985 Doo �.
(TEMPORARY)
Application and Rate Schedule for Use
of Indian River County Fairgrounds
Name of Organization:
Individual Responsible:
Mailing Address:
(Phone: )
Requested Date(s):
Hours Each Day:
Estimated Daily Attendance:
What Equipment will be used at Fairgrounds:
What Food and Beverage:
Will you charge admissions and/or for any food, beverages or
other products:
Who will provide your insurance:
See reverse side for daily fees, clean-up deposits, percentage of
gross revenues, and other charges and requirements.
18
GROVE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR 80 -ACRE SITE OF FUTURE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/20/85:
TO: Michael Wright
DATE: March 20, 1985 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: GroveMaintenance
80
FROM. �. s . p ommy" Thomas REFERENCES:
Intergovernmental Relations Director
At your request, I met -'with Riverfront Groves, Inc. and
rida-Atlantic Grove Service, Inc. and asked them to
us a detailed estimate of cost to maintain the 80 acres
chased for the new sewer plant. This was to include
Flo-
give
pur-
the
entire 80 acres for the balance of this year and a projected
use of the other 40 acres .as a grove for another 4 or 5 years..
I also asked them to recommend which 40 acres would be best
to keep for the 4 or 5 years.
Attached are the two proposals made by the above companies,
and based on a cost analysis, it appears that Riverfront
Groves, Inc. would maintain the 80 acres for approximately
$300.00 per acre for the balance of this citrus year. Flo-
rida -Atlantic Grove Service, Inc. turned in a proposal of
$525.00 per acre; therefore, I would recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners accept the proposal of Riverfront
Groves, Inc. Both companies have indicated to me that it
is imperative to commence the necessary spring fertilizing
and irrigating immediately to protect the production for
this year. .
Riverfront Groves, Inc. recommends that the East h of the
property should be removed from production first. Mr. Dean
Leuthje, Engineer for the project, has indicated that they
would prefer to start with this h also.
Please note that in Riverfront Groves, Inc. proposal, para-
graph 4 refers to the' fact that irrigation costs have been
omitted; however, they have added in their final figure for
the year a contingency of $2,159.40. I am also advised that
the diesel pump equipment can be maintained by our Fleet
Management Department.
Administrator Wright reported that a third proposal was
received this week from Indian River Citrus Management, Inc. All
three proposals are a little different, but the lowest
maintenance costs were submitted by Riverfront Groves, Inc.
19
MAR 2 7 1985
BOOK 60 HI -6-C.3,12
MAR 27 195
BOOK CO FAGF 31
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to accept the proposal
submitted by Riverfront Groves, Inc. for the
maintenance of groves on the 80 -acre site of the future
wastewater treatment plant.
General Services Director Tommy Thomas advised that he went
out and solicited bids from reputable local firms, and all firms
recommended that something be done right away as the groves have
been maintained on a marginal basis.
Administrator Wright stated that the contract will not be an
annual contract, but a task contract, and if we get into a
situation where we are not happy with it, we can go to something
else.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Riverfront Groves
proposal states that they will maintain the groves, but will not
guarantee the County -owned fruit. He understood that the groves
will require a substantial amount of work to bring them up to a
satisfactory producing status.
Commissioner Wodtke questioned the advisability of having
the same firm that maintains the groves market the fruit for the
County.
Attorney Brandenburg understood that the firm does not have
the right to market any of the fruit unless the County requests
it.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that if the County success-
fully negotiates the use of the Heron Cay sewer plant on an
interim basis, the entire 80 acres can be utilized for fruit
production for at least another year, maybe two, which will make
it necessary to apply the post -bloom spray to the entire 80
acres.
Commissioner Bird understood then that the Riverfront
Groves' proposal was for maintenance of the entire 80 acres until
such time as the County takes 40 acres or more out of production
P411
and tells them to stop. He agreed with Commissioner Wodtke that
further clarification is needed on these proposals.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to table this item until next
Wednesday's meeting in order to obtain further
clarification on these proposals.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
failed by a vote of 2-3, Commissioners Bowman,
Scurlock and Lyons dissenting.
Discussion continued on the cost of spraying 40 acres
instead of the entire 80 acres for the period extending to
December, which Administrator Wright felt would be the case.
The importance of a post -bloom spray was discussed at length.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto explained that if the
Department of Environmental Regulations requires the percolation
for the entire plant to be built at once, then it will be
necessary to pull 40 or more acres out of fruit production;
however, staff is hoping that will not be the case. In any
event, the post -bloom spraying time will be passed before we
receive the final determination from the DER.
COMMISSIONERS SCURLOCK AND BOWMAN modified their
previous Motion to read: that the County go with a
unit price basis which will give staff the flexibility
to either delete acreage or increase/decrease the
spraying application.
Commissioner Bird recommended that the firm also handle the
irrigation of the groves.
Chairman Lyons asked Commissioner Wodtke if he felt it was
necessary to have a contract beforehand to sell the fruit, and
21
MAR 27 1985goaK. Fk1Alul
MAR 27 1985
BOOK
C 0
PAGE. 315
Commissioner Wodtke did not;
he felt the key issue is
having
the
right to pick the fruit at the right time in order to sell when -
the price is right.
The importance of a post bloom spray was again discussed and
the Commissioners decided it needed to be done. It was noted
that this year's crop has been picked already.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
passed unanimously.
a
r
Main Office
Riverfront Groves, Inc. 305-5624155
Packing House
D. VICTOR KNIGHT, President 305-562-4124
1 `
Gentlemen:
fi
-•We at Riverfront Citrus Management appreciate the opportunity
and confidence you have extended to us with regards to the care
.taking of your recently acGrove.-..wr 4�
quired 80 acre White Grapefruit
off Glendale, west of Vero.4:.
After evaluating the property carefully, we conclude that the'
east 1/2 of the property is of
P y generally higher elevation and
.poorer overall health -and should .be "removed from production first. ,��r
This decision is strictly from an agricultural vie s � -
� Y g viewpoint.
Production on the East block will be about 100-1 3/5 Bushel boxes +N�
per year than the production expected on the West Block.'
This final decision, however is yours; but our program is based.
rf on this principle..
The program is for this first year, only (through Dec. 85), and
should continue to be valid if all the property would remain intact
for an additional year.
•if ti - - � is
We have not overlooked irrigation costs, but have omitted them';
since it is totally impossible to figure because of the variety
{ " of weather we have.' "
`? We encourage .. g you to visit our facilities to see the handling
Of your fruit from the Grove all the way through the
Y g process.
Please find enclosed an itemized caretaking program and feel.
..free to call and ask an questions Y 4 you have. Again we thank
you for an opportunity to serve and always are eager and able
-to fill your needs in this field.
J.
Resp t , K
J.•David Connell
22
r r �
Projected Expenses
FERTILIZING
Two applications using best quality
fertilizer and if soil test confirms.
Material $ 3,625.00
Equip. & Labor 300.00
$ 3,925.00 per application (80 acres)
Total Fertilizing $ 7,850.00
SPRAYING
Nutribnal Sp�ray:-
Two applications of Nutrional Spray needed,
First application will be on total 80 acres.
Second application on east block only (40 acres)
Material $ 1,485.00
Equip. & Labor 460.00
$ 1,945.00 1st application (80 acres)
Material $ 743.00
Equip. & Labor 230.00
$ 973.00 2nd application (40 acres)
Total Nutrient Spray $ 2,918.00
POST BLOOM SPRAY:
Three applications needed on West
Block only (40 acres)
Material $ 1,493.00 }
Equip. & Labor 525.00
$ 2,018.00 1st application (40 acres)
Material $ 1,579.00
Equip. & Labor 525.00
$ 2,104.00 2nd application (40 acres)
Material $ 1,571.00
Equip. & Labor 525.00
$ 2,096.00 3rd application ('40 acres)
Total Post Bloom Spraying $ 6,218.00
BOOK 60F'AE �,�16 ,
MAR 2 7 798
I
NAR 2 7 1995 BOOK 60 PAU317
MOWING
Additional or fewer mowings
will be
prorated
at same ratio.
Spin Mowing:
_ West Block
(40 acres)
4 times
$ 1,380.00
East Block
(40 acres)
2 times
690.00
Sickle Mowing:
West Block
(40 acres)
2 times
$ 874.00
East Block
(40 acres)
2 times
874.00
Total Mowing
$ 3,818.00
3RRIGATJON
Irrigation will be done as needed or we will
inspect for need and advise when you should run
your pumps.
Our rates are:
Fuel Truck/Trip $ 20.00
Hand Labor/Hr. 6.76
(Drainage, ect.)
HERB3;CIDING
No program
,MISCELLANEOUS�
Consulting & Bug Check $540.00
Soil Samples 250.00
Total Miscellaneous$790.00
West Block: Projected Income
300 Boxes/acre min. (35 Tree acres)
$ 36,750.00
East Block:
200 Boxes/acre (35 tree acres)
$ 21,000.00
Total Projected Income $ 57,750.00
r � �
Projected Income & Expenses
Fertilizing $ 7,850.00
Nutrional Spraying 2,918.00
Post Bloom Spraying 6,218.00
Mowing 3,818.00
Irrigation 7
Herbiciding _0_
Miscellaneous 790.00
$21,594.00
Total Projected Expense
Margin of Error 100
Total
Total Projected Income
PROJECTED NET PROFIT
$ 21,594.00
2,159.40
$ 23,753.40
$ 57,750.00
$ 33,996.60
MAR 2 7 1985 Bm 60
MAR 2.1985
Fr -
AGREEMENT
I
BOOK 60 ionF 31
The Undersigned OWNERS of property described in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto, give INDIAN RIVER COUNTY permission to enter
upon said property for the purposes of maintaining the grove to
such an extent as determined necessary or desirable by INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY (County).
The OWNERS agree that should COUNTY close on the Sales
and Purchase Agreement, previously entered into between the
parties, then all fruit produced from said grove from this day
forward shall be the sole property of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
WHEREFORE, the parties have hereto set their hands and
seals the day, month and year set forth next to their signatures.
Dated:
March 27. 1985
Dated:
Dated:
Dated:
BOARD O
INDIAN
By .e
5UNTY COMMISSIONERS
R COU!;;RY FLORIDA
Patrick B. Ly 0(1"6
Chairman
Ann Marie McCrystal
s
P
1 00
33 38 00001 0020 00001.0 - 78.82 ACRES
)IAN RIVER FARMS CO SUB PBS 2/25 TRACTS 2 AND 7
EXHIBIT "A"
4
BOOK F�,�E 320
MAR
2 7 1985
BooK
F{^F 3 1?oI
FLORIDA
ATLANTIC ASSOCIATES APPEAL OF VILLAGE GREEN WEST
SITE
PLAN DENIAL
The hour of 9:15 o'clock 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 M&
in the matter
in the
�1Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
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 f/ A.D. 19 �
w ,
(Susi n g
i (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL) I ( I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
a REGARDING APPEAL OP ,,-,
T . SITE PLAN DENIAL rr
On December 20,1984, the Piarming and Zon-
ing Commission of Indian River County. Florida,
sitting as the local planning agency, denied the
site Plan application submitted by Florida Adan
tic AesocWas to modify the approved site plan .
for the recreation complex at Village Green
-Phase IV. -
The Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners will conduct a public hearing, re-
garding the appeal by Florida Atlantic Associates
of the decision by the Planning® and Zoning Com-
mission to deny the alta plan. The public hearing,
at which parties in interest and citizens shsll
have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by
said Board of County Commissioners. In the +.
County Commission Chambers of the ,Cpun►dy
Administration Building located at 1840 26th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,," "
March 27, 1886, at 9:16 a.m.
If any person decides to appeal any decisloW."
made on the above matter, he may need to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made, which includes testimony and evidence..;
upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of Couniy Commissioners ,
By--s-Patrick B. Lyons,,Chalrman
March 8, 20,1985• p_
Planner Karen Craver reviewed in detail the following memo
dated 3/15/85:
23
_I
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 15, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
FLORIDA ATLANTIC
SUBJECT: ASSOCIATES APPEAL OF
Robert M. KeaJ:J1j4;7 ICP SITE PLAN DENIAL
Planning & Develo ent Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
FROM:Karen M. Craver `.f �� REFERENCES: KAREN
Staff Planner Fla. Atlantic
It is requested that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of March 27, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS '
On December 20, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission
denied a site plan application submitted by Florida Atlantic
Associates. The development company had proposed to delete
or relocate certain structures that had been depicted on the
site plan for the recreational complex at Village Green West
(Phase IV) . The 146 acre mobile home park is located south
of State Road 60, west of Ranch Road (82nd Avenue).
The site plan for the recreational facility, approved in
October of 1981, depicted a club house, an auditorium, a
swimming pool, a spa, shuffle board and tennis courts, boat
docks, and a gazebo. The recreation area is adjacent to a
lake, and the proposed changes included the deletion of the
gazebo extending into the lake', and all but two of the boat
piers shown on the plan. Also, walkways leading to the boat
piers and the roof over the spa were proposed for deletion.
The street that is contiguous to the recreation site crosses
over a culvert and the applicant was seekinga
al
exclude decorative guard rails from the side of pthev road
Benches and gates around the tennis courts were proposed for
relocation.
Robert Miller, Vice President of Florida Atlantic, is appeal-
ing the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to
deny the application to modify the site plan for the Village
Green West recreational complex. The denial was based upon
the opinions of the Commission members that the mobile home
park residents are entitled to the amenities that had been
depicted on the approved site plan. Although the Planning
and Zoning Commission frequently approves modifications to
site plans, where the proposed modifications could reduce the
intensity of the development, in this case the Commission
felt that the proposed modifications would affect principal
elements of the overall development by reducing available
recreational facilities.
ANALYSIS
The R-1MP zoning district, in which Village Green West is
located, has a requirement that a percentage of all develop-
ments be maintained as park and recreation area; however,
there is no requirement regarding the type or amount of
structures within that area. Based upon its size, Village
Green West is required to maintain 26 acres of park and
recreation area; the total acreage of the lakes and recre-
ational facility is 37.
24
nor U F,yU,E,32-2
A
r MAR 27 1995�3
BOOK 60 F�,Ij , t e,
The Planning Department reviewed the application on the basis
of its conformance with County ordinances. Staff determined
the modifications would not result in any nonconformance, in
that the total acreage devoted to park and recreation area
would not be reduced. In addition, the primary facilities of
the complex would not be altered. Regardless of the fact that
many of the residents may have purchased mobile homes and
leased lots within Village Green West as a result of the
representations that were made to them regarding available
and planned amenities, it is the staff's position that an
applicant should be allowed to modify his approved site plan
at any time, as long as he maintains consistency with
applicable County regulations. Since the proposed
modifications are consistent with all County regulations, the
staff feels that the proposed modifications should be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning staff recommends that the County Commission
grant Florida Atlantic's appeal of the Planning and Zoning
Commission denial, and thereby approve the application to
modify the Village Green West recreational complex site plan.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the question today is whether or
not purchasers have a reasonable right to expect certain
amenities to be built that have been depicted in a site plan. He
expressed some uncertainty, however, whether the County has the
legal ability to require those amenities to be built or whether
it might be that some sort of civil action would be needed to
take care of what was promised. He wondered why we require
certain structures and improvements to be depicted on a site
plan, if, in fact, we don't have the ability to say that they
must be made.
Director Keating reported that when residents of Village
Green West came in and pointed out that certain amenities shown
on the site plan were never built, he determined that, like in
all site plans, there are certain accessory type of improvements
that may have been a basis for the Planning & Zoning Commission's
approval of the site plan which would have to be built as
depicted, unless the developer was granted a modification of site
plan. This can be done either through an administrative approval
or through the Planning & Zoning Commission. If an applicant
requests a modification to a site plan which lowers the density
of the site plan, such as reducing it by a unit or two, and it
25
does not affect the overall site plan, then staff can approve it
administratively; larger modifications must go to the Planning &
Zoning Commission. In this particular situation, since it
appears these recreational improvements may have been an integral
part of the Planning & Zoning's decision to approve the entire
Village Green Phase 4 site plan, Director Keating felt that
Commission should be the one to make the decision on whether or
not the applicant should be allowed to modify his site plan to
reduce or eliminate some of these improvements.
Commissioner Scurlock was of the opinion that the
recreational element is a significant part of a site plan because
it serves to mitigate the impact on the County's recreational
facilities. He believed that if it is required to be put on
paper, than we -should require it to be done. This statement was
followed by much applause by those in attendance; the Chambers
seats were filled and seven people standing.
Director Keating stated that was where staff had a problem
as the County did not require the amenities to be put on paper
initially; the applicant took it upon himself to put these
improvements on paper, and he, therefore, felt the Planning &
Zoning Commission should decide whether or not the deletions
should be allowed.
Chairman Lyons believed that these amenities were a major
part of the site plan and were certainly something that would
make him decide whether he would like to buy there. More
clapping.
Director Keating explained the criteria used by staff to
determine if these improvements significantly affected the
function of development of the project and noted that staff
determined that the project could function without these
amenities, which were not specifically required in the ordinance,
and, consequently, recommended that the applicant be allowed to
change his site plan.
26
MAR 2'7 7985BOOK..;
J
MAR 71985 BOOK , 60 FnE 3
Commissioner Scurlock recalled that during the DRI process
on this development, the recreational facilities were considered
for possible use in a hurricane evacuation. Since this
development is large enough to be considered of a regional impact
nature, he felt that is where it is a little bit different than
your average development. They looked not only at the
recreational facilities, but at roads, civil defense and fire
protection with respect to how they related to the rest of the
community, and he believed that is the key element to be
considered. why and how these improvements got placed on the
site plan, which was finally approved, does not matter; it is a
matter of what was submitted, considered, and approved by the
Planning & Zoning Commission.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that the recreational
requirements sought to be deleted are not mentioned in the DRI
and are not part of the developmental order. He emphasized that
when a zoning ordinance is adopted, it sets up basic criteria
which must be applied uniformly to everyone; you cannot require
certain individuals to come in with recreational structures that
you do not require of individuals in similar projects. The
County Attorney was of the opinion -that if the applicant had come
in without showing any of these improvements, i.e., the gazebo,
boat docks, walkways, he would have met the requirements of the
ordinance and would have been able to obtain site plan approval
through the zoning code as a result of it.
The developer opted to build these amenities and had to show them
on the site plan, but the County does not have the authority to
force him to build these items and Attorney Brandenburg believed
that, in all likelihood, the.County would lose a law suit in that
regard if one were instituted.
Commissioner Bird realized that there is a certain psycho-
logical advantage to the developer to put some additional
amenities on a site plan as it tends to impress the staff, the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of County
27
M M M
that the deletions requested by the applicant are not significant
in nature and would have no adverse impact on the community. He
pointed out that two of these matters already have been approved
administratively by staff and submitted that all the requests
pursuant to this modification could be legally approved by the
Planning Department.
Attorney McDonough contended that the site plan exceeds the
County's R-1MP zoning requirements for 26 acres of recreational
land by having 37 acres located in Village Green West. In
conclusion, he urged the Board to grant this modification to site
plan.
Commissioner Bird disagreed with Attorney McDonough's
statement that these improvements are not major in nature and
would not significantly impact the site plan. He wondered why
all these people were here if the changes were considered minor.
Chairman Lyons agreed that the question today is what we
consider major or minor and expressed difficulty in agreeing with
both -attorneys on this issue as he felt certain things on a site
plan are cast in stone and only this Board has the right to chip.
Further applause.
Attorney McDonough suggested that the applicant explain why
he is proposing to make these deletions in the site plan.
Chairman Lyons swore in Robert Miller, Vice President of
Florida Atlantic Associates, who reviewed the items sought to be
deleted. He explained that the major item involves a bridge over
two lakes which would require considerable amount of time and
investment to build. He stated that the work that was done
originally was far in excess of that which was set forth on the
original site plan application and is totally in character with
the other phases of Village Green. Mr. Miller pointed out that
instead of the walkway adjacent to a two-lane road, there is
approximately 40-50 feet of land on either side of the roadway
which they consider to be in total and absolute conformity with
the manner in which the rest of Village Green is constructed. He
29
MAR 2 7 1995BOOKA0 FAD
MAR 27 1985 eooK UF'1-0
Commissioners in regard to site plan approval. He did not know
if that was exactly what happened here, but felt strongly that if
the site plan was approved with those items shown, it should not
be cast in stone but should bear a close resemblance when built.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that the Zoning Code
includes certain special exceptions and conditions that can be
placed on site plans, and when a developer offers an amenity in
return for enchancing his project in order to get it approved by
the Planning & Zoning Commission, then it is made a condition of
the site plan approval either as a special exception condition or
just as a regular condition. In such cases, those conditions
cannot be changed without coming to the Board for approval;
however, he was of the opinion that was not the case here.
Chairman Lyons asked those in attendance to raise their
hands if prior to buying their units they had received brochures
showing the boat docks and gazebo. Ninety percent of the people
indicated that they had.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there was any disclaiming fine
print on the brochures stating these amenities might not be
built, and the answer was "NO!"
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Wayne McDonough, Attorney representing the applicant,
Florida Atlantic Associates, agreed with staff's recommendation
for approval of the site plan modification. He believed the
County Commission was not the proper forum to entertain any
allegations about brochures, photographs, asterisks, etc., and
that allegations of any misrepresentations should be heard in
court. He wholeheartedly agreed with the County Attorney's
opinion that there was no legal requirements for his client to
place various amenities on the site plan application, and that
consequently, his client has the right to file a modification to
his site plan per the Zoning Ordinance.
28
In addition, he felt
stated that he, personally, did not submit the original site plan
and confirmed that there has been no change in ownership since
that time.
Attorney Brandenburg swore in Robert Jackson, attorney,
representing the Village Green West Homeowners' Association, who
stated he was somewhat shocked that no reason has been given here
about why these deletions are being proposed. He stressed that
this all came about after the residents complained to the
Planning Department, and Director Keating agreed with the
residents at that time that certain improvements needed to be
made, such as the gazebo, boat docks, etc. Attorney Jackson
quoted the following paragraph from a letter written by Director
Keating to Florida Atlantic after these omissions were brought to
his attention: "The County's Zoning Code requires that all
depicted site plan improvements be installed and maintained.
Failure to do so constitutes a code violation that may be subject
to Code Enforcement Board action. To resolve these violations,
the staff requests that you submit a construction schedule within
two weeks indicating a reasonable timetable for completion of the
above listed discrepancies, as well as conformance with any other
conditions of the approved site plan." Attorney Jackson
emphasized that this letter was sent prior to Florida Atlantic
requesting a modification of their site plan. The developer was
told that a modification of site plan would have to go before the
Planning & Zoning Commission, which denied their request.
Attorney Jackson stressed that when people were interested
in buying at Village Green West, they were taken to other phases
of Village Green and given color brochures showing the proposed
site plan with drawings of the gazebo, boat docks, etc.
BROCHURES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Attorney Jackson continued that the residents of Village
Green West are paying premium dollars for their mobile homes
because of the amenities promised and pointed out that the front
MAR2 7 1995 30 bubF. 60 F��E
MAR
27
1995
BOOK
l
of one
brochure states that "seeing is believing." Much
laughter
followed this statement.
Attorney Jackson disagreed with the County Attorney's legal
opinion as he felt that the County Commission has the right to
deny requests for modification of site plan. He believed that
the legal principle of estoppel would apply to this matter. He
further believed that the Board would be putting these people in
a legally untenable position if they file a lawsuit in this
matter because the County would be saying that these improvements
are not necessary. With respect to the improvements being major,
he estimated that these improvements could be made at an approxi-
mate cost of $116,000, which is roughly one month's total rent
for the owners. Attorney Jackson advised that he had pictures
available of the promised improvements.
Commissioner Bird asked what would be the next legal step if
the Commission decided to deny the appeal today.
Attorney Jackson felt that if the County did not enforce
this through the Code Enforcement Board, the residents would have
to file a lawsuit and if the Board denied this modification
request today, it would at least give the residents an approved
site plan to work with in a lawsuit.
Attorney Brandenburg swore in Maurice Ed Nelson, President
of the Village Green West Homeowners' Association, who spoke in
behalf of the 1200 members. He advised that it actually has been
nearly five years since the site plan was approved and he
reviewed in depth the many improvements promised but never made.
Mr. Nelson believed that it would cost the developer over
$116,000 to make these improvements, which is certainly not a
minor expense. Mr. Nelson recalled that when he and his wife
visited the three phases of Village Green the sales
representative told them the developer would have to live with
any promises they make, and noted that 50,000 sales brochures
were sent out all over the country.
31
M
Mr. Nelson believed that Florida Atlantic's main problems
were those of cash flow and management, and he had reliable
information indicating that sometime in 1982 approximately
$800,000 had been siphoned out of Village Green to purchase
another park, Continental in Leesburg, which has since filed for
bankruptcy under Chapter 11. If all the promised improvements
had been made, he felt the residents could care less what
management does with their money; however, until all these
improvements are made, they feel that the owners are playing with
their money. He also cited the drop in maintenance personnel.
Mr. Nelson recalled that two days before the Planning &
Zoning Commission hearing, he was refused a copy of the "as
built" noted site plan, which is public information. He
contended that particular site plan was either accidentally or
conveniently misplaced or deliberately destroyed. Continuing, he
related that the very next day after meeting with Mr. Miller re
the promised improvements, blue tape was placed over specific
parts of the glassed -in site plan at the sales office, as if tape
could delete the bridge, boat docks, gazebo, etc., shown on all
of the brochures. Mr. Nelson submitted the architectural plan
for the gazebo and boat docks for the Commissioners'- review and
as part of the official record.
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Mr. Nelson noted that the bridge shown on the site plan is
identical to the bridge built in Phase III. He emphasized that
the people in Village Green are trying to keep their community a
nice place to live, but management is not doing their part. The
residents want what they paid for -- no more, no less. On behalf
of all the residents in Village Green West, Mr. Nelson urged the
Commission to uphold and honor the decision of the Planning &
Zoning Commission by repeating their denial on Florida Atlantic's
request for modification of the site plan which was approved
nearly five years ago. Those residents in attendance indicated
32
MAR 2 7 1985 aooK i.:60 FnF P O
I
r
AR 198 BOOK F°GEM
by a show of hands that they were in 100% agreement with Mr.
Nelson's statement.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Mr. Miller if he presently had a
contract for the sale of this mobile home park, and Mr. Miller
said he did not.
Chairman Lyons swore in Arthur Aker, 8775 20th Avenue, who
objected to the petition for modification. He cited the
promises made at the time he was considering buying a unit at
Village Green. He also recalled the lawsuit the residents
brought against the condo situation and pointed out that the
District Court agreed with them and not Attorney Brandenburg who
had said that the zoning was correct and had no bearing in the
matter. He proposed that Attorney Brandenburg again was wrong in
his opinion that the Board cannot require these improvements to
be made, and respectfully requested that the Board deny this
petition.
Attorney McDonough asked if there were any additional
comments from staff, but Chairman Lyons felt that we are now at
the point where the Board either agrees with staff or takes issue
with their opinion. He, personally, felt that the Board has the
right to require these major improvements to be made.
Attorney McDonough repeated that the brochures and
photographs submitted by the residents are not relevant to this
issue. He pointed out that the Board has already heard the
County Attorney's..opinion and stressed that his client has a
legal right to delete these items as they do not significantly
impact the development of the community.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
33
W
_I
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board deny the request
for modification of site plan for the following
reasons: 1) The recreational element of this
substantial community would have considerable impact on
the use of the County's recreational facilities;
2) The improvements in question are considered major in
that it will cost over $100,000 to build them.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird stated he also agreed
that the items to be deleted are major and would adversely affect
the recreational opportunities and the property values of the
people in Phase IV of Village Green.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that while he is very supportive
of the County Attorney and staff, it seemed to him that the
residents of Village Green West have made substantial investments
based on the amenities shown in the brochures. He hoped that the
developer will decide to go ahead and make these improvements
rather than seek litigation. Although the County might be in a
close legal situation, he did not think it was fair for this
Board to approve the modified site plan.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - EDMONDS REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 6.4 ACRES FROM
RURAL RESIDENTIAL 2 to LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1
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:
34
BOOK 0 FAGFo
LAR 27 1985 J
Fir—
MAR 2 7 1985
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 Z4b
in the matter of ZUVI�_
in the / Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of bl ME
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. �y
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day f A . 19 d 5
(Bus ane
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Flo Ida)
(SEAL)
BOOK "0 P'cE 333
., _NOTICE- PUBLIC NEARING
TO AMEND' THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
PLAN
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
e County Ordinance amending the Land Use Ele-
ment of the Comprehensive Plan by redesignat-
to I
unWacre),and o oRLD-1,Rural Low -Density Ral 2 esidential 1
(up to 3 units/acre). The subject property is pre-
sently owned by Edwin John Edmonds, and is 10-
. cated between Roseland Road (C.R.505) and the
Sebastian River and 600' south of 125th Place.
The subject property is described as:
Lot 33, in Section 22, according to the
Carter Survey of THE FLEMING GRANT,
Township 30S, Range 38E, commencing
-at the center line of State Road No. 167,
subject, nevertheless, to the existing 40'
right-of-way at the southerly portion
thereof also commencing at the center _
line of State Road No. 167. Said property
now lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida.., ,. �
A public hearing at'which parties Min forest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board ofCountyCom-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street,Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday,
March 27, 1985, at 10:16 am.
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 pur-
poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appy is based.
Indian River'County, .
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Patrick B. Lyons,
. Chairman
March 8, 20, 1986:`
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, reviewed the
following memo dated 3/18/85:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 18, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
EDMONDS REQUEST TO RE -
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: DESIGNATE 6.4 ACRES
!SUBJECT: FROM RR -2, RURAL RESI-
DENTIAL 2, TO LD -1,
Robert M. Ke ti g, P LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Planning & Deve opo nt Director 1
FROM: Richard Shearer AICP REFERENCES:
Edmonds Request
Chief, Long -Range planning CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 27, 1985.
35
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Edmonds, the owners, are requesting to amend
the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 6.4 acres located 600
feet southwest of 125th Place, northwest of Roseland Road and
southeast of the Sebastian River from RR -2, Rural Residential 2
(up to 1 unit/acre), to LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to
3 units/acre).
On February 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on the applicants' initial request to
redesignate the subject property from RR -2 to LD -2. During the
hearing the applicants stated that they would be amenable to
changing their request from LD -2 to LD -1 as the staff recommend-
ed. After the public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion voted 5 -to -0 to recommend that the applicants' original
request to redesignate the property as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), be denied. The Commission
gave as their reasons the facts that they felt this property
was correctly designated as RR -2 when the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted and that conditions have not changed in this area
since then to warrant a change in the land use designation.
After the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing
on this request, the. applicants formally amended their
application in writing to request the LD -1 land use designation.
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 one single-family residence.
Northeast of the subject property is another 6.4 acre parcel
containing a single-family residence. Southeast of the subject
property, across Roseland Road, are single-family residences on
large parcels of land. Southwest of the subject property are
single-family residences. Northwest of the subject property is
the Sebastian River. The subject property and all of the land
around it is zoned R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6 units/
acre).
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and
the land northeast and southwest of it as RR -2, Rural
Residential 2 (up to 1 unit/acre). The land southeast of the
subject property is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential
1 (up to 3 units/acre).
Redesignating the subject property to LD -2 would allow it to be
developed at a much higher density than the land around it and
would represent a spot land use designation. The subject
property should not be redesignated as LD -2 unless all of the
Roseland area designated as RR -2 and LD -1 is also redesignated
as LD -2. However, it would not be unreasonable to redesignate
the subject property to LD -1. The land on the southeast side
of Roseland Road is designated as LD -1 and has characteristics
similar to the subject property. Redesignating the subject
property as LD -1 would be a natural extension of the LD -1 land
use designation located across Roseland Road.
36
MAR 27 1995
BOOK 60 FAGF '3,P 3 AL
MAR 27 1985
Transportation Svstem
BOOK 0 F,4GF 335
The subject property has direct access to Roseland Road
(classified as a Primary Collector street on the Thoroughfare
Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under
the LD -2 land use designation would generate up to 384 average
annual daily trips (AADT). If the property was designated
LD -1, it would allow development generating up to 192 AADT.
The current RR -2 designation would allow development generating
up to 60 AADT.
Environment
The subject property is not 'designated as environmentally
sensitive on the land use map. Moreover, the subject property
does not meet the Comprehensive Plan's general criteria for
environmentally sensitive land because it does not contain
productive wetlands nor mangroves. However, it is adjacent to
the Sebastian River, and the first 100 feet of the property
from the .river is in an A7 flood hazard zone, indicating an
area within the 100 year flood plain.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for
the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to deny
the applicants' original request to redesignate the subject
property as LD -2 for the reasons cited in the description and
conditions section of this memorandum. While conditions have
not changed in this area since the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted, the Planning Department does feel that this property
may logically be designated as LD -1. The justification
supporting a redesignation to LD -1 includes designation of
surrounding land as LD -1; lack of environmental sensitivity of
the subject property; and proximity of property to existing
higher density development and the City of Sebastian. For
these reasons, staff recommends that the subject property be
redesignated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3
units/acre).
Commissioner Scurlock understood that staff is proposing
that everything along the Sebastian River in that area be
a
designated as LD -1 and that the area further south would be
looked at separately.
Commissioner Bowman objected to staff's opinion that this
area is not environmentally sensitive land because she felt that
the Sebastian River contains.very productive wetlands.
Mr. Shearer pointed out that there are large oak trees on
the river's edge here in comparison with other areas where there
are sensitive mangroves, marshes, etc.
Chairman Lyons recalled that there had been considerable
debate at the public hearings when the Comp Plan was adopted and
37
there was a very strong feeling that the Comp Plan we adopted was
very much in kind with what the public expected up there.
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Michael O'Haire, Attorney representing both the Edmonds and
the Stokes (the applicant in the next public hearing scheduled
for today), expressed his surprise when he visited the area
recently and saw how so much had changed since the public
hearings were held on the Comp Plan. He passed out an aerial
view of the area and surrounding areas and pointed out that the
River's Edge subdivision was completely built out. Attorney
O'Haire stressed that after having owned the property for years,
his clients simply want the same rights as their neighbors, and
he believed the County has adequate safeguards for whatever
environmental considerations may be involved along the Sebastian
River.
Commissioner Bird recalled that back when they reviewed this
area under the Comp Plan, he was of the opinion that maybe all of
this area should be LD -1, but the residents of Roseland area came
en masse and unanimously requested RR -2, a special rural
category.
Attorney O'Haire pointed out that what has actually
developed up there is not as he understood it would be under the
Land Use Plan.
Director Keating explained that if this acreage was
subdivided at 3 units per acre, the Dept. of Environmental Health
would require the lots to be approximately 100 x 200, as there is
no water or wastewater available. Under the LD -1, as a practical
matter, there would be less than two units per acre.
Commissioner Bowman understood that the water situation at
River's Edge is deplorable and assumed that these people would be
drawing from the same aquifer, but Attorney O'Haire believed the
water problems at River's Edge related to their treatment plant
and not the aquifer.
W?
BOOK CPO PAGE 37
Arthur Sheeren, resident immediately adjacent to the Snoke
property, objected to this rezoning request. He recalled that
when the Land Use Plan was adopted, everybody was in favor of the
zoning that is in there now. He announced that the Roseland
Property Owners Association is here also to speak against the
rezoning request.
Fred Mensing, President of Roseland Property Owners
Association, introduced Frank DeJoia, a member of the Board of
Directors, who stated that the Board of Directors are 100%
opposed to the LD -1. He recalled that when the Commissioners
visited Sebastian during the Comp Plan hearings, many Roseland
residents had an opportunity to talk about this beautiful area
that extends along the Sebastian River to Roseland Road, and were
violently opposed then to the LD -1 designation which allows up to
3 units per acre. The Roseland residents are still very
concerned about River's Edge Subdivision violating the beautiful
land along the Sebastian River and do not want to see anything
like that happen again. He felt that if the subject property is
redesignated as LD -1, there was a possibility that an inferior
package sewer plant might be built similar to the one built by
River's Edge. He believed the residents are not saying that the
river's edge should not ever be developed, but are saying that it
should be developed at a maximum of one unit per acre at the
special designation of RR -2 which the Commission created
specially for this area.
Martha M. Csuri, Secretary of the Roseland Property Owners
Association, pointed out that the association is in the process
of conducting a survey of the residents and the results of the
first 400 mailings are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the
land use at RR -2. She offered to present a breakdown of the
survey results.
Attorney O'Haire stressed that the area cannot be developed,
in a practical manner, at anything greater than two units per
acre since water and wastewater are not available.
39
Dorothy Long, 1255 Roseland Road, urged the Board keep the
area as it is.
Mr. DeJoia added that he would urge the Board to instruct
the Planning staff to get active in making the zoning categories
conform to the Land Use Plan designations. He believed that if
this area goes to LD -1, the Board would be opening up a Pandora's
Box for that whole stretch of shoreline.
Chairman Lyons informed Mr. DeJoia that the conforming of
the rezoning to the Land Use Plan has not been restricted to
Roseland and that the County is just now getting to a position
where we are going to do this on a rather massive basis; the
public hearings are scheduled for this month.
Tillie Messick, resident living opposite the subject
property, also objected to the changing of the Land Use
designation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE BY Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird that the Board deny
the Edmonds request to redesignate 6.4 acres from
RR -2, Rural Residential 2, to LD -1, Low -Density
Residential 1.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern
about the dilemma facing the Board in looking at the various land
uses and densities that can be developed in the area, and hoped
that the new procedure for looking at planned residential
development would include contractual type of zoning.
Commissioner Bird felt that the redesignation request should
be denied unless the Board is prepared to redesignate that entire
area in the future.
40 BOOK k0 P,GE 24'
IL_ ihAR 2'i 1985
�)9 � i6 •-
t ,y
BOOK C0 F,�GE3,3
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - SNOKE REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 6.4 ACRES FROM
RURAL RESIDENTIAL 2 to LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1
The hour of 10:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a Z
in the matter of
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of o/,�e./ Y -W_ akok
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 020 day of � A.D. 19 9':5—
. A
er
i (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Count lorida)
(SEAL)
f
41
"s NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
TO�AIMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
? PLAN
14btice of hearing to, consider the adoption of
a County Ordinance amending the Land Use Ele-
ment of -the Comprehensive Plan by redesignat-
ing land from RR -2, Rural Residential 2 (up to 1
unit/acre), to LD -1,,. Low -Density Residential. 1
(up to 3 un(ts/acre). The'subect, property is pre -
sentry owned by: Rhonda E. and Andrew D.'
Snoke, and* Is located between Roseland Road
(C.R,505) and the Sebastian 'River • and 300'•:
south of 125th Place.
The subject prop@rty is described as: '
Lot 34, in Section 22, according to'ths , ,
Carter 3uivey of THE PEENING BRANT,;; ,
Township 30S, Range 38E, commencing..:; ,
at the center line of State Road No: 167;
subject, nevertheless, to the existing' 46''
right-of-way at the southerly :, portion';�i
thereof also commencing at the center
line of State Road'No. 167. Said properly
now .lying and _.being,. in Indian River.:.
„County, Florida.
''r
t s A public hearing,a which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be, held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840. 25th
Street' Vero' -Beach, Florida on Wednesday,
March 27, ,1985, at 10:15 a:m.
H any person decides to appeal any dgdWon
made on. the above matter, he/she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he/she may need, to ensure that a verba- .
tiro record of the proceedings is made, which In-
cludes testimony and evidence,uQon whlCh;the
appeal is based: }
t ,;1lndian Rlver County .
, ,, Board -of County Commtssioneres
Byy -s+ Patrick 13 Lyons
i Chalrmari.- ti
larch8; 20,,1985,,• ,
� � r
Planner Richard Shearer reviewed the following memo dated
3/18/85:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 18, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
SNOKE REQUEST TO RE -
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: DESIGNATE 6.4 ACRES
FROM RR -2, RURAL RESI-
SUBJECT: DENTIAL 2, TO LD -1,
Robert M. Keatiry9l, P LOW-DENSITY
Planning & Development Director RESIDENTIAL 1
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP R Snoke Request
Chief, Long -Range Planni@ff ERENCES: CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 27, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Snoke, the owners, are requesting to amend
the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 6.4 acres located 300
feet southwest of 125th Place, northwest of Roseland Road and
southeast of the Sebastian River from RR -2, Rural Residential 2
(up to 1 unit/acre), to LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to
3 units/acre).
On February 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on the applicants' initial request to
redesignate the subject property from RR -2 to LD -1. During the
hearing the applicants stated that they would be amenable to
changing their request from LD -2 to LD -1 as the staff
recommended. After the public hearing, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend that the applicants'
original request to redesignate the property as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), be denied. The Commission
gave as their reasons the facts that they felt this property
was correctly designated as RR -2 when the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted and that conditions have not changed in this area
since then to warrant a change in the land use designation.
After the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing
on this request, the applicants formally amended their
application in writing to request the LD -1 land use designa-
tion.
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 one single-family residence.
Northeast of the subject property is a citrus grove and a
single-family residence. Southeast of the subject
across Roseland Road, are single-family residences
parcels of land. Southwest of the subject property
single-family residences. Northwest of the subject
the Sebastian River. The subject property and all
around it is zoned R-1, Single -Family District (up
MAR 27 1985 42
BOOK
property,
on large
are
property is
of the land
to 6 unYts/acre).
E0 FA.GE 340
MAR 2 7 1985
Future Land Use Pattern
Snoke Request
Page 2
March 18, 1985
The Comprehensive Plan designates
the land northeast and southwest
Residential 2 (up to 1 unit/acre)
subject property is designated as
1 (up to 3 units/acre).
BOOK60 P',F31
the subject property and
of it as RR -2, Rural
The land southeast of the
LD -1, Low -Density Residential
Redesignating the subject property to LD -2 would allow it to be
developed at a much higher density than the land around it and
would represent a spot land use designation. The subject
property should not be redesignated as LD -2 unless all of the
Roseland area designated as RR -2 and LD -1 is also redesignated
as LD -2. However, it would not be unreasonable to redesignate
the subject property to LD -1. The land on the southeast side
of Roseland Road is designated as LD -1 and has characteristics
similar to the subject property. Redesignating the subject '
property as LD -1 would be a natural extension of the LD -1 land
use designation.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Roseland Road.
(classified as a Primary Collector street on the Thoroughfare
Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under
the LD -2 land use designation would generate up to 384 average
annual daily trips (AADT). If the property was designated
LD -1, it would allow development generating up to 192 AADT.
The current RR -2 designation would allow development generating
up to 60 AADT.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive on the land use map. Moveover, the subject property
does not meet the Comprehensive Plan's general criteria for
environmentally sensitive land because it does not contain
productive wetlands nor mangroves. However, it is adjacent to
the Sebastian River, and the first 100 feet of the property
from the river is in an A7 flood hazard zone, indicating an
area within the 100 year flood plain.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for
the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to deny
the applicants' original request to redesignate the subject
property as LD -2 for the reasons cited in the description and
conditions section of this memorandum. While conditions have
not changed in this area since the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted, the Planning Department does feel that this property
may logically be designated as LD -1. The justification
supporting a redesignation to LD -1 includes designation of
surrounding land as LD -1, lack of environmental sensitivity of
the subject property; and proximity of property to existing
higher density development and the City of Sebastian. For
these reasons, staff recommends that the subject property be
redesignated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3
units/acre).
43
61
Mr. Shearer noted that this request is the same as the
Edmond's which was heard previous to this.
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously denied
the Snoke's request to redesignate 6.4 acres from
RR -2, Rural Residential 2, to LD -1, Low -Density
Residential 1.
PUBLIC HEARING - HELEN HANSON PROPERTIES, INC. REQUEST TO ENLARGE
70 -ACRE HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE
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:
44
AR 2 7 1985 BOOK
VERO BEACH PRESS-JOURidAL
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
in the matter
in the
`" Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of / a :?, V, /.ZfJ�
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 thisay of �ZA.D. 19
AL
o (eusiryess Ana r
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, FI ri a)
(SEAL)
-BOOK
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
PLAN
This is notice of a hearing to consider the
adoption of a County Ordinance amending the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Pian by
.enlarging the Hospital/Commercial node at the
Intersection of Roseland Road and U.S. Highway
#1 from 70 acres to 75 acres, as designated on
the future land use map and described in the text
of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan of Indian River County, Florida.
This request was Initiated by Helen Hanson
Properties, Inc., In order to Include the following
d ercrib d prop" in the said Hospital/Com-
Beginning at a concrete monument on -.
the Fleming Grant line marking the
southeasterly corner of Lot 14 of the Plat
of the Town of Wauregan, as recorded in
Plat Book 1, pages 178 and 179 of the;,;;
public records of Brevard County, Flor- , ,._
Ida; thence S 45°49'17" W, 239.35' to a'
concrete monument; thence S 45°49'25-
W. 103.89' to a concrete monument;
thence S 440101511 E. 540.30' to a con-
crete monument thence N 45°44'55 F.,'-'
323.58' to a concrete monument, said
Concrete monument being a point on the
westerly right-of-way line for U.S. High --
way #1;. and being a point of curvature. -
of a non -tangent circular curve, concave
to the NE, having a radius of 11,459.20';
thence run northwesterly along the wet -
arty right -0f -way line for U.S. Hlghway ;; -
#1 along the arc of said circular cure
for an arc distance of 582.43 feet
through a central angle of 02°48'44" to a
concrete monument; thence S 45°29'14"
W. 135.11' to the Point of Beginning for ,
said parcel of land.
Said parcel of land contains 4.94 acres
more or lee and lie wholly in Indian
River County, Florida
A public hearing at which `parties In Interest
heard, ie be hold
by
the an
d of CountytCbe
om-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Begch, Florida on Wednesday.
March 27,1985,dt 10:30 amIf .
made any person
aboveides to matter, he/she will wiill n decisionny
record of the proceedings, and for such pu►.;
hoftherlensure
s Iairtim record of proceedings Is that
in-
chides testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
E By: -s- Patrick B. Lyons
Chairman
March8L20.1lW& .,
Planner Richard Shearer reviewed the following memo dated
3/18/85:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 18, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
HELEN HANSON PROPERTIES,
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: INC. REQUEST TO ENLARGE
` SUBJECT: THE 70 ACRE HOSPITAL/
COMMERCIAL NODE
Robert M. Keatjing,,jr7AICP
Planning & Develo ment Director
FROM: chard Shearer, AICD REFERENCES: zC-122 Memo
Chief, Long -Range Planning CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 27, 1985.
45
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Helen Hanson Properties, Inc., is requesting to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the 70 acre Hospital/Commercial
node at the intersection of U.S.1 and Roseland Road to 75
acres.
The applicant is requesting this amendment in order to include
five additional acres of land in the node.
On February 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site.and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped and zoned C-1, Commercial
District. North of the. subject property is undeveloped land
which is the future site of River Walk shopping center and
zoned C-1. East of the subject property, across U.S.1, is
undeveloped land zoned C-1. South of the subject property is
undeveloped property zoned C-1 and a mobile home park zoned
R-1PM, Permanent Mobile Home Subdivision District. West of the
subject property is undeveloped land zoned C-1 and R-1, Single -
Family District (up to 6 units/acre). Further west are single-
family residences and undeveloped land zoned -.R-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property.and
the land west of it as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3
units/acre). The land north of the subject property has been
included in the 70 acre hospital/commercial node at the
intersection of U.S.1 and Roseland Road. The land to the east
of the subject property, across U.S.1, and the land to the
south is designated as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up
to 8 units/acre). The current LD -1 land use designation of the
subject property is inappropriate considering that the land to
the east and south is designated as MD -1 and the property to
the north is included in the hospital/commercial node.
In analyzing this request to enlarge the node, an inventory of
the lands in the '70 acre hospital/commercial node was
undertaken. The node consists of:
Land Use
Humana Hospital
Undeveloped Land
Roseland Shopping Center
River Walk Shopping Center
Other Existing Commercial
Development
Infill Land
Additional Node Acreage
Reserved for Southeast
Corner of Roseland Road
Zoning
Acreage
MED
25.08
MED
10.70
C-1
- 8.00
Site C-1
14.80
C-1
5.32
C-1
2.10
C-1
4.0
& US1
70.0
46
MAR 27 1985 BOOK S pnF 3344
J
MAR 27 1985
BOOK CAO F°,F -345
Since this node was created, there has been considerable
interest in commercial development in this area. Based on the
existing hospital and commercial uses, the approval of a site
plan for the River Walk shopping center, and the commercial
interest in this area, this node cannot reasonably be expected
to remain at 70 acres through the 20 year life of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to U.S. Highway 1
(classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan).
The maximum development of the subject property under the
existing C-1 zoning could attract up to 4,753 average annual
daily trips (AADT). Under the " existing LD -1 land- use
designation, the maximum development of the subject property
could generate 150 AADT.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for
the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Robert Lloyd of Lloyd & Associates, consulting engineers,
explained that the project has changed hands since this project
began and Lloyd & Associates now represents both Riverwalk and
Helen Hanson Properties, Inc. in this matter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 85-27, amending the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan by enlarging the 70 acre Hospital/
Commercial node at the intersection of U.S. #1 and
Roseland Road to 75 acres.
47
ORDINANCE #85 - 27
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN PROVIDING FOR ENLARGING THE 70 ACRE HOSPITAL/
COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE INTERSECTION OF U.S.1 AND
ROSELAND ROAD TO 75 ACRES AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE.
SECTION 1
Page 35 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
is hereby amended to read as follows:
SEBASTIAN/ROSELAND AREA
A seventy-five 449} (75) acre hospital commercial node is
located at the intersection of Roseland Road and U.S.1 adjacent
to the existing hospital.
SECTION 2
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective
upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgement 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 the 27th day of march
1985.
BOARD OF COUN COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN COUNTY
BY:
CK B. LYO . C airman
G
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of State of
Florida this 4th day of April, 1985.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 8thday of A.pri; 1985, at 11 A:M./P.M. and
filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED ASTQ FORM AND
LEGAL SUFOfC—ENCY.
Y M.ARANDENBURG,
ty 7rt)=ney
CODING: Words in are deletions from exist-
ing law; words underlined are additions.
MAR 48 BOOK. co FhOJ
'� 195 346
MAR 27 1985 BOOK . Fac, 347
DISCUSSION RE ST. FRANCIS MANOR LEASE
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/25/85:
rz-11
VS
Of Vero Beach, Inc.
March 25, 1985
Board of County Commission
Mr. Jeffrey K. Barton
Management & Budget Director
1840 25th. St.
Vero Beach, Florida, 32960
Dear Mr. Barton:
V
1750 20TH AVENUF
VERO BEACH FLORIDA .32960
13051 562 851!�
RE: Manor Meal Program/and
I.R. County Assistance
Nov. 1983 - Nov. 1984
In compliance with your letter of February 12, 1985, please find
enclosed a Certificate of Insurance, reflecting Indian River Counties
name as interested party.
Also enclosed is the Manor 12 month balance sheet for the period Nov.
83 thru Nov. 84. Following your suggestion in April 1983, we have
separated donations for food as a separate line item. Evidence of
bills paid to caterer is also furnished from our accountant.
We have also promoted activities to generate at least 25 people eating
as you suggested again in April 1983, and we have maintained a average
figure of around 33 people.
Our Internal Revenue Service 990 form is also attached.
You can see by.the records submitted that the Food program cost of
$ '15,279.56 less the income of $ 11,364.25 left the Manor with a loss
$ 3,915.31 an that specific program. The residents are still receiving
a hot meal for $ 1.25. The Manor pay's the caterer $ 2.00, plus other
sundry expences we have with the program. If a resident shows evidence
they cannot pay for the meal, they can receive it at no cost.
I;e request the commission again return $,A9. of our $ 1000. lease rent
i for 11/83 thru 11/84. /
Respectfully,
RAM
an L. Zo ,res.
fit/sit
A Florida Non -Profit Corporation for the purpose of furnishing apartments to retired and elderly people with limited Incomes.
49
Frank Zorc, President of St. Francis Manor, presented their
appeal for renewal of the $1000 annual lease arrangement and
submitted their 1985 Corporation Annual Report verification.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board renew the
$1000 lease arrangement with St. Francis Manor
and authorize the contribution of $999 to the meal
program.
Under discussion, OMB Director Jeff Barton recalled that
last year Mr. Zorc was requested to come back at budget time to
make his proposal so monies could be appropriated at that time.
Mr. Zorc did not do that and,that is why we are here now.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC MEETING - PLAT VACATION REQUEST FOR A PORTION OF OLD SUGAR
MILL ESTATES, UNIT TWO (Continued from Meeting of 3/13/85)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/28/85:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: February 28, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
' SUBJECT: FORTAVACATION PORTION OFQOLDT
Kc_4e&rtMAe_afijn4, A9CP SUGAR MILL ESTATES
Planning & Developm nt Director UNIT TWO SUBDIVISION
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: Stan Boling REFERENCES:
Staff Planner ,4%66
It is requested that the following information be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting on March 27,'1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
This request was initially considered at the Board of County
Commissioners March 13, 1985 meeting, and has been continued
to the March 27, 1985 meeting at the request of the appli-
cants.
The applicants; Elsebeth M., Ralph Waldo, and Charles
Randolph Sexton and John R. and Barbara S. Tripson, request
50
MAR 2 7 1985 BOOK , 0 F;E34
MAR 27 1985 BOOK 60 pn.CE 349
that the Board of County Commissioners vacate a portion of
the plat of Old Sugar Mill Estates Unit Two subdivision.
The portion of the plat to be vacated consists of Lots 6, 7,
and 8 of the subdivision, and that part of the 49th Avenue
County right-of-way between these three lots.
The applicants are requesting 'that this portion of the Old
Sugar Mill Estates Unit Two plat be vacated so that it may
be replatted as a portion of the proposed Unit Three plat.
All of the land to be vacated by this request will be
replatted by the forthcoming Unit Three plat. The proposed
Unit Three final plat is designed to straighten the existing
curve in the 49th Avenue right -of -'Way, while retaining the
full 70 foot road right-of-way. By straightening the 49th
Avenue right-of-way at this point, the existing and proposed
subdivision units could have a better integrated street
design.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
According to Chapter 177.101 of the Florida Statutes, the
Board of County Commissioners must ascertain three facts
before it approves a plat vacation request. These facts
are:
1) that the applicant(s) hold fee simple title to the
land for which the request is being made,
2) that the vacation, if approved by the Board of
County Commissioners, will not affect the ownership
or right of convenient access of residents within
the subdivision.
3) that all back taxes on the subject property have
been paid.
The applicants have submitted deeds to the Planning Depart-
ment showing that they hold fee simple title to the land in
question. No lots within the subdivision will have their
means of access affected by a partial plat vacation. Also,
documentation has been submitted by the Indian River County
Tax Collector's office certifying that all back taxes on the
property have been paid. Thus, all state requirements
concerning plat vacation have been met.
To ensure that there is no time lapse between the plat
vacation and the forthcoming replat of the same land, the
Board of County Commissioners may adopt a plat vacation
resolution that does not go into effect until final approval
of the replat.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt a resolution vacating a portion of the Old Sugar Mill
Estates Unit Two subdivision plat consisting of Lots 6, 7,
and 8 and the 49th Avenue County right-of-way between these
lots, subject to final plat approval of Old Sugar Mill
Estates Unit Three subdivision.
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 85-38, providing for the vacation of
that portion of Old Sugar Mill Estates Unit Two
Subdivision designated as Lots 6, 7, and 8 and a
portion of 49th Avenue right-of-way.
51
RESOLUTION 85-38
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE
VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES UNIT
TWO SUBDIVISION DESIGNATED AS LOTS 6, 7, AND 8 AND A
PORTION OF 49TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
WHEREAS, on February 14, 1985 the County received a
request from the owners of the property within the area to
be vacated, being Elsebeth M. Sexton, Ralph Waldo
Sexton, Charles Randolph Sexton, John R. Tripson, and
Barbara S. Tripson, asking that the Board of County
Commissioners vacate that portion of Old Sugar Mill Estates
Unit Two as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 62, Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida, as described below.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §177.101,
notice of a public hearing to consider said request has been
duly published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the request, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of
all those interested and present, the Board finds that said
portion of subject plat is held in fee simple ownership by
the applicants, that all back taxes on the subject property
have been paid to date, and that vacation of the subject
portion of the plat will not affect the ownership or right
of convenient access of persons owning other parts of Old
Sugar Mill Estates Unit Two subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. That portion of the plat of Old Sugar Mill Estates
Unit Two subdivision designated and described as,
Begin at the southwest corner of Lot 6, Old Sugar Mill
Estates, Unit 2 as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 62,
of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
Thence north 891 06' 01" east, a distance of 185.02
feet, thence north 0° 53' 59" west, a distance of 87.52
feet to the intersection of 49th Avenue and 13th Place,
as shown on said plat of Sugar Mill Estates, Thence due
west, a distance of 195.00 feet; thence due west, a
distance of 123.60 feet; thence north 74° 05' 41" west,
a distance of 175.92 feet; thence south 0° 53' 59"
east, a distance of 299.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGIN-
NING. This described area includes Lots 6, 7, and 8 of
said plat and approximately 2 acres of land, lying
wholly in Indian River County, Florida,
is hereby vacated and said property is hereby returned
to unplatted acreage, pursuant to the authority vested
in the Board by F.S. 177.101(3).
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be
forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the
date of adoption hereof; and
3. The clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes 177.101 in the Official Record Books of Indian
River County without undue delay
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being
52
LIAR 27 1985 BOOK C0 P'9 F'50
MAR 2 7 1985®®
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Ave
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Maggy Bowman Ave
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Ave
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 27th day of
March , 1985
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN,-4IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B. L
,
C
Attest:..=l �Q)
,FREDA WRIGHT, lerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNT OF INDIAN RIVER
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an
officer duly authorized in this State and County to take
acknowledgments, personally appeared PATRICK B. LYONS and
FREDA WRIGHT, as Chairman of the Board of County Commission-
ers and Clerk, respectively, to me known to be the persons
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and
they acknowledged before me that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County sand
State last aforesaid this day of A.D.
1985.
W
Notary ublic
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
APPROVED TO RM AND LEGAL BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UNQ $
SUFFICI CY (yY. COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 0. 1986
BY:
Attorney
` 53
t.
DISCUSSION RE POSSIBLE MOVE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT TO 18th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (BREVARD COUNTY)
Attorney Brandenburg explained that he has recently learned
of an attempt by Seminole County to modify certain judicial
circuits by moving Seminole County -from the 18th Judicial Circuit
to the 9th Judicial Circuit. Part of this plan involves moving
Indian River County out of the 19th Judicial Circuit to join
Brevard County. The County Attorney felt such a move would be
disastrous because Brevard County is much larger in area and
population as compared to Indian River County, and it would
result in the population of Brevard County electing our judges.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously resolved
to object to any plan removing Indian River County
from the 19th Judicial Circuit and 4th District Court
of Appeals and instructed the County Attorney to notify
the State Supreme Court of our opposition.
DISCUSSION RE REAPPOINTMENTS TO CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
The Board considered reappointing Robert W. Knight, Joseph
Garone, and James W. Young to the Code Enforcement Board.
Commissioner Scurlock objected to automatic reappointments,
and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the members are
appointed by category.
Chairman Lyons suggested that the matter be tabled until the
next meeting to allow the County Attorney to prepare some
guidelines on the problems being experienced by the Code
Enforcement Board.
MAR 2 7 1985
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously tabled
this item until the next meeting.
54
i
BOOK 60
BOOK 6 0 PAGE E353
The several bills and accounts against the County having
been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved-
and
pprovedand warrants issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury
Fund Nos. 16771 - 16926 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 duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:20 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
I 55
W
_I