HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/3/1985Wednesday, April 3, 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,
April 3, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B.
Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also
present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary
Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners;
Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy
Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend John Few, Christ Methodist by the Sea, gave the
invocation, and Administrator Wright led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Bowman wished to add to today's agenda a
presentation to the Employee of the Quarter.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to add authorization for
out -of -county travel for himself to attend a Waste Recycling
Seminar.
Commissioner Wodtke requested the addition of approval of
out -of -county travel so -that he could attend the Annual Hurricane
Conference.
The Administrator suggested that these items be added under
the Consent Agenda. -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
added the above items to today's agenda.
APR 3 1985
yrs
i
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOOK U0
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 13,
1985. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
March 13, 1985, as written.
EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER
Chairman Lyons announced that it gave him great pleasure to
present a plaque and check to the Indian River County Employee of
the Quarter. The Chairman felt this is very important because
the work of the County and our relations with the people of the
County depends on our employees and their dedication to their
jobs.
Chairman Lyons called forward A. D. Brown of the Road 8
Bridge Department; presented him with a plaque and a check for
$50.00; and congratulated him on his good work.
Mr. Brown expressed his thanks to the Commission, his
department head, and his fellow employees.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. Renewal Applications for Concealed Firearms Permits
The Board reviewed memo from the Administrator, as follows:
4
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 20, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Renewals
REFERENCES:
The following individuals have applied for pistol permit
renewals through the Clerk's Office:
Andrew W. Offutt
Reedy B. Strickland
Bill C. Law
James P. White
Roscoe O. Whiddon
Duke Newcome
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in
order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
renewal applications for a Permit to carry a Con-
cealed Firearm for the following:
Andrew W._Offutt James P. White
Reedy B. Strickland Roscoe O. Whiddon
Bill C. Law Duke Newcome
B. New Application for Concealed Firearms Permit
The Board reviewed memo of the Administrator, as follows:
k1
APR 1
BOOK 01 r�, SSS J
BOOK 60°.E'
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 20, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: pistol Permit - New
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:"
County Administrator
The following applicant has applied for a new pistol permit
through the Clerk's Office:
J. Arlington Myers
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are
in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Application for a Permit to Carry a Concealed
Firearm for:
CONSENT AGENDA
J. Arlington Myers
A. Approval Deputy Appointments of Sheriff Dobeck
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously author-
ized the Chairman's signature on the following deputy
appointments made by Sheriff Dobeck:
Michael T. Dean
Michael K. Jacobs
Paul D. Finney
William C. Poole
Karrie L. Spooner
B. Community Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation Program
Funding -Agreement
The Board reviewed recommendation of Edward Regan, Executive
Director of the Indian River County Housing Authority:
4
s
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 22, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
Through: Michael Wright
County Administrator
FROM: Edward J. 1 egan
Executive irector
IRC Housing Authority
SUBJECT: Community Services Block Grant
Housing Rehabilitation Program
Funding Agreement
REFERENCES:
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the County Commission.
Description and Conditions:
The State of Florida's Department of Community Affairs announced in
their letter of February 28, 1985, that our application for the April 1,
1985 through September 30, 1985 Community Services Block Grant (C.S.B.G.)
funding cycle has been accepted. They have forwarded a copy of the
Department's Contract for execution by the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners. Our pro -rated share of the State's allocation is
$6,295. The Indian River County Housing Authority is the non-profit
subgrantee for the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners.
The program covered under this grant will provide rehabilitation consult-
ing services which will activate rehabilitation funding from other
government sources.
The Farmers Home Administration's Section 504 Housing Program pro-
vides rehabilitation funds`in the form of (1) low-interest loans,
(2) loans and grants, and (3) grants to the low-income elderly. There
are approximately 815 owner -occupied substandard housing - units suitable
for rehabilitation in Indian River County. Low-income and elderly
families lack the money to make their homes safe and sanitary.
This program will be targeted in one of the oldest minority areas
known as Old Oslo Park. There are 83 units, most of which are sub-
standard and 60 units are owner -occupied. 'We will.assist 15 low-income
elderly owners in bringing their homes up to safe and sanitary conditions.
Alternatives and Analysis: m
This is our third funding cycle under legislation passed by Congress
which consolidated various social programs into the block grant categories
for the administration by the State and Local Government, and funds not
applied for from the Community Services Block Grant Program will be
redistributed among counties that make application.
Recommendation and Funding:
We respectfully request the County Commission to.authorize its Chair-
man to execute the Community Services Block Grant Program Agreement with
the Ctate of Florida's Department of Community Affairs.
This program will bring about improvements in safety and sanitation
for 15 homeowners. The average cost of improvements will be approximately
$2,900 per unit. The $6,295 Grant plus $1,842 of cash and in-kind contri-
butions by the Housing Authority would be supplemented with about $45,000
in loans and grants from the Farmers Home Administration.
This program requires no additional County Funds.
- J BOOK QQ F��.GE o�
APR 3 �9�
BOOK M CA OP
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously author-
ized the Chairman to execute the Community Services
Block Grant Program Agreement with the Department of
Community Affairs.
(Said Agreement, Application, etc., are on file in the
Office of the Clerk.)
C. Permission to Expend Monies from Landfill Renewal & Replace-
ment Account
The Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utility Director:
TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: March 25, 1985 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. Pinto SUBJECT: PERMISSION TO EXPEND
Utility Service MONIES FROM THE LANDFILL
Director RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
ACCOUNT
FROM: Josep A. Baird REFERENCES: Attachments:
Assistant Utility Director 1)Letter dated 3/08/85
2)Letter dated 3/12/85
Pe t,Baekle ,, sehi,b, _s Torn; .,n
DESCRIPTIONS:
We are requesting permission to expend monies from the Renewal
and Replacement fund to pay for overhauling the 623 Elevated
Scraper and purchase a new 1/2 ton pickup. The overhauling of
the 623 pan is estimated at 66,000.00 and the purchase of the
truck is about $7,500.00.
The consulting engineers, Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan,
Inc., have already given approval of the above expenditures from
the Renewal and Replacement account.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the expenditure of the above items from Renewal and
Replacement monies.
2. Disapprove the expenditure of the above items from Renewal
and Replacement monies.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve the expendi-
tures from the Renewal and Replacement fund.
6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
expenditures from the Landfill Renewal and Replace-
ment Fund as set out in the above memo.
D. Preliminary Plat Approval - Oslo Ridge Subdv__(Lawhon)
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 22, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL FOR OSLO
RobertM. KeatirK7AICP RIDGE SUBDIVISION
Planning & Development Director
YY\,THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
,��JJJJ Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: E. Stan Boling �, �. REFERENCES: Oslo Ridge
,
Staff Planner DIS:STAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of April 3, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
A formal preliminary plat application for this proposed
subdivision was submitted and accepted by the County on June
11 1983, while the old subdivision ordinance (75-3) was
still in effebt. The new subdivision ordinance (83-24) was
adopted on July 20, 1983. Section 13 of Ordinance No. 83-24
states that "All subdivisions submitted to and accepted by
Indian River County as of the date of adoption of this
ordinance may be reviewed under the provisions of former
Ordinance No. 75-3". This application is being reviewed
under former Ordinance No. 75-3. Therefore the Board of
County Commissioners is the body that considers and may
grant preliminary plat approval for the proposed subdivi-
sion.
Oslo Ridge Subdivision is a proposed 26 lot subdivision
located on the north side of 11th Lane S.W., just west of
Old Dixie Highway. The proposed subdivision is ± 8.67
acres, and is zoned R-1 (Single -Family Residential, up to
6.2 dwelling units per acre). Its land use designation is
LD -2 (Low Density Residential, up to 6 dwelling units per
acre). The proposed building density is ± 3.0 dwelling
units per acre. The subdivision's proposed road is to be
dedicated to the County.
The applicants, James and Charlotte Lawhon, are requesting
preliminary plat approval.
6.-APR P ;; 19085
7
BOOK , PACE 372
APR 3 1985 BOOK 60 N'I,GE373
Thus, all applicable zoning and Ordinance No. 75-3,
subdivision regulations, have been met regarding preliminary
plat approval.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The proposed subdivision is to have public water provided by
the South County Water District. Approval of construction
drawings for the water distribution system and subdivision
improvements is required prior to construction or final plat
approval. The use of individual septic tanks has been
approved by the Environmental Health Division. The subdi-
vision's conceptual drainage plan has been reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Director.
The applicants initiated a petition paving application to
pave 11th Lane S.W. from the project's western boundary to
Old Dixie Highway. The application is complete and has been
verified by the Public Works Division.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
grant preliminary plat approval to Oslo Ridge Subdivision,
subject to the condition that the paving of 11th Lane S.W.
is completed, or the cost of its construction guaranteed by
posted security, prior to final plat approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted
preliminary plat approval to Oslo Ridge Subdivision,
subject to the paving of 11th Lane S.W. being completed
or the cost of its construction guaranteed by posted
security prior to final plat approval.
E._Pay Request #15, 16th Street Improvements - Dickerson, Inc.
The Board reviewed memo and recommendation of the Public
Works Director, as follows:
8
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 22, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT: Pay Request #15 - 16th Street
• Improvements - Dickerson, Inc.
FROM: James W. Davis, P . E . REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Dickerson, Inc., has substantially completed the construction
of the original contract work for the 16th Street project as
well as the work performed under Change Orders 1,2, and 3. The
work began on August 1, 1983, and the time of completion was
510 calendar days or by December 22, 1984.
The only remaining work to be completed under the Original Con-
tract is the construction of 4" thick concrete sidewalk between
24th Avenue and 25th Avenue along 16th Street. The work under
the original contract and Change Order 1-3 was substantially
complete by December 22, 1984.
In October, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $30,131.10 for intersection
improvements at 27th Avenue and 16th Street. At that time,
no time extension was included, and Dickerson, Inc. requested
that this work not affect releasing by the County the loo retain-
age that is being held back on the main contract work and Change
Orders 1 through 3. The Board approved this request in October,
1984 and staff requested the Contractor to proceed with the
work under Change Order No. 4. This work, however, did not
begin until March 20, 1985.
At this time, Dickerson, Inc., is requesting that the County
approve Pay Request No. 15 for the Original Contract work and
work under Change Orders 1 through 3. Also, the 10% retainage
for this work is requested. The total payment requested is
as follows:
Original Contract
$263,795.24
Change Order #1
38,182.08
Change Order #2
.4,562.05
Change Order #3
4,455.61
Total Payment Requested
3 0,994.98
Periodic Payment # 15
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Contractor has submitted four separate pay requests for
the Original Contract work, Change Order #1, Change Order #2,
and Change Order #3.
In reviewing the four subject Pay Requests #15, the Public
Works Division presents the following analysis:
9
APR 3 1985
BOOK 60 tw;F74
ORIGINAL CONTRACT - PAY REQUEST # 15
Original Contract Amount
July 22, 1983
Change Order #1 Decreased the
Original Contract
Change Order #3 Decreased the
Original Contract
ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT
BOOK 60 FnE 37
$ 2,156,097.31
110,572.94
11,894.00
$ 2,033,630.37
ACTUAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE $ 1,877,658.04
as shown on Dickerson's Pay Request
# 15
In reviewing this compensation for the Original Contract work
less deleted work (Change Order 1 and 3), staff recommends the
following:
1) DEDUCT $11,051 FOR SOILS TESTING on the job. This
amount was paid by the County throughout the course
of the project. As per conversation with Jim Widemann
of Dickerson, Inc. on March 21, 1985, this deduction
was approved by Dickerson, Inc.
2) The County Utilities Dept. has billed Dickerson
$1,696.53 for repairing water lines damaged during
construction by J.E. Hill Contractors (a subcon-
tractor). In speaking to Mr. Widemann of Dickerson
on March 21, 1985, a check is being drafted to cover
this work.
Based on the Original Contract work completed to date less the
deductions.from.the Contract per Change.Order-1 and 3, STAFF
RECOMMENDS THAT.$252,744.24 IS.DUE AS FULL.COMPENSATION FOR
THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WORK (THIS INCLUDES THE 10% RETAINAGE).
Change Order #1
a) 20th Avenue North Extension Addition
Net Contract Increase $ 22,466.52
per Change Order #1 dated March 7, 1984
Final Cost per Pay Request #15 23,789.26
This additional cost of $1,322.74 was primarily due to
added sidewalk cost.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT $5,271.65 IS DUE FOR THIS WORK WHICH
INCLUDES 10% RETAINAGE.
b) Parking Lot at Recreation Fields
Net Contract Increase $127,660.75
per Change Order #1 dated March 7, 1984
Final Cost per Pay Request #15 $123,593.68
The $4,067.07 savings was due to the need for less sod,
wheel stops, and base material than originally designed.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT $15,892.62 IS DUE FOR THIS WORK
WHICH INCLUDES 10% RETAINAGE.
c) Right Turn Lane at 10th Avenue
Net Contract Increase per
Change Order #1 dated March 72 1984 $ 3,842.42
Final Cost per Pay Request #15 $ 3,836.37
10
I
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT $429.15 IS DUE FOR THIS WORK WHICH
INCLUDES loo RETAINAGE.
d) Right Turn Lane - 10th Avenue to End of Job
Net Contract Increase per $ 14,260.12
Change Order #1 dated March 7, 1984
Final Cost Per Pay Request #15 $ 14,337.88
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT $1,503.77 IS DUE FOR THIS WORK WHICH
INCLUDES 10% RETAINAGE.
e) 12th Street at 20th Avenue plus FEC Insurance
Net Contract Increase per $ 3,776.47
Change Order #1 dated March 7, 1984
Final Cost Per Pay Request #15 $ 18,189.44
The Contractor claims that an additional $13,512.90 is
due for driveway construction. It appears that this
quantity was under -estimated by the Engineer or was not
included in the Original Bid package.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT PRIOR TO THE COUNTY PAYING THE
$13,.512.90 OVERAGE, LLOYD AND ASSOCIATES CONFIRMS THIS
REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT $1,571.99 IS DUE THE
CONTRACTOR UNTIL LLOYD AND ASSOCIATES CAN JUSTIFY THE
$13,512.90 OVERAGE. THIS INCLUDES THE 10 RETAINAGE.
Change Order #2
Increase in Contract Amount $ 23,731.61
Change Order #2 dated June 18, 1984
East Bound Lane - Old Dixie to FEC.
Final Cost for Change Order #2 per
Pay Request #15 $ 25,571.21
The Contractor is adding $2,450 for Utility Relocation. The
staff received prices from independent contractors for this
work. Owl and Associates, Inc. contracted with the County in
the amount of,$8,497 to perform this work,. which included
payment to Dickerson's subcontractor ($2000) for installing
PVC sleaves and punccase of materials.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT $2,112.05 IS DUE FOR CHANGE ORDER #2
UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEER CAN JUSTIFY THE $2,450
UTILITY RELOCATION. THIS INCLUDES 10% RETAINAGE.
Change Order #3
Contract Increase - $ 62,419.00
Change Order #3 dated August 10, 1984
Final Cost as Per Pay Request # 15 $ 44,556.08
STAFF RECOMMENDS PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,455.61 IS DUE FOR
CHANGE ORDER #3.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
The following payment is recommended for Pay Request #15.
Original Contract
$
252,744.24
Change
Order
1 -
20th Avenue North
5,271.65
Change
Order
1 -
Parking Lot
15,892.62
Change
Order
1 -
Rt Turn Lane -10th Ave. 429.15
Change
Order
1 -
Eastbound lane
1,503.77
Change
Order
1 -
12th St. @ 20th Ave.
1,571.99
Change
Order
2 -
Eastbound lane
2,112.05
Change
Order
3 -
Concrete bikepath
4,455.61
TOTAL PAYMENT RECOMMENDED
-PAY REQUEST #15
283,981.08 _
Funding to be from Account # 307-214-541-35.39.
A P R 11 BOOK 60 ma 376
APR 31985
-
BOOK. U-0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Pay Request #15 to Dickerson, Inc., for 16th Street
Improvements in the total amount of $283,981.08, as
itemized in the above memo.
F. Out -of -County Travel - Waste Recycling Seminar
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -County travel for Commissioner Scurlock to
attend a Waste Recycling Seminar to beheld in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 1-3.
G. Out -of -County Travel - Hurricane Conference
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -County travel for Commissioner Wodtke to
attend the Annual Hurricane Conference to be held
in New Orleans, Louisiana, May 1-3.
CAIN/SCHLITT REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED BY INDIAN
RIVER SHORES
Chief Planner Shearer made the following staff presentation,
recommending approval:
12
TO: The Honorable Members DATE. March 20, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
CAIN/SCHLITT REQUEST
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO REZONE PROPERTY TO
SUBJECT: BE ANNEXED BY INDIAN
r /% RIVER SHORES
Robert M. Keat4ingjj41AICP
Planning & Development Director
FROM: 0 REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer, AICP Cain/Schlitt
Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 3, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Mr. and Mrs. James Cain and Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Schlitt are
requesting to rezone 16 acres located east of Jungle Trail,
west of State Road A -1-A, and approximately 1.5 miles south of
County Road 510 from the County's A, Agricultural District (1
unit/5 acres), to the Town of Indian River Shore's R-lA,
Single -Family District (up to 2.75 units/acre).
This property is part of a 45 acre parcel which is located
partially in the Town and partly in the County. The applicants
are requesting that the Town annex the 16 acres of the parcel
lying in the County.and are requesting the County's permission
to allow the Town to assign its R-lA zoning to this parcel.
The Board of County Commissioners must approve an increase in
allowed density of property annexed into a municipality for a
period of two years following the annexation. This request was
referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommenda-
tion, and on March 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
The applicants intend to develop the property for a 4
single-family subdivision and have submitted a preliminary plat
to the Town and to the County for review.
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 consists of an old citrus grove and
undeveloped land. All of the land around the subject property
is undeveloped.
Future Land Use Pattern
The County's Comprehensive Plan
as LD -1, Low -Density Residential
proposed rezoning to the Indian
(allowing up to 2.75 units/acre)
LD -1 land use designation.
13
designates the subject property
1 (up to 3 units/acre). The
River Shores R-lA zoning
is in conformance with the
Boos 60 Fr{. E 378
Transportation System
BOQK 60 f,; r 379
The subject property has direct access to Jungle Trail
(classified as a Scenic Road), and the subdivision will have
direct access to State Road A -1-A (classified as an arterial
street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of
the subject property could generate up to 320 average annual
daily trips.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. However, approximately one-half of the subject
property is in an A-9 Flood Hazard Zone (Elevation 6) which
designates areas within the 100 year floodplain. In addition,
approximately five acres of the subject property contains a
mangrove marsh.
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 felt this is a different action than we have
been asked to take before. Normally a place is annexed first and
then the question of the zoning comes up as to whether we will
waive the two year rule.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that, in essence, this is asking
the County to waive that rule.
Chairman Lyons felt this is sort of like a contract, and, in
effect, we are saying we rezone this.
Attorney Brandenburg clarified that we are only saying if it
is annexed and if they wish to rezone it, we will not object.
There is no contract on it, and we are not guaranteeing that
rezoning. If the Board indicates that they have no objection, he
believed the requirements of the statute have been met.
The County Attorney felt the Commission also should be aware
that the applicant has applied for a realignment of Jungle Trail
together with a proposal to do some minor stabilization, and this
matter will be scheduled for the next Board meeting.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that the title on this memo
says "Request to Rezone," but actually we are not rezoning. He
14
wished it affirmed that we are only saying we have no objections
as long as this land is utilized in the LD -1 category.
Director Keating agreed the memo probably should have been
titled differently.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the impact on Jungle
Trail and the Town setbacks.
Planner Shearer felt they are the same as in our new RS -3;
the Town's R -1A, however, will require a 15,000 sq. ft. minimum
lot size whereas RS -3 only requires 12,000. He believed the Town
has taken action to acquire additional setbacks along Jungle
Trail.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that when the County realigned
Jungle Trail for Florida Land Co., it was done based on a 50'
setback, in which there could only be plantings, fences or walls
- no structures, and the applicant, has agreed to the same type
of setback.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if Florida Land has started
stabilization, and the Attorney did not know, but noted that they
have bonded this off.
Commissioner Lyons and Commissioner Bowman had questions
about the enclaves and the actual boundaries of the Town of
Indian River Shores.
Planner Shearer confirmed that there are a large amount of
enclaves in this area, probably over 100 acres. He believed this
was set up when the Town originally established its boundaries.
Everyone agreed it was very confusing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner. Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation and agreed to waive any
objection to the proposed rezoning of said property
by the Town of Indian River Shores.
15
APR 1985 BCOX L c;.
APR 3 1935 BOOK GO
COUNTY_INITIATED_REZONING 75 ACRES TO C-2 - E. OF OLD DIXIE 6 N.
OF OSLO RD.
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:
VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero'Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of Aidd a ,yu:r
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. r ,
Sworn to and subscribe
(SEAL)
day oV2"�VA.D. 19
txql
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River
16
, Florida)
NOTidC- PUsuc HEARiNn
Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River
County to consider the adoption of a County or-
dinance rezoning land from 0-1,- Commercial
District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. The
subject property is located south of the South
ReUef Canal, ..east of Old Dixie Highway
(C.R:605), west ;of F.E.C.. Railroad and %, mile
north of Oslo Road (9th St. SW/C.R.606).
The'subject props is described. as
All that portion of tion 19. Township
33S, Range 40E, and. Sections. l3 and
24, Township 33S, Range 39E, Indian ;
River, County, Florida, lying east of the
easterly right=of-way line of the Old Dixie
Highway, south of the south right-of-way.
tine of the South Relief Canal, west of the
westerly right-of-way line of the Florida
East Coast Railroad and north of the .
northerly property line of a certain prop,
erty desdribed In' Official Record Book
697, Page 1553 Of the Public Records of
Indian River County,;Florida
LESS, HOWEVER, the following de-
scribed parcels of
Parcel#1 LESS AND EXCEPT the following de-
scribed property: The West 186' of the,,.
`':- East 2S8' of the West 444.46' of the SE'A
of the SEI/'of Section. 13, Township 338
Range 39E lying north of the north right
of -way. of First Street: and' south- of the
southright-of-way, of the South '. Relief
Canai, being more particularly described
as beginning at the SW corner of the
SE'/e of tie, SEy4 of.Section.13. Townshippth`
33S. Range 39E; thence' . run nor':
770.71' to the north right-of-way of said,
First Street; thence run east along said
" north right-of-way a distance of 148.46'.,
to the right
of Beginning, thence con-{
tinue east a distance of 186.0; thence
run north a distance of 323:65' to the
south right-of-way of. said Sduth Relief:;
Canal; thence run'southwesterly along$,;.
said canal right-of-way a distance of
193.52'; then run south a distance of
269.50' to the Point of Beginning. Said:
land lying and being In Section 13,''
Township 33S flange 39E� in Indian
"lilm.County Fid de:
Pared- 02 From the SW'ddmerof the SE'/. of the
SE'/,' of Section`?A% ,Township33S, -
Range 39E: run east o>? : the south ;•.
740.93' to a Point. of. Beginning From :
said Point of Beginning run horth 0*11� I
west on a Ii parallel to the west boUn'd :
ary, Of Said SE'/a pf srz% a-distanos bt"'1
700.71' to the south Iine of a proposed -,t
70' road right-of-way: Thence run east ;
on a line parallel to the south boundary^'
of said Section- 13 a distance of 100' to.
the wast right-of-way of the Florida Fest
Coast Railroad. Thence run south 12966'
east ;along said railroad rioht-of-way a
distance of 720.19' to.the intersection of
the: south line of said Section 13. Thence. r
run west on said section line a distance: '
". of 260.82' 'to' said Point of Beginning +;i
Containing 2.9 -acres more or less Said" l
r land lying' and being in Indian River,•
county Florida.
4 ,
Parcel #R3 The East 330'• (as measured on the
South property line) of the following de
.`scribed property: ALL"that part lying-:,
West of the right-of-way'of the Florida':
East Coast Railway of the North 10 acres_
of the NE'/. of the NE%, of Section 24;
Township. 33S, Range 39E. Said land
lying and being in Indian River County,_
Florida
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners oflndian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street,' Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday. April
3, 1985, at 9:15 A.M
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 verbs-
fim record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -a- Patrick B Lyons
Chairman
March 14, 26, 1985.
-I
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as
follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 19, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
COUNTY -INITIATED
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REQUEST TO REZONE 75
SUBJECT: ACRES FROM C-1, COM-
MERCIAL DISTRICT, TO
Robert M. Keat' g, Y1CP C-2, HEAVY COMMERCIAL
Planning & Development Director DISTRICT
lzs
FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP FERENCES: ZC-120 Memo
Chief, Long -Range Planni�CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 3, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to rezone
approximately 75 acres located south of the South Relief Canal,
west of the F.E.C.-Railroad, east of Old Dixie Highway, and
approximately 1/4 mile north of Oslo Road from C-1, Commercial
District, to C-2, Heavy Commercial District.
Since July of 1984, the Board of County Commissioners has
approved three requests north of the subject property to rezone
approximately 31 acres of land from C -1A, Restricted Commercial
District; C-1, Commercial District; and M-1, Restricted
Industrial District.; to C-2, Heavy Commercial District. In
December, the Board of County Commissioners approved a request
to rezone 1.27 acres of land (surrounded on three sides by the
subject property) from C-1 to C-2. At that time, the Board
directed the staff to study this area to determine if
additional property should be rezoned to C-2.
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 includes warehouses, auto repair
facilities, a landscaping service, Rices Marina, two Pest
control businesses, several trade contractors, a mobile home
park, four mobile homes on lots, about one dozen single-family
residences, and approximately 50 acres of undeveloped land.
North of the subject property, across the South Relief Canal,
17
APR 3 191U05 BOOK PACE382
BOOK 60 F'V1JE18'
is a mobile home park zoned R-1MP, Mobile Home Park District,
and mini -warehouses and contractors' trade buildings zoned C-2.
East of the subject property is the Dickerson, Inc., asphalt
plant, the F.E.C. railroad, and undeveloped land zoned M-1.
Further east, across U.S. Highway 1, is Vista Royale. South of
the subject property is a retail/office development under
construction. West of the subject property, across Old Dixie
Highway, are single-family residences, a church, and undeveloped
land zoned R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6 units/acre),
and R -2D, Multiple -Family District (up to 6 units/acre).
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property, and all
of the land immediately adjacent to it, as part of the U.S.1
MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). East of the
subject property, across U.S.1, is land designated as MD -2,
Medium -Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre). West of
the subject property, 300 feet west of Old Dixie Highway, is
land designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6
units/acre) ..
The U.S.1 Mixed -Use Corridor allows residential, commercial, or
industrial uses which will be regulated by the zoning
ordinance. However, the Comprehensive Plan states that the
U.S.1 MXD area will be devoted primarily to commercial and
industrial land uses and that zoning will be established based
on the predominant land use pattern. Most of the land on the
east side of Old Dixie Highway from State Road 60 to the County
line is developed in heavy commercial and light industrial land
uses. The subject property contains a number of heavy
commercial uses. Based on the existing land use pattern, the
C-1 zoning no longer seems appropriate for the subject
property.
The C-1 zoning district is a general commercial district which
is designed to provide for a wide range of office, retail, and
support commercial uses. The C-1 zoning district is not
appropriate for the subject property for two reasons. The
first reason is because of the existing land use pattern which
includes heavy commercial uses (such as warehousing and auto
repair facilities) which should be located in the C-2 zoning
district. The second reason is that because the C-1 district
allows such a wide range of retail uses, the traffic attracted
to the retail development allowed on the subject property under
C-1 zoning would significantly over -burden the transportation
system in this area.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Old Dixie Highway
(classified as a secondary collector street on the Thoroughfare
Plan) and to 1st Street, 5th Avenue, 5th Court, 6th Avenue, and
4th Place SW (all classified as local streets). The maximum
development of the subject property under C-2 zoning would
attract up to 4,050 average annual daily trips (AADT). The
maximum development of the subject property under the existing
C-1 zoning could attract more than 19,800 AADT. Old Dixie
Highway currently carries 7200 AADT in this area and has a
capacity of 10,000 AADT at upper level -of -service "C".
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that all of the
subject property be rezoned to C-2.
18
TR3)
I
N�1 e
--, --�� -
5 ; ` 4. , 1
. 'al
P
' 7NU ST
UNIT I
I
16 3
R-1
ST. SW — =
..xMr
R
G
F lwN�`
U
1ST ST
i�. �•. W
.• ;.� r
I•
15 14 v ISI t 9 �9 6 "'
W
a = sl ,'c\\UNIT a —
r e
= P rI .:y\ r.
m UNIT a� ;v� iO ARI AN
11 79 A
1I 10 CIR E
41n PL SW
-• -:- -, - IE GA
2 NIT 4 ?}
TR.1I • �-• -- •-- � I
DIXIE G ROEN5
STn P Sw "
- Sec.
STni—I —�N�T 3 I Sec.l �� •-�1
STr„ P. yw i
ec. 3 -- -
2- ----
2
—. .. ,
LA s
s 'I
s
R 2D 1 -
rn i ►`� I
IXId !GARIPE
TTrn LA
IUN: IT 2
C-1
APR 31985 '
OSLO R D. 9th ST SW
r
it
SOL Ants T . 59
•'.ATSA .' s�
7A ATrtMT PLANT
C
torraour► AntA
i
.4 �J* corrtllclAl.. Ant&
1 GOV. LOT 5
SEE ENL
1 yt�1 �
—TH FL. So
nl�
4 i
. �+..yam' •�
GOLF
� ! ;• 2
•AtA r VISTA R"I.
3 . C0N00.
s PyOiE 1
R-2-'"
-0vo.._
10
12 14 d
! Is
1a
r
2530
•
BOOK 60 P',GE 385
Planner Shearer explained that three parcels were left out
of the legal description; the 1.72 parcel is already zoned C-2,
and the other two are part of the Dickerson plant which is
presently zoned M-1.
It was noted that the following letter was received,
expressing the concerns of the Vista Royale residents about
access to U.S.I:
April 1, 1985 4%
ista
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Gentlemen:
Re: Reg. Meeting 4/3/85
Royale
In your meeting scheduled for April 3rd, Item'#9, under Public Hearings,
a request to rezone 75 acres East of Old Dixie to U. S. #1, from 1st
Street to 7th Street S. W. from C-1 Commercial District to C-2, Heavy
Commercial District, is of interest to Vista Royale residents, and our
Home Owners Association.
We are concerned over the nearness of the area to U. S. #1, which our
residential property abuts. Heavy Commercial could produce sounds, odors,
and heavy traffic that could reduce the quality and desirability of our
project area.
Will you please consider the restriction of the use of the area between
the R/W of U. S. #1, and the R/W of the Florida East Coast Railroad?
This area, or strip, is very narrow and has access only from the North
and South ends. This restriction seems economically feasible from the
access standpoint and would move future development approximately 300
feet West of U. S. #1 highway.
Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated by the
residents of Vista Royale and will help avoid resulting use conflicts
between commercial and residential areas.
An advice of your action will be awaited.
Sincerely,
7
MARY A. KENNELLY, President
CHARLES C. SAVILLE, Secretary
VISTA ROYALE ASSOCIATION, INC.
400 Woodland Drive • Vero Beach, Florida 32960 • Telephone 569-1433
20
Chairman Lyons inquired whether a private driveway can go
across the railroad tracks, and Administrator Wright stated that
to get an additional F.E.C. crossing is extremely difficult; if
the County can't get one, he felt it would be impossible for an
individual to do so.
Commissioner Bird believed what is proposed is consistent
with what the Vista Royale Association is requesting. The
property being considered is all west of the railroad right-of-
way, and he believed the area'of greatest concern to them is
between the railroad and U.S.1. He did hope that we can stay
ahead of that situation by working with the owners of that
property when it is developed to assure we don't have multiple
access to U.S.1.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Ordinance 85-28
rezoning approximately 75 acres south of the South
Relief Canal, west of the F.E.C. Railroad , east of
Old Dixie and north of Oslo Road to C-2.
Commissioner Wodtke asked whether any thought was given to
changing the C-1 zoning of the residential area which has quite a
few homes in it to a residential type zoning.
Planner Shearer explained that the reason they didn't do so
is that it is a relatively small area (about a block), and it
would be surrounded on all sides by commercial; there are
commercial establishments scattered among the residences; and in
addition, a number of the people are operating businesses out of
21
APP 3 1985 BOOK U 0 P,,GE38
Boos APR 3 0 F�r�cF `�8
i995
these residences which are not customarily home occupations. If
we rezoned to residential, they would be non -conforming. He
further estimated that more than half of these lots are either
undeveloped or in commercial use. A number of them are mobile
homes, and staff could not assign a mobile home category because
that requires 20 acres.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 85-28
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River. County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
All that portion of Section 19, Township 33S, Range 40E,
and Sections 13 and 24, Township 33S, Range 39E, Indian
River County, Florida, lying east of the easterly right-of-
way line of the Old Dixie Highway, south of the south
right-of-way line of the South Relief Canal, west of the
westerly right-of-way line of the Florida East Coast Rail-
road and north of the northerly property line of a certain
property described in Official Record Book 697, Page 1553
of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
LESS, HOWEVER, the following described parcels of land:
Parcel #1 LESS AND EXCEPT the following described proper-
ty:
The West 186' of the East 296' of the West 444.46' of the
SE4 of the SE4 of Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E
lying north of the north right-of-way of First Street and
south of the south right-of-way of the South Relief Canal,
being more particularly described as beginning at the SW
corner of the SE4 of the SE4 of Section 13, Township 33S,
22
� � r
Range 39E; thence run north 770.71' to the north right-of-
way of said First Street; thence run east along said north
right-of-way a distance of 148.46' to the Point of Begin-
ning; thence continue east a distance of 186.01; thence
run north a distance of 323.65' to the south right-of-way
of said South Relief Canal; thence run southwesterly along
said canal right-of-way a distance of 193.521; thence run
south a distance of 269.50' to the Point of Beginning.
Said land lying and being in Section 13, Township 33S,
Range 39E, in Indian River County, Florida.
Parcel #2 From the SW corner of the SE4 of the SE4 of
Section 13, Township 33S, Range 39E, run east on the south
boundary of said section a distance of 740.93' to a Point
of Beginning. From said Point of Beginning run north
0011' west on a line parallel to the west boundary of said
SE4 of SE4 a distance of 700.71' to the south line of a
proposed 70' road right-of-way. Thence run east on a line
parallel to the south boundary of. said Section 13 a
distance of 100' to the west right-of-way of the Florida
East Coast Railroad. Thence run south 12°58' east along
said railroad right-of-way a distance of 720.19' to the
intersection of the south line of said Section 13. Thence
run west on said section line a distance of 260.82' to
said Point of Beginning. Containing 2.9 acres more or
less. Said land lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida.
Parcel #3 The East 330' (as measured on the South property
line) of the following described property: ALL that part
lying West of the right-of-way of the Florida East Coast
Railway to the North 10 acres of the NE4 of the NE4, of
Section 24, Township 33S, Range 39E. Said land lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from C-1, Commercial District, to C-2, Heavy
Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 3rd day of April
1985.
BOARD 0 UNT
OF I IAN VE
Y:
goL-
I B:,
Chairman
23
'LAPR 3 11985
Y COMMISSIONERS
R COUNTY
BOOK Vo F'aGF
APR 31995 F.
c�
COUNTY -INITIATED AMENDMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - MINIMUM
STANDARDS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. hawing 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
i ';_ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING`,
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
ADOPTtoni of a CoDERT ORDINANCE '
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
AMENDINGTHETEXTOFTHELAND USE .'
ELEMENT.OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Notice is hereby given that. the Indian River
��
County Board of County Commissioners. shall
a
hold a public hearing, at which' parties In interest
and citizens shall have an oppportunity to be
heard,'In •the' County Commisslon: Chambers of
in the matter o
the County Administration Building, located• at
1840 25th Street,. Vero Beach,, Florida, on,Wed-
nesday; April 3, 1985,'at 9;15a.m. to consider
the adoption of a County Ordinance entltled;
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF •.r'
i;,•.AN
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN'Z
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of WM,*J /0,(
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 ore a thi day ofihaA.D. 19q2rd 2-
�zulps Ijag
,3•
" (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, da)
(SEAL) ,
„ ;. PERTAINING TID ESTABLISHING, THE,- -:
.MINIMUM STANDARD TO BE USED TO
-DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT FU -
TORE ,DEVELOPMENT EFFICIENTLY_?
USES,THE %TRANSPORTATION sY.3-
"., TEM; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE•
DATE,
It any parson decides to appeal any decision
on the above mattes., he/she will need a record
of the proceedings, and•for such purposes, he/-
she may need, to ensure that $ verbatim record
of the proceedings is made, which includes testi.:
b ony and ievidence upon which the appeal Is
Indian River County
Board of County ,ommistsioners
BY: =s- Patrick B. Lyons ,
Chairman
March 14628,;.1985
Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the staff recommendation, as
follows:
24
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 19, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO AMEND THE COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR
SUBJECT: MINIMUM STANDARDS TO
Robert M. Keats g, 64CP DETERMINE EFFICIENCY OF
Planning & Development Director THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
FROM: 9lchard shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Min. standards
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 April 3, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County has initiated a request to amend the text of the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to establish a
minimum standard of service to be maintained on the County's
transportation system. No development project which would
create such an impact that this standard would not be met could
be approved by the County.
This amendment request is a result of a provision in the
Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan which recommended
that the County amend the Comprehensive Plan to indicate that
Level -of -Service "C" should be the standard for average annual
daily traffic and that Level -of -Service "D" should be the
standard for peak season traffic. -
On February 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The staff has prepared a proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to specifically set the level-o.f-service
standards in the Plan. The Plan currently contains general
language which sets level -of -service "C" as an objective and
prohibits development that would result in traffic that could
not meet Level -of -Service "D". The proposed amendment would
more clearly specify the standards for average annual daily
traffic and peak season traffic. In addition, the proposed
amendment requires that existing traffic, the proposed
project's traffic, and committed traffic from previously
approved projects will be used to determine level -of -service.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
25
BOOK 60 Fl.CF 390
I
600,x. 60 [;'u-191
Commissioner Bird asked how the adoption of this would
change the way we presently approve or disapprove projects.
Director Keating stated that it will not really change it at
all because right now we have level of service "C" and level of
service "D" in the Plan, and staff has been interpreting that a
project cannot degrade the system below level of service "D" at
peak season, which is consistent with the way it is now. This is
just more specific.
Commissioner Bowman asked for a brief explanation of the
various Levels of service.
Planner Shearer explained that "C" is the last category
where you maintain stable flow. "A" is the best; "B" has slight
interruptions; but when you get to Level "D," you start having
some delays to the point that are really annoying.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 85-29 amending the Comprehensive Plan re
establishing the minimum standard to determine efficient
use of the Transportation System by future development.
26
I"
ORDINANCE # 85 - 29
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
PERTAINING TO ESTABLISHING THE MINIMUM STANDARD
TO BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT EFFICIENTLY USES THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
SECTION 1
Page 21 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
is hereby amended to read as follows:
OBJECTIVE - Maintain Level -of -Service "C", or better, on all
major thoroughfares in the County.
STANDARD - The minimum aeeegtab�e-theretghae-�e*o*e�-e-se�ee
shall-lie-level-a€-Servlee-B standard to be used to determine
whether or not future development efficiently uses the trans-
portation system shall be Level -of -Service "C" on an annual
basis and Level -of -Service "D" for peak season traffic.
Proposed projects shall not greeeed-whieh-sigmifieastly-impaet
a-mdjer-thereughfare be approved by the County when existing
traffic, the proposed -projects' traffic and beekgreumel commit-
ted traffic on that existing major thoroughfares do not meet
Level -of Service "C" on an annual basis and Level -of -Service
"D" during the peak season. In determining the effects of a
proposed development on levels -of -service on a major thorough-
fare, the following areas shall be evaluated:
1) Traffic characteristics and levels -of -service of
existing major thoroughfares directly affected by
the proposed project;
2) Trip generation and origin -destination projections
for the proposed project;
3) The impacts of the proposed project on affected major
thoroughfares;
4) Impacts of previously approved projects affecting the
same major thoroughfares as the proposed project;
CODING: Words in are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
27
1985 BOOK 6 0 FAG
BOOK PGS
5)
The radius
of development
influence;
6)
Effects of
phasing of the
proposed development.
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 3rd day of Anril
1985.
BOARD OF
OF IND14
BY
rATRICK B.- L
Chairman
COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
COUNTY -INITIATED AMENDMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR
BIANNUAL REVIEW OF LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PETITIONS
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:
28
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 VeroBeachin Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
'
in the matter of _-CAUU
in the
Court, 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 bene m1 his _,!13�day ofA�A.D. 19 J&C
(SEAL), k ,
(Clerk of the Circuit
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING",
TOCONSIDER THE
ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE
"AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '
Notice Is, hereby given,that the tridian River -
'County :Board of, County Commissioners shall
hold a publio hearing at which parties In tpterest •,
and, citizens shalt, have err opportunity to be .
heard,, in the County Commission Chambers pf,
the County AdmI01stradon:Building locatsdr, ft
1840 26th Street :Vero Beach, Florida: on,Weq
nesday. April 3,.1886, .at g;16 am- to consider;
the adoption of a' County Ordinance entitled v ,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE •BOARD QF•:4.1%
COUNTY'COMMISSIONERS;OF.INDIAN
RIVER . COUNTY; . FLORIDA AMENDING, •'+
THE TEht,OF THE LAND -'USE EL£ s1r
` MENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
{ NVAL. 1ICYICYY PMU. tY,
LAND USE PLAN AMEM1
TIONS ANb ,PROVIDING
TIVE.DATEJ ;
ff anyperson decides to al
on the, above matter; he/she
of the, proceedings, and forst
she may need to
ensure :that
of the proceedings is made, w
mony and evidence upon -W)
based.
Indian River County+ s
Board of County Comn
By: -s Patrick B Lyon;
Chairman'
March 114.26.49115.;;
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation, as
follows:
29
need a re
purposes:
BOOK 60 Frau,39
r
BOOK 60 F',�CF. 3
TO: The Honorable Members DATEkarch 19, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE
SUBJECT: PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE
BIANNUAL REVIEW OF LAND
Robert M. Keat'ng, ICP USE PLAN AMENDMENT
Planning & Development Director PETITIONS
FROM; ?,� REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer, AICP Biannual Review
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 April 3, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County has initiated a request to amend the text of the Land
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan in order to provide for the
biannual review of land use plan amendment petitions. Presently,
petitions are only accepted for review once a year during January.
On November 19, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend that Comprehensive Plan amendment petitions be
reviewed twice a year.
On December 12, 1984, the Board. of County Commissioners voted
3 -to -1 to accept amendment petitions on a biannual basis.
On February 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
At the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Department has
prepared a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which
would allow land use plan amendment petitions to be submitted
twice a year. Under the proposed amendment, amendment petitions
would be accepted by the County during the months of January and
July.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Nancy Offutt, liaison for the Board of Realtors, informed
the Board that the Realtors support the actions of the County in
initiating the proposed biannual review.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
30
� � r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 85-30 amending the Comprehensive
Plan providing for biannual review of Land Use
Plan amendment petitions.
ORDINANCE # 85 - 30
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE
TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLA14 PERTAINING TO LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR BIANNUAL REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PETITIONS; AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
SECTION 1
Page 18 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
is hereby amended to read as follows:
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS
The County recognizes that urban growth will necessitate
changing land use considerations. The County shall, therefore,
review and evaluate land use amendment petitions eaee twice per
year at-the-begaag-a-eaeh-peas. Amendment petitions shall
be accepted during the months of January and July of each year.
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 3rd day of Anril
1985.
BOARD OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF I IAN RIVER,iCOUNTY
B
ATRICK B. L ONS
Chairman t
® 31
APR 3� 1995 BOOK 60 P J-,13'96
APR 1985 BOOK ;enc ` `
CANCELLATION OF JULY 3RD COMMISSION MEETING
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
TO: Board of County DATE: March 22, 1985 FILE:
Commissioners
FROM: Alice E. White
SUBJECT: July 3 meeting
REFERENCES:
It has come to my attention that two Commissioners need to be away from
Vero Beach on July 3. Inasmuch as there are five Wednesdays in July,
would the Board want to cancel the July 3 Commission meeting, and meet
the last Wednesday, July 31.
Please let me know your thoughts on this matter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
agreed to cancel the Regular Commission meeting
of July 3, 1985.
DISCUSSION RE FLORIDA STATUTE AMENDMENT ALLOWING ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTARY STAMP CHARGE
The Board reviewed the following memo from the OMB Director,
with the Administrator pointing out the second paragraph should
read 54/$100, not 54/$1,000. The other amounts are shown
correctly:
32
I
TO: BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: March 28, 1985 FILE:
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL 5� DOCUMENTARY STAMP ON
REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton REFERENCES:
Budget Officer
The attached record from the Clerks Office shows Documentary Stamp purchases
at the 4W$1,000 from October 1982 to February 1985•
If the proposed tax had been in place, Indian River County would have received
the following increased revenues from the 50$1,000 additional tax:
FY 82-83 $230,000 T
FY 83-84 260,000
FY 84-85 225,000 PROJECTED
This same proposal has been supported before the Florida State Legislator for
the last three years by the Florida Association of Home Builders as an alternative _
to impact fees.
Commissioner Bird believed that this proposal will generate
some public interest, and he felt it should be scheduled for a
later date.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that he personally is a
strong supporter of user fees, but he would have no problem with
getting some public input.
Administrator Wright pointed out that the Board actually
would not be increasing -the charge but merely saying that they
support such an increase.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed
to reschedule discussion regarding a proposed
additional documentary stamp charge for the next
Regular Meeting.
33
BOOK 6 0 P'.111 8
J
APR 3 1985 8 c o K 6 0r.1.�1E999
LA FEVER REQUEST FOR REDESIGNATION TO COMMERCIAL AND APPEAL OF
REZONING DENIAL
The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notices with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter ofJcl�P/%�ll�y/G.
in the Vf� �/ �� -7 / ��/ rryCCourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of XXAUfV /'�'. 0`�1=/ dJ
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.
Sworn to and subscribed bere rt�this y� day of /A.D. 19
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,
34
NOTICE' PUBLICHEARING"
TO AMEND THE .COMPREHENSIVE LAND• USE
. - PLAN „.
Notice of hearingto consider the adoption of
a County Ordinance amending the land Use Ele-
ment' of the Comprehensive Pian by redesignat-
ing land from MD -2; Medium-tlensity.Residential
2 to Commercial:`;The subjerrt property Is pre-
sently .owned by''C.,L LaFevars ;Jr.,.and is lo-
cated north of 4th 'Street ,(Glendale,Road/C.R.
A parcel of lan lying in the SE'A of Sec
Von 12 7o"abip 33S,'Range 39E;mnre
particularly described as taplows ` ( i
Commence at,the SW comer Of tfie SE'h
of said Section -12, Township 33$. Range
- 39E and'run:along the South boundary, .
` line of said Section 12 on a -bearing of.; '
;South 89°53'20" East for a distance of
1303.72 feet to'a point, thence run due
North, for aldistance Of 5000 feet,to the
place and points of beginning
Begin aI,the poini-of beginning and run
due No. along the West right of-wayy of
6th Avenue for a distance of 289.66 feet ,
to a point on the South rig -of way of.
8th Place,thence run along the South
right-of-way of said Sth'Place, on a.bear
Ing of South, 89497'00" west .for a dis ".
tante of 34975 lest to'a point, thence
run South 21-58`50—East tot,a distance
of 311.55 feet to the North right-of-way of ` t'
8th Street,,' thence nm along the North
right-of-way of said 8th Street on a bear =1.,:
Ing of South '89°53'20 East for a dis ;
tance of 233:14 feet,to the place' an4
point of beginning ,
Containing 1.95 acres more or less:"
All lands now lying and being in 'Indian
River County,, Florida-,,,,-!,''
A public hearing at wriich partles1n 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
Counttyy Commission Chambers of the County
Admilstration Building, located at 1840' 25th
Street, Vero Beach. Florida on Wednesday. April
8,1985, at 9:45 A.M
If any person Aecide9'to appeal any decision
made on the above mattir. he/she will needa
record of the proceedings,`and for such pur-
poses, he/she
ur-poses,he/she may need to`ensure that a verbs-
tim record of the proceedings Wmad% *hibh in
'cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based:
Indian River County
Board'of County 66mmisdo4rS
By: -s- Patribk B. Lyons
Chairman ,
March 14, 28„1985.
-I
NOTICE - Pt
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
�, Notice of hearing to <
a County. ordinance rezc
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
tiple-Family District to C
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
The subctPublished
Daily
Wavers Jpand.d.Issi 'loc
ty, Florida, for I period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
(Glendale. ;Roa0/C,R,',61
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
nue. ,
The sub ecl Oroperry
parcel of Iand I*
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
ton. 12,towns C�ip 3
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
prttescribe
aoularly d
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Commence �att as
. • . of said Secti0.1 1)
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
39 and run along
Ilne of said'Seofior
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper ublished
Y 9 YP
South 89°53'20".E
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
",•.1303.724aet to'a p
i CA u Marta
North, tot a oistanc
arlpoints. t
u�
13eeaggi
'thhaio
a —�
duelNorg fh4
(SEAL), � ��
8th .point 6. ad
,'to' a point 'on ,the
in the matter of �/�' �i
8th Place_thenca'
right-p;-way`of ,said
ing'of South 8865•
tapge of':3.49.75::fe
run South 21'58'51
of 311' SS feet.to thi
8th Street,' Thence
In the Court, was pub
-Aght-of *ay of'saic
'lag of South 89`5
�5
�7r,
fence 61-233.14'6
point of
fished- in said newspaper in the issues of o�b �9�5
,-,, J c
Contamin�ga Sac
'Ali., now
lands 1yyin,
fijver CounW. Elgd
The Board, of. Count
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Zoning Commission t�
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
of the rezoning reque
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
which parties irk.intere
an opportunity to be I
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
Board of. County: Com
ty, Florida, for I period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
CBFlorida. Jn
Chambers ottheCoun
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither aid nor promised an
y p p y person, firm
located at t8a4?5th,;
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
onwednesday.Aprif3
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
If any persq decld
made cn fhe' above r
'
Sworn to and subscribe day of _1�y� A.D. 19 �
reeotd.ot` the procee
poses. ,he/she may nc
�foimeh•
tim4ecord of thepros
t
cludes testimony and
_
appeal Is based.
i CA u Marta
T,; :< Indian River CA
Board of Coun
By -s- Patrick
Chairman
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,F da)
�,;
MarchtA25.�885:"
(SEAL), � ��
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation and
recommendation of denial, as follows:
35
HEARING
BOOK 60 m,E 4 U, 0
r
APR 3 1985
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
BOOK 60 P1GE 401
March 22, 1985
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
s
SUBJECT:
Robert -M. Kea ing; AICP
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Z REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FILE:
C. L. LAFEVERS, JR.
REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE
1.95 ACRES FROM MD -2,
TO COMMERCIAL, AND
APPEAL OF PLANNING &
ZONING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF REQUEST TO
REZONE FROM R-2, TO C-1
CPA -023
CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 3, 1985.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Mr. C. L. LaFevers, Jr., the owner, is requesting to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 1.95 acres located at the
northwest corner of 8th Street and 6th Avenue from MD -2,
Medium -Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre), to Com-
mercial, and is appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission's
denial of request to rezone from R-2, Multiple -Family District
(up to 15 units/acre), to C-1, Commercial District.
The applicant owns an additional 3.96 acres of land immediately
west of the subject property which is designated commercial and
zoned C-1.
On February 14, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -1
to recommend that this request to amend the Comprehensive Plan
be denied. The Commission also voted 3 -to -1 to deny this
rezoning request. The Planning and Zoning Commission gave as
their reasons the facts that they felt 6th Avenue was primarily
a residential street, that commercial development should not
extend beyond the 600 foot commercial corridor east of U.S.1 in
this area, and that this property could reasonably be developed
for residential use.
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. North of the subject
property, across 8th Place, is a subdivision containing
single-family dwellings and duplexes which is zoned R-2. East
of the subject property, across 6th Avenue, is a child care
facility, old citrus groves, and two single-family dwellings
zoned R-2. South of the subject property, across 8th Street,
is a single-family residence and undeveloped land zoned R-2 and
C-1. West of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned
C-1.
36
7-7
L
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property, and the
land north, east, and southeast of it, as MD -2, Medium -Density
Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre). The land west and
southwest of the subject property is designated as part of the
U.S.1 Commercial Corridor which extends 600 feet east of U.S.1
between the City of Vero Beach on the north and 4th Street on
the south. The Commercial Corridor was established to reflect
the C-1 zoning district boundary and the existing commercial
development when the Land Use Plan was adopted.
There are two general alternatives for the future development
of the subject property. One alternative is to amend the land
use plan and rezone the property to allow commercial
development of the entire 5.91 acre parcel. The other
alternative is to leave the subject property (1.95 acres) as
MD -2 and zoned multiple -family to be developed in residential
uses and allow the remaining part of the parcel (3.96 acres) to
develop commercially.
Alternative 1
Under the first alternative, the subject property would be
redesignated as commercial on the land use plan and rezoned
commercial. Redesignating the subject property as commercial
would deviate from the 600 foot depth of the commercial
corridor. This deviation would encourage other property owners
east of the commercial corridor to apply for a commercial land
use designation and would encourage strip commercial develop-
ment along 6th Avenue which is currently a residential street.
This alternative will also allow for development of a use which
is incompatible with the existing single-family use to the
north, and it will create additional traffic on 6th Avenue, a
secondary collector roadway which already carries a heavy
volume of traffic.
Alternative 2
The second alternative is to leave the property designated
residential and zoned for multi -family development. Based on
the size of the property (1.95 acres), the current land use
designation and zoning would allow 19 multiple -family units.
The development of 19 multiple -family units on the subject
property would be a reasonable use of the property based on the
existing single-family and duplex development north and east of
the subject property and the potential commercial• development
of the land to the west.
Transportation System:
The subject property has direct access to 6th Avenue and 8th
Street (both classified as secondary collector streets on the
Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject
property under the proposed C-1 zoning could attract up to
1,862 average annual daily trips (AADT). When combined with
the commercial property to the west, the entire site could
attract 5,626 AADT. Under the current zoning, development of
the subject property would generate 133 AADT and development of
the parcel to the west would attract 3,764 AADT.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
37 BOCK
APS 33 1985 40 -2
-I
APR 3 1985 BOOK 60 F,1.^E 403
r,+. , i ; +. ; -
County water is available for the subject property. A force
main sewer may be extended to serve property directly east of
the subject property in the near future. However, there is
inadequate capacity in the County's wastewater allocation to
serve the subject property at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the existing land use
pattern, the fact that the subject property could accommodate
19 dwelling units under the current zoning, and the Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that
the subject property not be redesignated as Commercial and that
it not be rezoned to C-1, Commercial District.
Planner Shearer noted that this property -is quite unique in
that it runs 900' along 8th Street from U.S.1 on the west to 6th
Avenue on the east. It has been cleared recently, and the
applicant wishes to develop it with retail stores. Staff did not
feel it was appropriate to deviate from the 600' depth of
commercial because of the residences in the area.
Commissioner Scurlock believed this property has a potential
substantial impact on 6th Avenue, which already is a stressed
roadway. Furthermore, he pointed out that we paid the applicant
about $85,000 for acquisition of the right-of-way to extend 8th
Street, and he felt money should be generated to mitigate any
impact they might have on this stressed area.
Some discussion ensued regarding the fact that if the
rezoning were denied today, it could not be reconsidered for a
year, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board could
postpone the appeal until a site plan was presented.
Planning Director Keating pointed out that even if a site
plan and rezoning were approved simultaneously, there is no
assurance that site plan would be built once the rezoning was in
place, but Attorney Brandenburg noted that any plan would have to
address the traffic impact issue.
Attorney Charles Sullivan, co-owner of the subject property,
presented arguments in favor of rezoning to commercial,
38
® M
emphasizing the uniqueness of this property which extends from
U.S.1 to 6th Avenue and expressing his belief that the little
corner across the street will be changed to commercial and the
County Attorney will confirm that there is no way to stop it. He
stressed that if the Board would look at this land, they would be
left with the inescapable conclusion that commercial is the only
logical use for a parcel of this size and shape. In order to
utilize it for residential it would have to be utilized square,
and multi -family could not exit on 8th Place, the little dirt
road to the north, nor could it exit onto 6th Avenue. He
informed the Board that he and Mr. LaFever contacted Mr. Weiche,
who has developed a great deal of property in this same area, and
Mr. Weiche agreed this property is not suitable for multi -family
development for the reasons set out in the following letter:
TROPIC VILLAS NORTH, INC.
1170 SIXTH AVENUE, VILLA 1B, VERO BEACH, FL 32960 . 305/569-3150
March 29, 1985
Mr. Patrick B.. Lyons
Chairman �h .� d
Board of City Commissioners `
1840 -25th Street_ pQ�. •?,�`� f
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 ��.ca c5
`c 0-0 G
Re: C. L. LaFevers, Jr. -Rezoning Appeal
Dear Mr. Lyons: `�cISLL•-
I have been asked by Charles LaFevers to appear at the County
Commission 'meeting April 3, 1985, to voice my opinion, concerning
the suitability of a parcel of land on 8th Street for multiple
family use which is the current zoning of the land. I understand
Mr. LaFevers is attempting to have the parcel in question rezoned
for commercial use. I am very familiar with the subject property
inasmuch as I have developed numerous condominium projects on
6th Avenue. I have been in the real estate and development business
since 1963 and have developed and sold over one thousand units.
I have developed approximately five hundred units in the immediate
vacinity of the_parcel_under donsideration'fnr-:rezening:., I -:have been
the :developer for•: :_Tropic .ViliaueNorth;.-TropidrCrove-Villas.:and .Tropic
Villas South.
It is my opinion as a builder and developer that the Northwest
corner of 8th Street and 6th Avenue is not suitable for multiple
family development its current zoning for the following reasons:
1. The area is too small.
2. The site plan approval would require a deceleration lane
on 6th Avenue and would require exiting of traffic onto 8th Street
since the road immediately north of the property is only 30 feet
wide and not physically large enough to handle the traffic that
would exit from any units on the property.
3. The configuration on the west boundary is such that
a large portion of the property would not be able to be used.
4. Condominium or apartments are extremely difficult to 'rent
or sell if located on a corner where any appreciable traffic exists.
39
BooK 60 F,11, 04
APR 3 1985 - Boor 60 P;,,-405
5. The property immediately west of that piece sought to be
retained for multiple family is commercial and there is no buffer and
properties for condominium use adjacent to commercial use are difficult
to sell or rent unless there is a buffer such as a street or other
buffer dividing the two areas. --
6. Institutional lenders would be extremely hesitant
to make any loans on property of this nature due to the diffi-
culty- in anticipating sales and their belief the property value
could not be mortgaged as multiple family because the nature
of the area is such that commercial designation is the best use.
7. There is commercial land directly across the street
and to the southeast which makes the property undesirable for
multiple family use.
In my opinion as a builder, this property is not suitable
for anything other than commercial use and I would not be interested
in developing the property as a condominium -site.
Sincerely,
Charles Weiche
Attorney Sullivan expressed the belief that this is a
transitional area and felt that most of the present small
residences on the tiny dirt road adjacent to this property are
for sale now. He stressed that he and Mr. LaFever have expressed
their willingness to do anything reasonable to protect the
neighboring residences; they intentionally left a buffer of
palmettos, and they would agree to build a concrete wall; they
would give the deceleration lane that will be needed to get
traffic from 6th Avenue onto Glendale (8th St.); and they have
agreed that any site plan would orient the structures on the site
towards Glendale and there would be no access on 6th Avenue.
In regard to the $85,000 paid by the County for the road
right-of-way for 8th Street, Mr. Sullivan noted that they told
the County they would sell the right-of-way at a much reduced
price if the property were changed to commercial at that time,
but the County would not agree to that, and that is why the price
was paid. Although this road'is an advantage to the piece of
property in some respects, Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the
property could have been used for a number of things without the
road being there, and now the road has created the problem that
they have a irregular piece that they can't do anything with, and
it is actually a disadvantage. Mr. Sullivan felt it would be far
better to have a nice striptype store there and reported that
40
they have had a Zayre's store inquire. He continued to emphasize
that if this property isn't zoned commercial, it will just sit
there.
In regard to Attorney Sullivan's comments about negotiating
the price of the right-of-way in return for commercial zoning,
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that it is illegal for the
Commission to contract on a rezoning.
Mr. Sullivan noted that this subject property as commercial
is worth $100-150,000 per acre, but as residential only about
$50,000, and he continued to refute the County Planners'
statement that the property can be used feasibly as residential,
which he claimed is simply not true. He argued that there will
be more traffic problems with twenty residential units than with
stores, and he felt the County should rezone this without any
requirement that the applicant contribute anything.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what Mr. Sullivan's objection
was to tracking the site plan along with the rezoning request,
and Mr. Sullivan stated that they can sell this property right
now, and they are not going to sit and wait and come back a year
later. If this is denied, they will just develop the commercial
part and let the other piece sit.
Chairman Lyons felt they had indicated they had a sale for
the property, and Mr. -Sullivan stated they could have, but it
collapsed because of the Planners' indication that they would not
recommend the rezoning to commercial.
Chairman Lyons poin-ted out that no matter what kind of an
agreement the Commission would make with the present owners, once
the property is rezoned commercial and sold, we would have no
further hold on that piece of property.
Mr. Sullivan stated they would be happy to put a deed
restriction on the property.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress his problem with
paying a developer $85,000 to build a beautiful road in front of
his property and then being held to the gun to do more for him.
41 900K 60 PnE 4dJ6
APR 195 .
8001( 60 F'.�E 497
He felt this should be a cooperative situation; there will be a
considerable impact; and the developer should pay towards road
improvements.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the impact the Board is talking
about is not going to happen because the front part of the
property on U.S.1 will be sold to one person for development, and
that development doesn't affect Sixth Avenue; the other piece
will just linger there because no one will want it until the
county grows to such a point that it will be forced into changing
many of these areas into a commercial use. As to the price paid
for the right-of-way, Attorney Sullivan commented that apparently
the County Attorney and the appraiser thought -the County was
paying a fair price, and if the County didn't think it was
getting a fair price, it should have gone to court and got it for
less. Mr. Sullivan continued that the simple truth is that he
and Mr. La Fever tried to negotiate and couldn't, but the County
did get a benefit from this - they got a road - and he and his
partner are now willing to give even more road. Mr. Sullivan
again stressed that he and Mr. La Fever are willing to donate land
for the deceleration lane today, plus do everything they can to
keep the neighborhood nice - buffers, walls, etc.,
Chairman Lyons emphasized that the Board would like to see
all this set in concrete, and just rezoning will not accomplish
that because there could be new set of owners involved tomorrow.
Mr. Sullivan asked how this can be accomplished.
Attorney Brandenburg wished to clarify some points. First,
he would not give the Board the opinion that the other triangle
ultimately will have to go commercial. Under Florida law, the
courts look at a rezoning from the view that an individual is not
necessarily entitled to the highest and best use of his property,
only a reasonable use depending on the times and circumstances,
etc. As far as the road right-of-way was concerned, he felt the
point Commissioner Scurlock was making was that had the county
waited a half year for that road to go through there and
42
Mr. Sullivan's site plan came in today without that road, he
would be required to dedicate that right-of-way to obtain site
plan approval and there would be no monetary consideration
whatsoever. In addition, he probably would be required to do all
the other things - turn lane, signalization, etc., that he now is
volunteering to do. The difference was merely a matter of timing
for the public's convenience in extending that roadway through,
which ultimately benefited Mr. Sullivan's project to a great
extent. Attorney Brandenburg felt one of the things we might
want to look at is going back and seeing what this project's fair
share of the cost of that roadway is and assessing that against
this project either by a special assessment roll or as a
condition to the site plan approval.
Commissioner Bird felt that we have precedent to ask for
some monetary compensation for mitigation of the project's impact
on the area through the site plan process, but Chairman Lyons
pointed out that there is no site plan at present.
Commissioner Bird did not believe that previously we have
done much tracking of a site plan along with the rezoning and, in
fact, have told people we didn't even want to see their site plan
when considering a rezoning.
The Chairman noted that Mr. Sullivan has convinced us this
is a unique piece of property, and Attorney Brandenburg explained
one difference is that under the new Code a lot of the commercial
uses are permitted uses and no longer special exceptions;
therefore, once an individual gets a commercial rezoning, he can
put in any of those commercial uses that are permitted without
having to go through the special exception process, and there are
some permitted uses we might not want in this area. In addition
the new Code does have standards in it with regard to roads, turn
lanes, lights, etc. The County Attorney stated that it is not
uncommon for a zoning authority to take a look at a rezoning and
tie it to exactly what is going to be on the property when it is
43 BOOK 60 PAGENS
AM 1985 -BOOK 60 PAGE 409
a piece of property which is said to be unique because of
surrounding neighborhoods and the road systems attached.
Discussion continued at length as to the possibility of
delaying a decision until a site plan can be presented and
analyzed; the type of development anticipated on the site; the
relative advantages and disadvantages accruing both to the sub-
ject property and the County from the building of 8th Street,
etc.
Commissioner Wodtke questioned staff in detail re ingress
and egress to the small parcel they feel should be kept resi-
dential, and asked whether with the access restrictions, decel-
erations lane, etc., they could assure that someone could put 19
units on that land.
Director Keating stated that staff could not assure that now
because of the factors that might come up with a site plan, and
Administrator Wright noted that we do not guaranty the maximum
number of units on any piece of property. Theoretically you ,
could go up three stories and put nineteen units in there, but we
can't say at this point what can be done.
Commissioner Wodtke then wished to know if the right-of-way
for 8th St. goes all the way to Indian River Boulevard, and it
was confirmed that it will but we have not yet acquired all the
right-of-way.
Commissioner Bowman inquired about the possibility of
squaring off the line of the C-1 property, and Planner Shearer
stated that the LUP sets it out as a 600' deep commercial
corridor, but the developer could come in and apply for an
amendment to the LUP.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Wayne Harrison, operator of Teacher's Place on Sixth Avenue,
informed the Board that he and his wife are in business on Sixth
Avenue, and they were made a permitted use under R-2. He
believed that Cardinal Properties is considering putting in some
rental apartments on Sixth Avenue across the street from this
44
property and did not feel commercial zoning would be compatible
with this mainly residential neighborhood. Mr. Harrison believed
the question here is whether to change this two acres to
commercial so Mr. Sullivan can sell it, and while he agreed there
is nothing wrong with making a profit, Mr. Harrison did feel it
is wrong when it will be forever a detriment to the surrounding
area. In addition, he questioned the need to go full blown
commercial, rather than offices or something of that type which
are not open on weekends or until 10 o'clock at night as many
retail stores are. Mr. Harrison did not agree that this property
can be used for nothing other than commercial and very much
doubted if the Commission were to deny the rezoning that Mr.
Sullivan would come up with a distress sale tomorrow. In
conclusion, he pointed out that nothing has been said about the
considerable drainage problem in this whole area.
Francis Dean, 606 8th Place, spoke at length of the severe
drainage problems in this immediate area; the water that drains
off Scotty's parking area; the mud they get down the back lane,
etc. Mr. Dean felt the one good thing the County did was slow
down the traffic on Sixth Avenue, but went on to say that the
drains that are there were not put in correctly because the
sluices going across Sixth Avenue are 14' underground. He then
described in considerable detail the inefficient manner in which
the county crews worked on the drainage and suggested that the
County appoint a roving Commissioner to check on these jobs
because he felt a lot of money is being wasted.
Paul Pope, resident of 8th Place, stated that he represents
the property owners adjacent to the subject property, and his
property is half commercial and half residential. He resented
Mr. Sullivan's implication that this is a slum area, and that all
these properties are for sale, which is not true. Mr. Pope did
not feel that commercializing right up to 6th Avenue is suitable
for this mainly residential area, and he believed that what
Commissioner Bowman said in regard to squaring off the commercial
45
AR X9 '5 Boor, VP ��.c� U
APR .3 195
Roar 0 411
area makes a good deal of sense. He also noted that both traffic
and drainage are very serious problems in the area and felt if
the Commission does grant the zoning requested, they should check
the site plan very carefully and make sure the property is
developed properly.
Barbara Colgrove, resident of the corner of 7th Avenue and
8th Place, complained of severe drainage problems and stated that
just to get a small swale ditch, she had to fight with the county
for five years.
Mr. Sullivan stated that they would have no objection to
putting a swale along their property on the south side of 8th
Place. He emphasized that they did not create the water problem,
but they are willing to help solve it, but they can't do anything
unless they have the ability to make a reasonable sale. He felt
all the things discussed could be handled in a site plan.
Chairman Lyons noted that it is unfortunate that there were
many subdivisions put in in the early days where they did not
take drainage problems into consideration, and we now have
inherited these problems.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
Discussion again arose in regard to tracking the site plan
with the rezoning, and Commissioner Wodtke stated that while he
agreed mitigation of the road problems is important, he hoped it
would be possible to make a reasonable analysis of any possible
impact without requiring a full blown detailed site plan.
Director Keating stated what staff would be looking at would
be location of buildings on the site, access, parking etc.; they
would not need a detailed engineering analysis. He felt a month
would be adequate for Mr. Sullivan to present such a conceptual
plan and for staff to review it.
46
Commissioner Scurlock stated he also did not want to hold
this up forever, and he, therefore, agreed they should present
something we can analyze and have them pay a fair share as he did
feel strongly that they should contribute something toward
improving the traffic problems in the area.
Commissioner Bird agreed they owe something, but he did not
agree that we are completely closing the door on recouping
anything by granting the rezoning. It was his feeling that it
would be better to have this property developed under one site
plan rather than cutting it in half, and he believed we can
control it better by making it commercial and monitoring the site
plan rather than carving it up in two pieces.
Commissioner Scurlock noted the owner still could sell part
of it and have two commercial pieces, and the Chairman agreed
that once that little corner becomes C-1, we don't know what will
be on it.
Discussion continued at length in regard to a Motion
delaying action until staff can come up with a traffic impact
analysis of a site plan to be presented and relate it to dollars
and cents.
Commissioner Bird felt if staff comes up with a figure of
$50,000, for instance, and we ask the applicant for $50,000
before we will agree to rezone, this would constitute contractual
rezoning.
Attorney Brandenburg clarified that what the Board is doing
is taking a look at whether or not the infrastructure in that
area can support commercial property on that site and insuring
that there is sufficient infrastructure there if, in fact, it is
rezoned. He did believe there is latitude in the Comprehensive
Plan to work this out, if the Board desires.to.
Commissioner Bowman felt we must consider the impact on the
neighborhood and what is good for the neighborhood as a whole.
Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that there was a tremendous
need to have the extension of 8th St. to take the traffic off 6th
APR 3 i9-8 47 p J ��
- Uo�K 60 t'F�;'�
J
APR 31995
Avenue, and it is a very important part of our transportation
function. He agreed it would have been nice if they had given us
the right-of-way, which.has happened in other cases, but he did
not feel we should look for full reimbursement of the cost.
Administrator Wright interjected that staff needs very
specific instruction as to what the Board wishes them to look at.
Commissioner Scurlock again emphasized that the applicant
should be required to contribute towards the road improvement
which benefited his property. He agreed this was a significant
road for"the county, and he would not, therefore, expect the
applicant to pay for the whole road.
Commissioner Wodtke was concerned about tying this into the
z oxo i ng.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board has a two-pronged
approach in this instance as they are asking for redesignation of
the Comprehensive Plan as well as rezoning, and the Comprehensive
Plan does have traffic standards in it which probably could not
have been met for this commercial development had 8th Street not
been constructed.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that if the "Cu or "D" level of
service was exceeded, they couldn't have developed their property
and site plan approval would be based on their making a contribu-
tion to remedy the situation.
Commissioner Wodtke was of the opinion that Commissioner
Bowman's suggestion in regard to squaring off the property is
worth thinking about as one possible feasible alternative.
Commissioner Bird noted even with a conceptual plan, the
applicant still would have to have a pretty good idea of what
they are going to put on the property, i.e., whether a Zayre's, a
strip center, a car lot, etc., and Director Keating confirmed
that staff would have to have a general idea of what the use
would be.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we have some general
perameters as to what can be put on there.
M
48
M
M
I
Director Keating agreed and noted the staff memo stated that
the whole property would attract about 5,626 average daily trips.
Commissioner Bird asked how they go about estimating the
dollars and cents in relation to the number of trips per day, and
Director Keating stated that this is based on I.T.E. (Institute
of Traffic Engineering) standards.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that she is very much opposed
to having that corner commercial and would much prefer to have it
squared off and developed residential. She felt the neighborhood
deserves it.
Administrator Wright still wished more specific instruc-
tions; he believed the Board wants a traffic analysis and asked
if they are saying go back and extract money.
Chairman Lyons stated that we want to continue the public
hearing for thirty days and have Mr. Sullivan submit a conceptual
plan to the Planning Department to analyze.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Bird voting in
opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote, agreed to continue
the public hearing for thirty days and require the
applicant during this time to submit to the Planning
staff a conceptual site plan for them to analyze,
estimate the trips this could generate, relate this to
traffic impact, and come back with a proposal of how this
impact can be offset.
HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSESSMENT
Environmental Engineering Specialist Ron Brooks made the
staff presentation and reviewed the following memo;
49 BOOK Cu' F''GF 414
BOOK 60 PAU 415
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 27, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Terrance G. P o SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS WASTE
v
Utility Serce ASSESSMENT
Director a-`,
FROM: Ronald R. Brooksrg REFERENCES:
Environmental Engineering
Specialist/Utility Services
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On July 1, 1983, the Florida Legislature passed the Water
Quality Assurance Act which required each County, in coordina-
tion with the Regional Planning Councils, to conduct a local
hazardous waste assessment. Using guidelines established by the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulations the Counties and
Regional Planning Councils were directed to accomplish the
following:
1. Notify all potential small quantity hazardous waste genera-
tors and identify those who generate hazardous wastes. The
notification program had to include a determination of the
amount and type of wastes generated and_how the wastes were
managed and disposed of.
2. Identify and evaluate all abandoned dump sites.
3. Evaluate the operation procedures at the County Landfill.
4. Perform on-site inspections and evaluations of all
facilities notified in the performance of the potential
generator notification program identified in item no. 1 above.
5. Designate a minimum of two sites, consisting of no less than
2 acres, where a hazardous waste storage and transfer station
could be constructed and operated by either the County or
private enterprise. The designation of the sites is to include
a minimum of two public hearings, and appropriate rezoning if
required.
6. Establish a county program for the continuous notification,
identification, inspection and monitoring of small quantity
hazardous waste generators. The program is to include an annual
notification program and the submittal of an updated annual
report to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
identifying all hazardous waste generators and their waste
management and disposal practices.
ANALYSIS:
The responsibility for performing the County's requirements in
the State mandated Hazardous Waste Assessment Program was
delegated to the Division of Utility Services. A Division
representative will provide a status report on the program and
update the Board of County Commissioners on requirements that
remain to be completed. The presentation will also include
information on the results of the completed notification program
identified in item no. 1 above.
50
Environmental Specialist Brooks noted that the state and
federal government have been regulating large generators of
hazardous waste for some time and have now mandated the counties
to do something about the small quantity generators. Mr. Brooks
then reviewed the six requirements listed, noting one year was
allowed for all the requirements listed to be completed, approved
by the Board and submitted to the DER, and that year ends within
about the next three months.
Mr. Brooks informed the Board that staff met with the other
counties in our four -county region, which includes Martin, Palm
Beach, St. Lucie, and Indian River County, and it was decided to
hire a consulting firm, The ERM Group, who obtained a list of all
businesses in the counties and mailed a survey to all those they
thought would be potential generators. Approximately 813
businesses were notified in our county and about 522 responses
were received, 72 of which indicated they were generators. The
results are set out in Exhibits I through V, as follows:
51
APRT 3 1,98
BOOK F;AF!._1
filonametTA2-4'.19R
Olsr t x/TCRPC
1%29/85
TABLE 2-4A
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED ANNUALLY BY SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS SURVEYED
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 1984
fp 417
BOOK FAuc
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES
SURVEYED
PERCENT OF
OL
606115
GENERIC
QUANTITY
TOTAL
WASTE CODE
WASTE DESCRIPTION
TYPE
POUNDS
58910
PESTICIDES
IC QUART CONTAINERS
S
18347
.78
A
WASTE PESTICIDES
AL
1034
.04
9
WASHING A RINSING SOLUTIONS CONTAINING PESTICIDES
AL
83
.00
C
EMPTY PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
S
3795
.16
0
E SPENT TOXAPPIESOLUTIONS OR SLUDGES FROM DIPPING
OL
0
.00
E
SPENT PESTICIDE SOLUTIONS DR SLUDGES OTHER THAN TOXAPtog
AL
D
dD
SUBTOTAL PESTICIDES
4912
.20
HEAVY METALS
F
DUST CONTAINING HEAVY PETALS
S
1000
.04
G
WASHING 8 RINSING SOLUTIONS CONTAINING HEAVY PETALS
AL
1007505
41.65
b
WASTE WATER TREATMENT SUDGES CONTAINING HEAVY PETALS
SL
223005
9.22
SUBTOTAL HEAVY PETALS
1231510
50.91
INKS
I
IGNITABLE WASTE INK AHD/OR INK CONTAINING BARIUM. CA@NIU9, OfMMUS
OL
2773
.11
OR LEAD
.00
PAINTS
3
IGNITABLE WASTE PAINTS
AL
5303
.22
K
LIQUID WASTE PAINT CONTAINING CADMIUM, Cfi09ItM, LEAD OR MERCRT
AL
2115
.09
SUBTOTAL INKS
7419
.31
SOLVENTS
L
SPENT SOLVENTS
AL
82018
3.39
A
SOLVENT STILL BOTTOMS
AL
1602
.07
b
FILTRATION RESIDUES FROM DRY CLEANING
S
5
.00
SUBTOTAL SOLVENTS
_
83623
3.46
REACTIVE WASTES
0
CYANIDE WASTE
AL
D
.00
P
STRONG ACIDS OR BASES
AL
4620
.19
0
SPENT PLATING WASTES
AL
0
.00
R
WASTE AMMONIA
AL
0
.00
S
PHOTOGRAPHIC WASTES
AL
52332
2.16
SUBTOTAL REACTIVES
56952
2.35
IGNITABLE WASTES
T
INGITABLES OTHER THAN SOLVENTS AAD/OR THEIR RESIDUES
VARIES
783
.03
WOOD PRESERVING WASTES
U
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGES CONTAINING PCP, CREOSOTE, ARSENIC Ot
SL
9
.00
CHROMIUM
.00
OTHER
--
V
WASTE FORMALDEHYDE
AL
1992
.08
LEAD -ACID STORAGE BATTERIES
S
291
X
WASTE EXPLOSIVES
S
0
12.31
SUBTOTAL OTHER
.OD
299782
12.39
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES
Y WASTE OILS. CREASES OR LUBRICANTS
OL
606115
25.06
IA OIL FILTERS
S
40073
1.66
IB SLUDGE FROM PARTS [LEANING BINS
SL
58910
2.44
IC QUART CONTAINERS
S
18347
.78
ZD GALLON CONTAINERS
S
5543
.23
ZE S -GALLON CONTAINERS
S
1173
.OS
ZF SS -GALLON CONTAINERS
S
258
.01
IG 30 -POUND FREON CONTAINERS
S
633
.03
SUBTOTAL POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE
731052
30.22
TOTALS
2418825
..........................................................................................................................................................................
TDTESt GENERIC WASTE TYPE IS AS FOLLOWSt AL � AQUEOUS LIWID -
OL . ORGANIC LIQUID
S . SOLID
SL . SLUDGE
52
Filename: TA2-5INR TABLE 2-5A
1/29/85
HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES GENERATED BY SURVEYED BUSINESSES IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
POUNDS PER YEAR
SURVEYED WASTE QUANTITIES
SIC DESCRIPTION POUNDS - 1984
01
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - CROPS
2530
02
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - LIVESTOCK
0
07
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
33039
15
HEAVY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS
8532
17
SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS
17010
22
TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS
NA
24
LUMBER AND OTHER WOOD PRODUCTS
751
25
FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
0
27
PRINTING
3715
28
CHEMICALS
7283
30
RUBBER PRODUCTS
NA
31
LEATHER
NA
32
STONE, CLAY AND GLASS
NA
33
PRIMARY PETALS
0
34
FABRICATED METALS
1232
35
MACHINERY
2090
36
ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT
NA
37
TRANSPORTATION EQUIP.
1325
38
INSTRUMENTS
NA
39
MISC. MANUFACTURING
510
41
LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEMS
0
42
TRUCKING AND WAREHOUSING -
14432
43
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
NA
44
TRUCKING AND WAREHOUSING
0
45
AIR TRANSPORTATION
23524
48
COI+MUNICATIONS
0
49
ELECTRIC, GAS AND SANITARY SERVICES
2180
50
WHOLESALE TRADE - DURABLE GOODS
NA
51
WHOLESALE TRADE - NONDURABLE GOODS
4322
52
BLDG. MATERIALS AND GARDEN SUPPLIES
203468
53
GENERA. MERCHANDISE STORES
14916
54
FOOD STORES
NA
55
AUTO DEALERS AND SERVICE STATIONS
573155
57
FURNITURE AND HOME FURNISHINGS
0
59
MISC. RETAIL
69922
67
HOLDING AND OTHER INVESTMENT OFFICES
NA
72
PERSONNEL SERVICES
170
73
BUSINESS SERVICES _
2005
75
AUTO REPAIR SVCS. AND GARAGES
1235983
75
MISC. REPAIR SERVICES
3038
78
MOTION PICTURES
NA
79
AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES
4699
80
HEALTH SERVICES
72942
82
EDUCATIONAL SERVICDES
12773
64
MUSEUMS, BOTANICAL AND ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS
NA
89
MISC. SERVICES
NA
91
EXEC., LEGISLATIVE AND GEN. ADMIN.
103269
92
JUSTICE, PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
NA
94
ADMIN. OF HUMAN RESOURCES
NA
95
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND HOUSING
NA
96
ADMIN. OF ECONOMIC PROGRAMS
0
TOTAL POUNDS 2418825
TOTAL TONS 1209
NOTES: 1) SIC IS THE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION CODE ASSIGNED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
2) NA a NOT APPLICABLE. THIS COUNTY DID NOT HAVE BUSINESSES WITHIN THIS SIC WHICH WERE SURVEYED.
SOURCE: ERM-SGUTH 1985
2-16
Fy A ►'w ; t.
53
AP'R 3 5 Brox 6. w SIS
APR 3 1985
BOOK 60 PAGE �-1��
FILENAPE: TA3-1INR
1/30/85
TABLE 3-1A
ON-SITE STORAGE METHODS USED BY SMALL QUANTITY HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATORS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1984
SURVEYED PERCENT
STORAGE METHOD DESCRIPTION QUANTITY OF TOTALS
POUNDS
1
ABOVEGROUND TANKS
344085
14.23
2
BELOWGROUND TANKS
1359431
55.24
3
55 -GALLON DRUMS
215386
8.91
4
CANS AND PAILS
36178
1.50
5
OPEN PITS, PONDS OR LAGOONS
431
6
PILED ON GROUND WITHOUT OVERHEAD ROOF
25008
02
7
PILED ON FLOOR OR GROUND WITH OVERHEAD ROOF
276800
1,03
B
DUMPSTER OR BULK WASTE CONTAINER
69149
11.45
9
LAB PACKS
932254
2.86
10
PARTS CLEANING MACHINE
3456
75555
.14
11
OTHER
1266
3.13
11
INJECTED INTO WELL
11833
.49
12
FILTERED
.00
TOTAL
2417312
100
SOURCE: ERM -SOUTH 1985
14
OTHER
Filename: TA3-2INR
1/29/85 TABLE 3-2A
DISPOSAL METHODS USED BY SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 1984
DISPOSAL METHOD
DESCRIPTION
SURVEYED
QUANTITY,
POUNDS
PERCENT OF
TOTALS
1
DISPOSED IN LANDFILL, PICKED UP
331593
13.71
2
DISPOSED IN LANDFILL, GENERATOR TRANSPORTS.
11405
3
BURIED ON SITE
607
.47
.03
4
DISPOSED IN OPEN PIT, POND OR LAGOON
381
5
SENT TO LICENSED HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY
1785
.02
6
PUT INTO SEWER
1062241
.07
43.92
7
PUT IN SEPTIC TANK
9512
B
RECYCLED
932254
.39
38.54
9
BURNED FOR FUEL VALUE
2858
10
INCINERATED
1266
.12
11
INJECTED INTO WELL
0
.05
12
FILTERED
.00
13
NEUTRALIZED
0
1816
.00
14
OTHER
19553
.08
15
UNCERTAIN
43532
.81
1.80
TOTALS r
2418825
100
SOURCE: E
SOURCE: ERM -SOUTH, 1985
610
C
1
1
HAZARDOUS WASTE UISPOSAL METHUOS QSEU BY HAIORS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY• FLORIUA. IN 19839 'POUNUS PER YEAR
DMETHOuL a,� MAOTE TYPES � gp°u1
A tl C/ U E F G M i J K
1 U— u fJ64 V U _~0 0 0 00005 25 3304 961
2 U U U U U 0 0 2730 d15 48
3 0 J IOU U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 U U U U U 0 0 0 0 U U
5 600 U 4 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 434 d3 U d 0 0 1007505 J 0 0 0
7 J U U U 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0
b 0 U U U U 1000 J 3uuo is 39 492
9 U U U U 0 0 0 "-J 0 0 U
�0 U U U U U 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 u u U o U 0 uo 0 U o
13 u u U o U 0 u 0 0 U 0
14 U U lu 0 U 0 0 0 0 1145 615
15 U u U U U 0 U 20uu0 0 U 0
1034 8.3 J1vb U u 1000 10075u5 223uu5 2713 5303 2116
i L M iV U P a R 5 T U V
—SIN '_d�TZ—o------� -- --�-- —8---�--- _0 _0 "bu J41
2 lodJ J U U 0 0 340 0
3 122 2d1 u U U 8 8 J U 0 U --�
4 U U 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 U 0
5 22 U U U U 0 0 0 0 0 0
! 64913 d U U 4620 d 428U4 0 0 1tl222
34
8 59tl75 50 U U U 0 0 "u 374 9 0
9 0 u U U U 0 0 0 U U 0
i1 1170 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131 jjotl0 0 U 0 0 0 p0 0 0 0 136
! 14 i5o2 112 U U 0 0 0 0 34 U U
15 d u 0 0 U 0 0 J 0 0 0
! d2Ulo 1002 5 U 4620 U 0 52332 713.1 9 1992
w A Y LA Ld ZC LO LE LF LG
1 190J u 4jLdb 36714 104Ub 18211 4478 bub 30 4bl
0 u 2d90 Ide4 Ibd 80 9b5 -5 0 116
U J Lis 5U U U U u U U •
4 U U ,ltll J U 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 U. U 1000 U 50 100 10 0 0
b 0 U U 0 U 0 U 0 0 0
7 u u U U U 0 U 0 0 0
d 2Y�90J U 529ddo 400 40944 0 U 54.1 226 2
9 0 U 2d5d U U 0 0 u 0 0
10 u u u 8U U 0 0 !J 0 0
ll2 U u u u u 0 0 0 0 u
• u u u U U0 0 u 0 u
13 0 J0 U U 0 0 S 0 0
14 d u 131to U 6120 0 U 0 2 48
15 U 0 22dbo u ble 0 0 0 U 0
29?dOJ 0 600115 40073 58910 1tls47 5543 1113 256 633
Ln
Ln
C.
J
Pr -
APR 3 1985 .
BOOK 60 F�v7r 421
Mr. Brooks commented that waste oils, which are included,
are not, at this point considered hazardous waste, but he
believed they will be in the future. He further cautioned that
this survey was sent out to a lot of conscientious businessmen
who answered it to the best of their ability, and possibly some
have identified themselves as producing hazardous waste
incorrectly. On Exhibit V, for example, under the category
sludge with heavy metals, it is indicated that 200,000 lbs. of
hazardous sludge with heavy metals is disposed at the Landfill.
As it turns out, this actually is domestic sludge from a mobile
home park; so, that figure is inaccurate. Also possibly some
paints are latex and are not hazardous.
Commissioner Bowman noted that even if the paint is water
soluble, it may contain something else hazardous, but Mr. Brooks
felt it just has chemicals that do not present any problem.
Chairman Lyons believed waste oil does contain some bad
chemicals and did not know why it is not considered hazardous.
He noted a tremendous amount of waste oils is disposed of down
the sewage system, etc., and did not know how this can be
controlled.
Mr. Brooks felt it is recognized that small quantity
generators are hard to control and that is why the burden has
been put on local government.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired if deep well injection is not
considered hazardous and Mr. Brooks stated that it is not so
considered.
Mr. Brooks then specifically addressed what progress has
been made in satisfying the six requirements listed. as follows:
1) Notification has been accomplished, and the tables are a
result.
2) Staff has identified most of the dump sites in the county and
inspected them.
3) The Landfill operations have been evaluated and a report is in
the draft stage.
4) Staff presently is in the process of performing on-site
inspections to verify the information submitted in the survey
S
56
forms and actually won't have an idea how accurate this
information is until the inspections are completed. We are only
required to inspect 20% this year.
5) Staff has identified two preliminary sites for storage and
transfer station only.
Mr. Brooks noted that the hazardous waste cannot just be
picked up and moved; the waste must be analyzed, properly
contained, manifested, and transported by an authorized agency.
All this is under very strict control.
In further discussion, Mr. Brooks explained that the two
sites identified will not automatically become transfer stations;
we are only required to designate sites so they will be available
when and if the need arises. Mr. Brooks felt that at this point
in time, it is doubtful such a station would be needed as there
is at least one station in the southeast part of the state which
could probably handle most of the waste generated in this general
area.
Chairman Lyons felt we actually do have a need for such a
station. He noted that he has disposed of excess paint,
insecticides, etc., just by putting them in the garbage, but we
want to -stop that in the long run. To do so, we will need a
place for people to leave these kind of things. He felt we have
to go about changing our habits, and we need to set up something
to make it possible for us to change them.
Commissioner Bird asked if it is the waste generator's
responsibility to transport the waste to the transfer site, and
Mr. Brooks stated that it is his responsibility to see that it is
properly disposed of. He then displayed slides of the transfer
station located at Pompano Beach, a very simple type building
with a trailer serving as the office area. Mr. Brooks reported
that a television camera monitors the people coming in, and there
are safety devices in the building, emergency showers, etc. The
concrete floor is elevated so that any leakage would flow to the
rear of the building to catch basins, which are located outside
57 BOOK PArF2
APR 3 1985
APR 3 1985 42
r
BOOK 0 FA�f.
the building. The building is separated by concrete curbs into
stalls where various materials are segregated - corrosives -
acids - flammables, etc., so that if leakage should occur, they
could not mix. There is a lab at the site to analyze materials
as they have to be identified before they can be transported.
This building was constructed and is operated by Waste Manage-
ment, Inc., and we could take waste there.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know in the event we did set
up a temporary transfer station where people could drop off such
materials and we have to transport it, how this would be paid
for.
The Chairman believed that at sometime we will have to set
up a fee schedule, but felt that is in the future.
Mr. Brooks noted that at this time we just have to desig-
nate the sites. He noted that private enterprise can handle this
if it is profitable, or the County can do it, but he felt it will
be expensive.
Utilities Director Pinto pointed out that if you set too
high a fee for use of the Landfill or for such a hazardous waste
site, the problem is that the material never gets to you.
Mr. Brooks reported that the two sites that have been
selected are presently being reviewed. We have to have two
public hearings and the Board would have to approve the use of
these sites. One proposed site is at the existing Landfill. It
is surrounded on one side by extensive properties owned by the
County, and it has a buffer of 100' on the roadway and the
property to south. The other site is our present waste transfer
station at South Gifford Road on the closed landfill site, which
site has very limited use. This is completely surrounded by
county property and staff would suggest an 100' buffer on South
Gifford road.
Commissioner Bowman asked what sort of facility we are going
to have to provide, and Mr. Brooks stated that we don't have to
provide anything, but if one ever does get set up there, one of
58
the benefits of having it on County -owned property is that it
will be available when we need it. If this were designated in an
industrial area, for instance, it is conceivable that it could be
sold and used for another purpose in the interim.
Director Pinto confirmed that these sites were designated
because they are permanent and will always be available.
Commissioner Wodtke believed the transfer site located in
Pompano now can service all of southeast Florida, and Ron Brooks
stated that Waste Management believes they can manage most of the
waste generated in south Florida at their site, but the DER
doesn't really know if that will be adequate or not.
In conclusion, Mr. Brooks noted that the county also is
required to establish a program for monitoring the g.enerators and
staff has drafted an ordinance which will go to workshop this
month. He emphasized that all this must be be completed by June
30th and submitted to the DER, and most of it is done.
Chairman Lyons complimented Mr. Brooks and staff for the
progress they have made.
DISCUSS FILING FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF - VILLAGE GREEN WATER &
SEWER FRANCHISE
Attorney Brandenburg referred to the following letter
addressed to Attorney Block:
59
BO .. 1
OK � PAF. ��
J
UZ
3 1985
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
Suncom: 424-1425
April 2, 1985
BOOK 60 PAGF 4?5
GARY U. BRANDENBURG
County Attorney
CHRISTOPHER J. PAULL
Asst County Attorney
JAMES P. WILSON
Asst. County Attorney
Samuel A. Block, Esq.
2127 Tenth Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Village Green Phase IV
Water & Sewer Franchise
Dear Sam:
This letter will serve to confirm that the Village Green, Phase
IV (West), water and sewer franchise, Resolution No. 80-88,
adopted on September 17, 1980, is in effect and has not been
amended to date.
The Division of Utility Services has informed this office that the
escrow for impact fees is currently delinquent. The escrow should
contain $144,813.00, but has a present balance of $120,135.75,
leaving a shortfall of $24,677.25. It also should be noted that
these impact fees were based on old Ordinances Nos. 80-21 and
80-22, which have been amended and replaced with Indian River
County's current Ordinance No. 84-18, which requires much higher
impact fees.
The County Commission recently entered into an agreement with
Florida Atlantic Associates allowing the owner to make periodic
payments to reduce the delinquent balance with respect to the
impact fee escrow. A copy of this agreement is attached for your
reference.
The terms of the franchise require a public hearing prior to the
franchise holder selling or transferring any rights to another
under the franchise. Typically, the County has required the
updating of all franchises upon transfer. I am not sufficiently
familiar with all the intricacies of the proposed purchase by
Realtor Indian River County Partners, Ltd. and do not express any
opinion at this time as to whether the proposed transaction falls
within the meaning of Section 12 of the franchise. This statement
should not be construed as a waiver or the basis for any estoppel
against the County should the County, after being more fully
Informed, decide the facts warrant invoking the transfer
provisions of Section 12 of Resolution 80-88.
Please be advised that I intend to request permission from the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, at their
regularly scheduled meeting on April 3, 1985, to take whatever
steps are necessary to resolve disputed portions of the Phase IV
franchise including permission to file a Complaint for Declaratory
Relief, if necessary. Issues to be addressed will include the
County's right to require that Village Green water and sewer
franchise, Phase IV, become a part of the unified County water and
sewer system, and the County's right to charge the owners current
impact fees, provided by County Ordinance, connection fees, and
other charges. However, it should be noted that, as of this date,
the County has not ordered the owners of the facility to connect
to the County -wide system.
All accumulated impact charges and maintenance fees, under Section
15 of the franchise, may only be used for the purposes
specifically set forth in the franchise and enabling Statute.
These sums are held in escrow by the County for the benefit of
those receiving service from the franchise holder, and as such may
not be encumbered in any fashion which would impair the County's
ability to use said funds for the purposes described in the
Resolution.
GMB /lk
60
t
The County Attorney informed the Board that we have two
existing water and sewer franchises covering Village Green Park.
One of those was granted by the County in the early 70's and the
other in the 801s. The one concerning us the most is the Village
Green Unit IV Franchise because back then we were just getting
into the impact fees, and franchises granted then were written
with the franchise fee current at that time being referred to
instead of referring to impact fees as those being current
whenever they hooked into the system. The issue now is, if the
County, for some reason, ever should have to take over the water
and sewer for that very large park because of default or the
quality of water, etc., does the County have the right to charge
them our now current impact fees. The second issue is do we have
the right to require the park to hook up to our system should it
appear to the Commission it is to everyone's best interest.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that he would like to take those two
issues to court and get them resolved now so that the County, in
planning its expansion for utilities, and the people who live in
the park will know where they stand for the long run.
The County Attorney continued that he would request that the
Board authorize his office to talk with the current owners, and
prospective purchasers, if there are any, and if we cannot
resolve those issues in an amicable manner, that his office then
be authorized to file suit against the current holder, Florida
Atlantic. Should there be a sale of the Phase IV project in the
interim, staff would like permission to bring in the new owners
also. He noted that Mr. Miller, agent for Florida Atlantic, is
here today, and we wouldn't have any dispute or lawsuit if
Village Green agreed the County has a right under the current
franchise to require them to hook into the county's water and
system at the current impact fees.
Mr. Miller noted that not being an attorney, he is not sure
whether the franchises provide for the County to force them to
61
APR 3 1985 Boor C30 �-"cF.?.6
APR 3 1985 Bou 60 9�
hook in, but even if they were to want to, they would not be in a
position to agree to the so-called current fees.
Commissioner Bird asked if he understood correctly that tie
County Attorney is going to start negotiations with the premise
that they are required to hook up and are required to pay the
current impact fee, and if so, on what he would base the justifi-
cation for this.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that we currently have a county-
wide impact fee ordinance that applies to everybody, and we have
just assessed individuals along SR 60 $1,250 for each ERU of
wastewater and about $1,000 for each ERU of water. Under their
franchise, it would be Florida Atlantic's contention that they
would only have to pay $70 per ERU for water, which would be
grossly unfair to everyone else who has now paid for the water
line run out there.
Commissioner Bird felt in the one case, however, you have
facilities already in the ground versus having to build new
facilities at today's cost.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that when they hook in,
they will be using facilities that have been built at today's
costs.
Commissioner Bird wished further clarification re situations
where the transmission lines presently are in the ground - in
other words, are the new projects going in on Route 60
responsible for putting in their lines at their cost and then, in
addition, responsible for paying the fee for their impact on the
main system?
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed they would already have their
internal lines in place and they would be required to pay the
impact fee just like everyone else for connection to the plant
capacity and the main transmission lines.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we are not looking to hook
any of them up at the present time; we do not have the capacity.
This would just put us in a position to provide quality water and
62
wastewater service if their system should fail at some time in
the future.
Commissioner Bird noted that our issue is not with the
residents, but with the holder of the franchise; Commissioner
Wodtke felt the cost will pass on to the residents in the long
run, but Commissioner Scurlock believed they have a specific
provision in their lease that prevents this.
Attorney Brandenburg reported that a proposed purchaser has
asked us for information on the status of this situation. He did
not know, however, at what stage negotiations for a sale are.
Fred Messner, resident of Village Green and President of the
Federation of Mobile Home Owners for this district, which also
includes St. Lucie and Okeechobee Counties, informed the Board
that they have a very serious problem with impact fees in mobile
home parks and have decided to make a study of how these fees
have been set and how they are hitting the residents. He
believed this will cause a lot of court cases. Mr. Messner
informed the Board that Holiday Village Mobile Home Park is
already starting to have to pay $39.95 per month per home for the
next three years over and above their $180 monthly rent. These
are all old people in small mobile homes, not doublewides, and
this is all brought about by the impact fees.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the County is not
imposing that $39.00 charge.
Mr. Messner agreed that the park owner is, but it is because
he has to pay it to the county; he is passing it through. He
continued that these old $8,000 trailers in Holiday Village Park
must pay this impact fee of $1,250 for wastewater and $1,250 for
water over
three years.
They
are going to
have
to
pay
for
something
that will last
fifty
years while
many
of
them
may only
live three or four more years. In Heron Cay you have a new park
with much more expensive units, and they still pay the same
impact fee, which doesn't seem equitable. Mr. Messner felt we
are driving these lower income oldsters out of town. Also, he
63
BOOK U`U r'AGE4 ",
APHR 3 1
J
r
APR 3 1985 BOOK 60 Pn,,P 2
noted that the mobile home park owners have been paying taxes to
the county over the years, and the county has been using this to
pay off water and sewer.
Commissioner. Scurlock informed Mr. Messner that that
statement is totally incorrect; the utility system is wholly an
enterprise fund. We did have consultants do a study about fees,
and the fees relate to meter size regardless of the size of the
homes involved; it relates to capacity..
Chairman Lyons stated that he did not want to debate this
matter; what we are concerned with is deciding about proceeding
with Village Green.
Mr. Messner commented that these old parks have already
spent many thousand of dollars for their original systems, and he
felt impact fees may be unconstitutional.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that there are some significant
problems with wastewater, and the county wants this resolved so
if the situation degradates, something can be done about it.
Mr. Messner pointed out that possibly some grants may be
available under the Clean Water Act, and the Chairman informed
him that one of the reasons, the impact fees are not higher is
that we have taken advantage of the federal government's
assistance to build these systems.
Commissioner Scurlock further noted that through our
assessment program, we have identified that there is a need for
allowing longer periods for payments. The park owner apparently
is making a permanent 30-40 year improvement, and he wished to
know if the County has any ability to say it is ridiculous to
extract payment for this from the people in three or four years.
Attorney Brandenburg reported that the County currently does
not -have any control over what is charged these people for rent
whether or not it includes utilities.
Robert Miller, Agent for Florida -Atlantic Associates,
referred to the existence or non-existence of a contract to buy;
he noted that a contract has many facets, contingencies, time
64
-I
constraints, etc.; these have not been met, and it has run out.
Also in regard to pass-through of the impact fees, Mr. Miller
pointed out that when the County changes the rules of the game,
the owner cannot always change his rules because of other
agreements in leases, etc.
Wayne Gearhold, resident in Phase I, stated that their prob-
lem started about a year ago at which time he first contacted the
Utility Department, and he cannot say enough in praise of the
help they have had from Commissioner Scurlock, Administrator
Wright, the Utility Department, and all those involved. He
believed they all are keeping a close eye on their problems.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the County Attorney to take whatever steps are
necessary to resolve the disputed portions of the
Village Green Phase IV franchise, including permis-
sion to file a Complaint for Declaratory Relief and
also to determine if we have the right to require the
entire park to hook up to the County system.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
The Chairman announced that immediately upon this meeting
being adjourned, the Board would reconvene as the District Board
of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River County Fire
District. Those Minutes -are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:18 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
� Ls— Zt)A_:Jt,/
Clerk
65
AMR, 3 1985 BooK 60 430