HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/9/1985Wednesday, October 9, 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,
October 9, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B.
Lyons, Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William
C. Wodtke, Jr. Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. was out of
state attending a wastewater seminar in Kansas City. Also
present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L.S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Lyons called the meeting to order and Attorney
Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegialhce to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Administrator Wright requested the addition to today's
Agenda of a discussion re appraisals of ten commercial properties
for 12th Street additional right-of-way compensation.
Administrator Wright requested that Item #9 - Road Paving
via Special Assessment - be removed from today's Agenda and
placed on next week's Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Bird being
out of the room and Commissioner.Scurlock being absent,
the Board unanimously (3-0) added and deleted the above
items.
GOOK 62 PAGE 353
0 CT 9 1985
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOOK . 62 pacE 359
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 9/11/85.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Bird being
out of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent,
the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of 9/11/85, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 9/11/85.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Bird being
out of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent,
the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Minutes of
the Special Meeting of 9/11/85, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 9/18/85.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out
of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the
Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of 9/18/85, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wodtke requested that Item D be removed for
discussion.
2
A. Renewal of Permit to Carry a Concealed_ Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/24/85:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 24, 1985 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Renewal
REFERENCES:
The following person has applied through the Clerk's Office
for renewal of a pistol permit:
Sylvester S. Strang
All requirements of the ordinance have been met.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out
of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the
Board unanimously (3-0) approved the renewal
application for a permit to carry a concealed
firearm for Sylvester S. Strang.
B. Reports
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Local Government Criminal Justice Trust Fund
Procedures for Collections and Distributions
October 1, 1985 1
Letter advising that Chester Clem, Attorney, is
registered agent for Vero Lakes Water Control
District..
C. Approval of Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out
of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the
Board unanimously (3-0) approved out -of -county
travel for Commissioners and appropriate staff to
attend Water & Wastewater Seminar in Grenelefe,
Florida, on November 8, 1985.
3
tw% 62 fA".a 350
BOOK U4 FAGE 381
D. Approval and Execution of License to Occupy and Improve_County
Property - Virginia Faulman
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that three
business firms located west of the FEC Railroad on the south side"
of 16th Street are presently using a portion of the County's
200 -ft, road right-of-way for parking. Florida Cablevision,
Hydro Spa and Southeastern Rack have requested that they be
allowed to improve the area to 'provide parking and that a lease
be arranged where, in effect, they would be paying off the cost
of the improvements over a certain number of years.
Commissioner Wodtke objected to the County paying for any
commercial signs that might be erected on the right-of-way.
Administrator Wright suggested deleting "signage" from Item
4 on Page Two of the License: "Licensee shall take the property
in its present condition and shall have the right to make only
those improvements necessary for use of the property by Licensee
for ingress, egress, parking, stormwater management, signage and
landscaping..."
Chairman Lyons agreed that we should allow the signage but
not pay for it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out of the
room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the Board
unanimously (3-0) approved the License to Occupy and
Improve County Property for Mrs. Virginia Faulman, with
the modification that no credit will be given for
signage.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
4
E. Release of Assessment Liens - SR -60 Water & Sewer — Pine
Creek Condominium, Unit 204
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out of
the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the Board
unanimously (3-0) approved Release of Assessment Lien
for one ERU SR -60 Water to Roxanne H. Williams for Pine
Creek Condominium I, Unit #204, and one ERU SR -60 Sewer
for Pine Creek Condominium 1, Unit #204.
State Road 60 Water Project
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $970.45
RECEIVED from RO%ANNE H. WILLIAMS, in hand this day paid,
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
FLORIDA. (the "County") hereby releases the property hereinafter
described from a certain special assessment lien recorded by the
County in its Official Records, Book 0691, Page 0077, for a special
assessment in the amount of $970.45, plus accrued interest at the
rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, levied in accordance with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of the County, as amended, and.
Resolution No. 84-47 of the Board of County Commissioners of the
County; and hereby declares such special assessment lien fully
satisfied. The property, located in Indian River County, is more
fully described as follows:
Condominium Unit #204 of PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUM I,
according to the Declaration of Condominium, recorded
In O. R. Book 691, Pages 2443 thru 2533, of the public
records of Indian River County, Florida.
—Executed by the. Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and
countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this day
Of 1985.
__ Attested and countersigned:
Freda Wright,/ legk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Charles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney
Instrument prepared by and
should be returned to:
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
rJ
BOAR OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN AN IVER COU TTY, FLORIDA
By
P ek yo s,
hairman
-1-
9009
62 PAGE • o,
Y
0 CT 9 1985 0% 62 PAGE '383
State Road 60 SEWER Project
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $1,225.00
RECEIVED from ROXANNE H. WILLIAMS. in hand this day paid,
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. (the "County") hereby releases the property hereinafter
described from a certain special assessment lien recorded by the
County in its Official Records, Book 0700, Page 298. for a special
assessment In the amount of $1.250.00, plus accrued interest at the
rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, levied in accordance with the .
provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of the County. as amended. and
Resolution No. 84-107 of the Board of County Commissioners of the
County; and hereby declares such special assessment lien fully
satisfied. The property, located in Indian River County, is more
fully described as follows:
Condominium Unit #204 of PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUM I,
according to the Declaration of Condominium, recorded
In O. R. Book 691, Pages 2443 thru 2533, of the public
records of Indian River County, Florida.
Executed by the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. and attested and
countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this day
of1985.
Attested and countersigned:
Freda Wright. ylezk
App✓roved as to form and
Is sufficiency_
�a
Charles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney
Instrument prepared by and
should be returned to:
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
BOg9hair"'o
NTY COMMISSIONERS
INCOUNTY, FLORIDA
s,
-1-
F. Acceptance of Low Bid for Waterline Expansion on 82nd Ave.
and 8th St.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/2/85:
6
TO: THE HONORABLE ARD OF DATE: OCTOBER 2, 1985
COUNTY COMMISS N S
THRU: TERRANCE SUBJECT: ACCEPT LOWER BID FOR
WATERLINE EXPANSION ON
82ND AVENUE AND 8TH
STREET
FROM: JOSEP A. BAIRD
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County Utilities Department advertised the water distribution
system expansion on 82nd Avenue and 8th Street for bid on Thursday,
September 19, 1985, at 2:00 P.M. The following bids were received:
1. Collee Mechanical, Inc. $111,075.00
2. Vicon Construction, Inc. $116,266.50
3. Jobear, Inc. $125,978.50
4. Coastline Utilities $135,888.50
The lowest bid from Collee Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of $111,075.00
has been reviewed by both County Staff and the County's consulting engineer
and found to be in order. Funding for this project will be from the Route
60 Wastewater Project.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Accept the lowest bid from Collee Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of
$111,075.00.
2. Deny the lowest bid from Collee Mechanical in the amount of
$111,075.00, and advertise for bids.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners accept
the lowest bid from Collee Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of $111,075.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out
of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the
Board unanimously (3-0) accepted the low bid of
$111,075 from Collee Mechanical, Inc, for waterline
expansion on 82nd Avenue and 8th Street.
7
BOOK S2 FAUGE354
OCT 9 1985 eooK..
G. Indian River County Landfill Rate Study
6 fAGE 385
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/30/85:
TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 1985
COUNTY COMMIS E S
.1
THRU: TERRANCE G. P SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
LANDFILL RATE STUDY
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County is rapidly approaching a point where the first phase of
our landfill operations will have to be closed and the second phase
constructed and placed into operation. With the increased environmental
design requirements as well as the increasing costs for daily operations,
the current landfill rate structure is far from adequate.
The County advertised for proposals from qualified consulting firms to
prepare a rate study for the landfill. Six engineering firms submitted
proposals and after a review by a County Selection Committee, Camp Dresser
& McKee Inc. was awarded the project.
ANALYSIS
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. has subsequently submitted a rate study Scope of
Services and Agreement for the County's acceptance. The agreement is
attached as Exhibit I. Staff has reviewed the Scope of Services and
Agreement and has determined it to be acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Scope of Services and
authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign the Agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out
of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the
Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Scope of Services
from Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. for the County Landfill
Rate Study and authorized the Chairman's signature.
SCOPE OF SERVICES AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
8
H. Request to Close Streets in Paradise Park Subdivision for
Octoberfest
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/2/85:
TO: DATE: FILE:
THE HONORABM NMIBERS OF October 2, 1985
THE BOARD OF COUNTY CONMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
FROM: James W. Davis, P. E.
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
SUBJECT: Request to Close Streets in
Paradise Park Subdivision on
Oct. 26, 1985
REFERENCES:
The Paradise Park Crime Watch Program Coordinator is requesting permission to
close 86th Avenue between 24th Street and 26th Street and Walker Avenue from
86th Court to 85th*Court on October 26, 1985 from 2P.M until dark. The
purpose of the closing is to have a block party. (Oktoberfest).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no objection to approval subject to the following
1) Proper detour is provided
2) Proper barricades are provided
3) Emergency vehicles will have access if necessary.
Subject to the above, staff recommends approval
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner,Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out
of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the
Board unanimously (3-0) approved the request by
residents of Paradise Park Subdivision to close 86th
Ave. between 24th 8 26th Sts. and Walker Avenue
from 85th to 86th Cts. on October 26, 1985 to hold
an Octoberfest.
I. Request from Carson Platt for County to Discontinue
Maintenance of Road and Bridge West of CR -507 Along Ditch 1 North
of Fellsmere
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/2/85:
9
BOOK 62 NGE •,�
T 91985
BOOK -62 PAGE 38 7
TO: DATE: FILE:
THE HONORABLE MKMEERS OF October 2, 1985
THE BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Michael Wright, SUBJECT: CO� FOR
County AdministratorUNTY TO DISCONTINUE
MAINTENANCE OF ROAD AND BRIDGE
WEST OF CR 507 ALONG DITCH 1
NORTH OF FEZ SMF:RF'
FROM: James W. Davis, P. REFERENCES: S. This Hamilton, Jr., to
Public Works Director` Jim Davis dated Sept. 25,
19 SS
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County was recently contacted by the DOT BRidge inspectors and informed
that the bridge over Park Lateral Canal at Ditch 1 north of Fellsmere, needed
repairs. Upon beginning work on the bridge, the Carson Platt family informed
the County that the bridge and road along Ditch 1 was on their property. The
road was paved by Carson Platt and has been maintained by them since 1942.
Based on this ownership, the family requests that the County cease mainte-
nance of the road.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the road is not in County Right of way and no other property except the
Carson Platt property (1500 .51 acres) is served by the road, the staff -has
no interest in retaining the road on the County maintenance system.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the County cease maintenance of Ditch 1 road and the
bridge over Park Lateral.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out
of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the
Board unanimously (3-0) approved the request to
cease maintenance of Ditch 1 road and the bridge
over Park Lateral, as requested by Carson Platt and
recommended by Public Works Director Davis.
J. Award of Contract for Lindsey Road Box Culvert - Public Works
Project 8341-A
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/30/85:
10
TO: DATE: FILE:
THE HONORABLE MUMERS OF September 30, 1985
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Michael Wright, SUBJECT: Of
Contract:
Linse
County Administrator dRoad Box Culvert
James W. Davis, P.EPublic Works Project 8341-A
.
Public Works Director
M: V REFERENCES:
Michelle A. Terry
FROLetter to Michelle Terry
Chief, Road Design Section from Steve Khrmerle, J.E.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On August -26, 27, 28, 1985 an advertisement for Bid was placed in the Press
Journal for the above-mentioned project. No bids were received, so the
Engineering Dept.' -sought out a firm with box _culvert construction
experience. This box culvert will be constructed over the Lateral "H'•
Canal so that Lindsey Road may be opened up and paved from Kings Highway to
Old Dixie Highway. The following is a breakdown of the cost involved in
the construction of this new culvert:
Quoted price from J.E. Hill Contractors for a Double Barrel
Culvert 25'-10" x 52'
mobilization, Lump Sum $ 4,440.00
Class II Conc. 167.49 Cu Yds @ $305.00/cy $51,084.45
Reinforcing Steel 24,949 lbs. @ $.48/lb $11,975.52
$67,499.97
This price includes excavation and dewatering. County Road and Bridge
will supply borrow and backfill. All necessary permits have been applied
for and approved. The Engineering Department has prepared plans and
Contract Documents and Specifications for this project.
RECCVMMATIONS AND FUNDING
The Engineering Departwnt recamnends entering into Contract with J.E. Hill
Contractor in the amount of $67,499.97. Funds will come from the Lindsey
Road Account No. 105-214-541 with an amount of $600,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird being out
of the room and Commissioner Scurlock absent, the
Board unanimously (3-0) approved the award of contract
to J. E. Hill Contractor, Leesburg, Florida, in the
amount of $67,499.97 for construction of the Lindsey
Road box culvert over Lateral "H" Canal.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11
OCT 9 1985 BooK 6 Pact
OCT
N
9 1985
aooK 62
PAGE 389
PUBLIC HEARING
- METZ REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER. STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a —/l ,,J
in the matter ofiF, _40Ml4t-ol
In the /J/ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of_v��.�?�i%
U
Afflant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day o�6€MC.D. 19y�
s Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian , or County, Florida)
NOTICE—PUBLIC KENNa
No orto Mr consider a wafrom
Subdivision
eond�uivan)Nas pplled to three parcels an
.up�e� property
thdeeae
hlf of section29, Township -
32 South. Rertge 39 East.
-ung
wholly In Indian diver Camttr. Fta-
A pub8c hearMg at which Parkes In in !•
and ddxens shall have an opportunhy to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com -i
missioraas of Indian RWer County. Florida. in the;
vero neacn. I•lorm on weomm". vaooer v.
1985, at 9:05 a.m. -
Anyme who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
artsure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made which includes the ted0nrony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
Indian River County 1
Boaro of County CortaNmiaws .. $,
By.-s-Paaick B. Lyom yy
Sept25.1995.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/30/85:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 30, 198FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: AFTER -THE -FACT REQUEST
SUBJECT: TO EXEMPT JACK METZ' S
PROPERTY FROM THE
Robert M. Keatgng, P REQUIREMENTS OF THE
Planning & Developrif4rit Director SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS
FROM: Stan Boling ./fir 6,' REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on October 9, 1985.
rT -
12
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Jack and Linda Metz owned a 10 acre parcel of land located on
the north side of 37th Street (Barber Avenue), west of 58th
Avenue. In February of 1985, the Metz family attended a
subdivision pre -application conference to discuss a proposed 5
lot subdivision of the 10 acre parcel into 4 lots and one 7 acre
parcel. One week after the pre -application conference, Mr. Metz
met with staff to determine what he could do with his property
without going through the subdivision and platting process - at
that time. Staff explained that two lots could be created out
of the 10 acre parcel, as long as all zoning requirements were
met, including minimum lot frontage along 37th Street.
Recently, Mr. Metz sold two parcels along 37th Street to his
sons. By dividing the original tract into the two lots deeded
to his sons as well as an eight acre back parcel, Mr. Metz
created a three lot subdivision on the 10 acre parent parcel
(see attachment #3). This action violated section 6(b) of the
subdivision ordinance which states that it is unlawful for any
person to "create a subdivision without first complying with the
provisions of this ordinance and filing a plat approved by the
Board of County Commissioners...". Also, the newly created
eight acre back parcel does not have any frontage on a dedicated
road, thus rendering the parcel unbuildable pursuant to Section
29(b) of the Zoning Code.
Mr. Metz's sons have applied for building permits on the two
parcels fronting on 37th Street. The building permits have not
been issued pursuant to section 7(b) of -the subdivision
ordinance which states: "The building official shall not issue
any permits for new construction on a lot in any subdivision
created after the effective date of this ordinance which has not
been approved pursuant to provisions of this ordinance".
Mr. Metz is now requesting that the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance be waived in their application to his
subdivision, subject to the condition that the two parcels
fronting 37th Street be deemed as buildable, and the remaining
eight acre back parcel be restricted (by deed restriction) to
remain in use as a grove until such time that the parcel may be
platted and subdivided.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Section 11 of the subdivision ordinance states tha
"... shall not approve a waiver unless it
finds all of the following:
1) The particular physical conditions,
shape, or topography of the specific
property involved would cause an undue
hardship to the applicant if the strict
letter of the ordinance is carried out;
2) The granting of the waiver will not
cause injury to adjacent property or any
natural resource;
3) The conditions upon which a request for
waiver are based are unique to the
property for which the waiver is sought
and are not generally applicable to
other property in the adjacent areas and
do not result from actions of the
applicant; and,
4) The waiver is consistent with the intent
and purpose of the Indian River County
Zoning Ordinances Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, and this ordinance.
13
OCT 9 1985
BOOK, 62 FAGS.7Q
r
0 CT 91985
8001 .62 PAGE -371
Although Mr. Metz addresses all four of these criteria in his
completed application (attachment #1), conditions 11 3, and 4
are not satisfied by Mr. Metz's request or situation.
The physical shape and physical condition of Mr. Metz's 10 acre
tract is similar to other 10 acre tracts in the County that have
been platted in accordance with the provisions of the**
subdivision and platting ordinance. As staff informed Mr. Metz
subsequent to his pre -application conference, the parcel could
legally be split once into two parcels without obtaining
subdivision approval as long as all zoning requirements are met.
Mr. Metz has split the parcel into three parcels mainly for tax
purposes and financial reasons.
The conditions upon which the waiver request is based are not
unique but are, in fact, common. The applicant has created his.
own hardship by dividing his property into three parcels without
properly platting. In this case, granting the waiver would not
be consistent with the subdivision ordinance because the waiver
would circumvent the ordinance. In essence, Mr. Metz is
actually requesting a full exemption of the subdivision
ordinance for reasons that the ordinance does not now recognize
as warranting an:exemption.
Mr. Metz's proposed condition to restrict the eight acre back
parcel as unbuildable until properly platted still violates the
three parcel threshold set forth in the County's definition of a
subdivision. This threshold is based on the State's definition
of a subdivision as a three parcel division of land (Chapter 177
F.S.). Past history and current land ownership patterns in the
County clearly show that the subdivision ordinance is needed to
control the division of land and number of parcels created.
Granting this request would, in effect, arbitrarily raise the
threshold of what constitutes a subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the
request to waive the application of subdivision ordinance
requirements from the Metz property.
Planner Stan Boling presented staff recommendation for
denial of this request for exemption from certain requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance. Referring to a map of the area, Mr.
Boling advised that one solution would be to recombine the lots
in such a way as to make 2 parcels out of the 3, which was the
understanding that we had after the pre -application conference.
A second alternative to rectify the situation is to plat the
subdivision by coming in off of 37th Street. He explained that a
lot in a new subdivision cannot have direct access onto a
secondary collector and that 37th Street (Barber Avenue) is
designed as a secondary collector. What Mr. Metz would have to
do is establish a paved road and configure the road in such a way
that all three parcels created in there have frontage on a
14
� r �
dedicated road. Another issue involved in this particular
situation is a dedication of property on 37th Street, as well as
the fact that Barber Avenue is not paved, and there would have to
be some sort of arrangement made whereby Mr. Metz would at least
have to pay his fair share of the cost of paving Barber Avenue.
A third solution would be the method Mr. Metz is proposing this
morning, that he be granted a variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance and allowed to build on the two parcels with a
reservation on the -8 -acre parcel in back which would make it
unbuildable until it was platted.
Mr. Boling noted that the Board has the authority to grant
the variances to the Subdivision Ordinance if certain criteria
are met. However, staff does,not feel that Mr. Metz's meets
three of the four criteria.
Commissioner Bird reentered the meeting at 9:25 o'clock A.M.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if these were new rules, and
Planning and Development Director Robert Keating advised that the
Subdivision Ordinance has been in effect since July 20, 1983, but
even before that the creation of 3 parcels has always been
considered a subdivision. He noted that while flag lots have
been allowed, staff frowns on that policy.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that since we do allow flag lots,
that could be an alternative.
Jack Metz, owner of the property in question, admitted that
he had known the County had a plan that allowed one unit per 5
acres, but he really didn't grasp the significance of it until he
and his sons started to do something. Creating an illegal
subdivision was not intentional. He explained that this is a
family situation and it is hard for him and his wife to
comprehend the reasons for not being able to build as they are
concerned about Indian River County just like everyone else. His
neighbor to the east is happy with what they are planning to do,
15
OCT 0 1995 Boa 62 phu 7
L J
® CT 9 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 373
which is to leave a right-of-way on the east side of their
property so that his neighbor's property could be utilized. This
would cut down the amount of traffic in the future by having one
road coming out of the two 10 -acre tracts instead of two. Mr.
Metz explained that one of the main reasons they have for not
dividing the property into just 2 parcels is that they cannot
afford financially to deed over 5 acres apiece to anyone, and if
his sons were to purchase five acres each, they might have
difficulty in obtaining a mortgage because banks do not favor
giving large mortgages to young people. He felt this leaves them
in a bind and noted that he offered to put deed restrictions on
that remainder of the property prohibiting any kind of building.
Director Keating noted that this particular case does not
have anything to do with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It
relates to the Subdivision Ordinance as to how the land is
divided, configured, accessed and utilized. It provides for
controlled access and a good coherent plan which ensures that the
land will be usable. He believed that many problems, such as
lots having no access or inadequate easements, etc., will not
occur now that the Subdivision Ordinance is in effect.
Commissioner Wodtke felt there should be some way for a
family which owns 10 acres of land to divide the parcel into
homes sites for their sons.
Mr. Metz reiterated that it was their intention to keep the
back parcel in citrus as long as possible and that he was willing
to file a deed to restrict development on that back parcel.
He believed his neighbor would be willing to give right-of-way
all the way back on the other side.
Chairman Lyons believed these situations start out with good
intentions; however, something happens, the family dies or the
land is sold, and the County is left with an unimproved road. He
pointed out that the County also has inherited drainage problems
in these situations and believed the best time to face these
problems is when the property is subdivided. It, therefore, would
16
be his recommendation to face it, do it, and in the long run he
felt Mr. Metz would be better off and the property would be worth
more.
Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that certain findings be made before the
subdivision variance can be granted and it was his opinion that
Mr. Metz did not meet those requirements in the reasons given on
his application.
Chairman Lyons understood that there were really no grounds
stated that would enable this Commission to make an exception,
and Attorney Vitunac stated that was correct.
Mr. Metz pointed out that when they first presented this
plan, one of the main criteria was that they give 50 feet of
right-of-way on 37th Street and he wanted it made part of the
record that at this time they were willing to give the 50 feet.
Chairman Lyons explained that, in any case, Mr. Metz does
not meet the requirements on the application for an appeal for
exemption and the Board is not in a position to grant an appeal.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Scurlock being
absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the
Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board deny the request
by Mr. Metz for a waiver of the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance on the.basis that the Board does
not have any legal right to grant an exemption.
Commissioner Bird explained that he seconded the Motion with
great reluctance and wished there was some way to find a unique
17
BOOK 62 PAGE 37
0 CT 9 1985
BooK 62- fOGE 375
situation whereby the Board could grant an exemption, since it is
the American way to leave our children the family property.
Unfortunately, there have been some bad situations created in
similar cases before the Subdivision Ordinance was adopted. He
felt the other Commissioners would like to grant the waiver also,
but cannot vote for something that is illegal.
Commissioner Wodtke also felt regret, but pointed out that
Mr. Metz has the alternative of platting his property to
accomplish his goals for his family.
Chairman Lyons agreed that all they had to do is follow the
regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Metz felt this was very unjust and hoped the County
Commission will look at these problems that do exist and consider
amending the Subdivision Ordinance.
Commissioner Bowman commented that she heard that deed
restrictions are not worth anything.
Attorney Vitunac explained that it depends on whose favor
they are in, because whoever made the restriction with the
permission of the other person can get rid of the restriction
also.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion was voted on and carried unanimously
(4-0), Commissioner Scurlock being absent.
HEADSTART REPRESENTATIVES THANK COUNTY FOR ROAD WORK
Mary Hector and Wanda Williams took this opportunity to
thank the County for fixing the huge hole in the road leading to
the Headstart facility in Wabasso. In addition, they requested
that Headstart be put on the Agenda for next Wednesday's meeting
in order to be considered for space in the Douglas Elementary
School.
Administrator Wright advised that staff has not talked with
the Headstart representatives yet about space in the school.
18
Before staff decides what to recommend to the Board for the
future of the school, he suggested that Ms. Hector and Ms.
Williams make arrangements with his secretary to meet with him in
his office as soon as possible.
Chairman Lyons thanked Ms. Hector and Ms. Williams for
coming today.
CONDEMNATION NOTICES - DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/30/85:
TO: Honorable Members of DATE: September 30, 1985FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: Dilapidated Structures
County,Administrator
FROM: Ester L. Rymer REFERENCES: _
Building Director
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of October 9, 1985.
Condemnation Notices (Repair or Demolish) - No action taken by,owner.
1) Rober Lee & Mary Belle Green - 8556 61st Drive
2) Esco Bell - 4326 27th Avenue
—3) Luecill West - 4301 35th Avenue
4) Jimmie Collins - 4460 31st Avenue
5) Beulah Anderson - NE corner of 44th P1. & 27th Ave.
6) Ethel Spriggs - 4616 32nd Avenue
7) Zylphia Noble - 4226 24th Avenue
8) Otto Rivers - 4335 24th Avenue
9) Hampton Jackson, etal - 4075 21st Avenue
10) Georgia Mae Davis - 4436 31st Avenue
11) Henry Williams - South side of 43rd St.
in back of game house
I respectfully request that the Board order the buildings removed
per Section 4-21, Code of Ordinances, Indain River County, and place
a lien on the property for the costs of removal per Section 4-22,
Code of Ordinances, Indian River County.
Building Director Ester Rymer circulated photographs of the
structure and explained that Luecill West of 4301 35th Avenue is
present today to request additional time to repair her property
which suffered fire damage prior to 1980. Mrs. West lives next
door to the structure and takes care of her elderly mother. She
has been trying for several years to get a loan to restore this
structure. She received a building permit in September, 1980,
19
OCT 9 1985 BOOK
but did not get the money.
BOOK 62 PAGE 377
At present Mrs. West has an estimate
from a contractor for $12,600, has the money and is ready to go.
Luecill West confirmed that she has the loan and feels that
the structure is rebuildable.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if Mrs. West had a signed
contract, and Mrs. West clarified that she just had an estimate
from A.J. Harris.
Director Rymer pointed out that Mrs. West must enter into a
contract and recommended that Mrs. West be given another 30 days
to allow her to get a signed contract and building permit;
however, if the restoration is not completed in 90 days, she
would recommend that the structure come down.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
granted Mrs. West an additional 30 days in which to
have a signed contract approved by the Building Dept.
with the stipulation that the structure be completed in
90 days or the matter will be brought back to the Board
for further action.
Attorney Vitunac advised that it would be acceptable to have
one Motion to cover the rest of the buildings because there is no
one else here to speak. He suggested that all the remaining
names be read aloud.
memo.
Chairman Lyons read the names aloud as listed in the above
Commissioner Wodtke asked'if we had to enter the photographs
of all the structures into the record, and Attorney Vitunac
advised that it would be sufficient for the Board to say that
they have seen the evidence and agree with Director Rymer's
recommendation.
Director Rymer wished to address Structure #11 separately.
20
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the condemnation of structures 1-10 with
the exception of #3) Luecill West - 4301 35th Ave.
1.
Structure #11) Henry Williams - South side of 43rd Street
Director Rymer explained that this structure has no road
frontage -- it is referred to as the old game house. The
structure is occupied, however. She showed photographs depicting
the terrible condition of the structure.
Chairman Lyons stated he would be glad to take this matter
to housing committee composed of Gifford residents to see what
they would recommend on how to get these people out of the
structure so it can be demolished.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
moved approval of the condemnation of Structure
#11 and authorized Chairman Lyons and legal staff to
take whatever legal action is necessary to accomplish
the demolition.
Director Rymer advised that she would place a notice on each
structure stating that it is going to be demolished by a. certain
date and would try to send a copy of the notice to each property
owner to make them aware of the action taken by the Board today.
She noted that she is looking for either private contractors or
County crews to demolish the structures, and Administrator Wright
advised that the County is going to gear up and take these
structures down as soon as possible.
REQUEST FOR COUNTY TO ACCEPT MAINTENANCE OF TWO ROADS IN VERO
LAKES ESTATES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/2/85:
21
T 91985 Bolnc 62 MME 3 7 8
� I
OCT 9 1985
TO: DATE: FILE:
The Honorable Members of October 2, 1985
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Request for County to Accept
SUBJECT: Maintenance of the Following
Roads in Vero Lake Estates
Subdivision
1) 97th Avenue North of 83rd St/
Beverly Parker
2) 100th Ave South of 83rd St/
Robert Laster
REFERENCES: Beverly Parker to Jim Davis
dated Aug. 21, 1985
The County Public Works Division has received two individual requests for the
County to assume grading maintenance of 97th Avenue from 87th Street to 83rd
Street (approx. i mile) and 100th Avenue from 87th St to 81st Street (approx.
3/4 mile). The subject roads are located in the central portion of the
subdivision as shown on the attached maps.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The above roads were evaluated using the County's Road Maintenance acceptance
forms. Both roads serve only 1 home and the numerical rating of 70 does not
warrant County maintenance. In the case of 97th Avenue the County does grade
the next street over (97th Court) and the Parker home is close to that road.
RECOMMENDATION t
Based on the County's Evaluation Program, it is recommended the roads not be
included in the County's grading program and that these right of ways
continued to be mowed.
Referring to a County grading map showing which roads the
County grades and mows, Public Works Director Jim Davis explained
that the County presently mows the right-of-way on 97th Avenue
from 83rd Street to 87th Street, approximately 1/2 mile. When
the subdivision of Vero Lakes Estates was established back in the
1950s and early 1960s, a grading route was set up and of the 77
miles of right-of-way in the subdivision, approximately 30 are
graded and the rest are mowed with a bush hog. Over the 25 -year
period, the County has maintained its grading of the roads in the
subdivision, but has not accepted any new roads for maintenance
except at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners.
J
Today people are buying lots and building homes in the
subdivision on unmaintained roads which, in some cases, are 1/2
to 3/4 of a mile from the nearest graded road and the economics
22
� � r
of the situation is just not compatible with the maintenance
budget.
Administrator Wright felt the bottom line is that there are
going to be houses built and we need a set policy with respect to
maintaining roads that we have not maintained in the past.
Director Davis explained that the County does maintain the
next street over, 96th Court.
Commissioner Wodtke recalled that we decided we could not
afford to build and maintain roads in the area shown on the lower
left-hand corner of the map and when this came up, we decided we
needed some kind of measuring tool to determine which roads to
maintain.
Administrator Wright recalled that former County Attorney
Joe Collins was of the opinion that we do not have to maintain
these roads.
Chairman Lyons suggested that County Attorney Vitunac review
this matter.
Administrator Wright pointed out the Board decided not to
open up maintenance of the subdivided streets in Vero Tropical
Gardens on the northwest corner of 1-95 and SR -60.
Commissioner Bird agreed with Commissioner Wodtke that the
grading map was the best rating system to determine these cases,
and while it was not the perfect solution it is the best one so
far.
Attorney Vitunac recalled that he gave the same opinion to
the City of Vero Beach on similar subdivisions that were accepted
in years past without clearing the roads and there were trees
growing in the middle and it was held that the property owner
could get a building permit, but it was up to him to clear the
road if the City had not already planned to do so. He felt the
same thing would hold true with the County to follow through with
the property owner and make sure he has access before he builds
the house.
23
BOOK 62 PAGE 3SU'
i
OCT 9 1985
V( 6 Wit •3
Commissioner Bird hoped Attorney Vitunac would be ready to
defend the County from a property owner who comes down from up
north and says he has been paying taxes on a lot for 15 years and
wants to build on it now and expects the County to bring the road-
to
oad-to him, even though those taxes were minimal.
Administrator Wright understood that the Board's direction
is to continue with the same policy we have now, use the rating'
system and look at these roads on a case by case basis.
Chairman -Lyons asked if everyone was in agreement with that,
and the Commissioners indicated they were.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Scurlock being
absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved staff
recommendation not to include the two said roads in the
County's grading program, but continue to mow the
right-of-ways.
Attorney Vitunac believed that the County would never have
to go to court because if someone pushes the issue, we would use
the special assessment program and go in and clear the road and
charge 1000 of the cost to the owner or owners.
Commissioner Bird noted that we were heading in the
direction of getting all these roads taken care of with the MSTU,
but we got sidetracked into drainage problems.
COMPENSATION FOR APPRAISALS OF TEN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES FOR 12TH
STREET ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/30/85:
24
� s �
TO: -- James W. Davis, P. E. DATE: September 30, 1985 FILE:
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Appraisals of Ten Ccmmxcial
Properties for 12th Street
Additional Right of Way —
Compensation
FROM:Donald G. Finnep;� REFERENCES:
Right of Way Agent
I have contacted six appraisers requesting a fee quote for ten c,rcial
parcels. where the owners indicate they. will sell at Fair Market Value.
Two appraisers, William Fleming, SRA and Tom O'Steen, SRPA are not inter-
ested in this difficult assignment or workload.
Richard Wagner, MAI quote is $12,000
Vincent Giordano, SPA, Fort Lauderdale, not interested in travel.
Ronald Callahan, SRA, Ft. Pierce, not interested.
Mark Parson, SRA, Melbourne to busy with present workload.
Additionally since Mr. Wagner's quoted fee, three other parcels on 12th
Street will have to be appraised to determine the Fair Market Value of the
right of way for each parcel: The Forum, Southgate Mobile Home Park and
Frank Zorc's parcel.
Should we take this to the Board for their approval?
Administrator Wright recommended that the County hire
appraiser Richard Wagner, MAI.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that they also
tried to get quotes from members of the SRA as well as from all
the appraisers in town that do these type of appraisals.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if these appraisals could be
handled in-house.
Administrator Wright stated that we are trying to get away
from using County staff on property we are trying to condemn.
Director Davis noted that many of the parcels in question
would take long hours to evaluate and felt the $12,000 quote
pretty much indicates that some of these parcels are not easy to
appraise. In addition, if we tie up our appraiser (Don Finney) on
this project, it will pull him off his other right-of-way work,
which is growing tremendously. The other alternative would be to
25
BOOK 6� PA. UE 33
OCT 9 1985 `BooK 62 PA,E 333
hire an in-house appraiser and beef up the right-of-way
department. Director Davis explained that they st.ill were trying
to negotiate a lower price with the only bidder; however, staff
feels this is the only bid we can get right now since appraisers
are in such high demand.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize staff
to -negotiate a better price with Richard Wagner, MAI
or any other party, with the understanding that the
cost is not to exceed $12,000.
Director Davis explained that as soon as the Coast Guard
permit comes in for the bridge on the southern extension of
Indian River Boulevard and this right-of-way is cleaned up, we
would like to get a bid on the project and get it going.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that if we are ready to go to
bid and sign a contract on this project, we could get a right of
taking and don't have to be settled on the appraisal.
Director Davis believed we would still need an appraisal,
but Attorney Vitunac stated that the law states that on a quick
taking we must make a good faith estimate of the value of the
property based on a valid appraisal and deposit that amount. He
suggested that perhaps our SRA appraiser could do a quick
appraisal, just as an estimate, and then the County could deposit
that amount and eventually go with an MAI appraisal which might
be.a year or two later.
Administrator Wright advised that we will go to bids as soon
as we get the permitting.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0),.
Commissioner Scurlock being absent.
26
PROPOSED AQUATIC PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning presented
the following staff recommendation for adoption of the proposed
Aquatic Preserve Management Plan:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 30, 1985 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PROPOSED INDIAN RIVER
SUBJECT: - MALABAR TO VERO BEACH
AQUATIC PRESERVE MANAGE-
MENT PLAN
'Robert M. Keatin , AI9pr
Planning & DeveldpmenV Director
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: IR Malabar
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:IBMIRD
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on October 9, 1985.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Indian River--Malabar-to Vero Beach Aquatic Preserve is
part of the Indian River Lagoon; a shallow lagoonal estuary.
The lagoon is bounded on the east by Orchid Island and on the
west by the mainland. Sebastian Inlet is the only opening to
the ocean in this area. The preserve supports important
commercial fisheries, especially the hard clam and oyster
industries and is important for recreational activities -as
well. The preserve is designated and managed as a wilderness
preserve.
The estuary is an important home and nursery area for an
extensive array of fish and wildlife. The major problems in
the continued health of this area include the construction of
major drainage networks that- .have increased the fresh water
flow into the estuary, the loss of wetland areas and water
quality degradation associated with agricultural drainage and
urban runoff. Additionally., the Intracoastal Waterway and the
maintenance of Sebastian Inlet have changed the historical
flushing and circulation within the lagoon system.
The major objectives of the Florida aquatic preserve management
program are to. manage the preserve to ensure the maintenance of
an essentially natural condition, and to restore and enhance
those conditions which are not in a natural condition. Manage-
ment will also be directed to ensure public recreational
opportunities while assuring the continued propagation of fish
and wildlife. This task will be guided by the identification
and mapping of natural resources and habitats necessary to meet
these objectives. An additional management objective is the
review and comment on applications for the use of state-owned
submerged lands. This will require, in a fully implemented
management program; the onsite investigation of these proposed
uses by field personnel assigned to the aquatic preserve.
27
801Y 62 'PAE3
J
OCT 9 1985
BDOK . 62 PAGE 335
The Florida Department of Natural Resources has prepared a
'draft management plan for the Malabar to Vero Beach Aquatic
Preserve and is requesting public comment. The proposed plan
represents implementation of Chapter 16Q-200Florida Admini-
strative Code relating to Florida's Aquatic Preserves under the
authority of Chapters 258 and 253 Florida Statutes (F.S.). The
final plan will be adopted through resolution by the Governor &
!Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal...
Improvement Trust Fund. All management responsibilities
stipulated in the final plan may be fulfilled directly by the
Governor & Cabinet or indirectly through the Department of
Natural Resources staff (Bureau of Environmental Land Manage-
ment) .
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
As stated previously, the major objective of the resource
management. plan in the aquatic preserve is to protect and
manage the area's resources in a manner which maintains exist-
ing or natural conditions.
Specifically, the following administrative objectives are an
essential part of the aquatic preserve management plan:
a. To ensure a comprehensive, coordinated review and eval-
uation of proposed activities potentially affecting the
environmental integrity of the aquatic preserve;
b. To review all existing and past activities as to their
effect on the environmental integrity of the aquatic
preserve.
The Relationship Between Aquatic Preserves & Other State Waters
In compliance with state and federal law, the Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation has classified all surface
waters of the state. Classifications are determined by the
present and future most beneficial use of these waters, and
establish water quality criteria for such parameters as biolog-
ical oxygen demand, detergents, oils and grease, specific
metals and pesticides, pH, turbidity, and radioactive sub-
stances.
All surface waters within the study area are either Class II -
Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting, or Class III - Recreation
- Propagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife. Essen-
tially, the Class II standards place more stringent limitations
on bacteriological and flouride pollution, with other water
quality standards being identical for marine waters of the two
classes. Management standards_ for Class II waters, however,
are much more restrictive than standards for Class III waters.
For example, direct discharge -of treated wastewater effluent
into Class II waters is prohibited, as are dredge and fill
projects except where the applicant has submitted a plan of
procedure which will adequately protect the project vicinity
from significant damage. Dredge and fill permits may also be
denied in any class of waters where such activities may result
in violation of water quality, standards in nearby Class II
waters.
The 'Class III water quality standards are intended to maintain
suitability for body contact sports and recreation, and produc-
tion of diverse fish and wildlife communities. State dredge
and fill restrictions are geared toward protection of the water
quality standards, with fish and wildlife habitat considera-
tions occupying a supportive, but not decisive role.
28
Recreational or commercial harvest of shellfish, i.e. edible
oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and clams (Mercenaries
mercenaris), is regulated by the Florida Department of Natural
Resources. Shellfish growing areas are classified as approved,
conditionally approved, or prohibited on the basis of
bacteriological and sanitary surveys of water quality and
shellfish purity according to standards and guidelines of the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Harvesting of shellfi.sh
is permitted in approved or conditionally approved waters, with
the latter areas temporarily closed following major rainfall
events.
Because shellfish are filter feeders and capable of concen-
trating pathogens by a factor of 100 or more, restriction of
water pollution and dredge and fill activities are particularly
stringent in approved shellfishing areas. For example, only
maintenance dredging of existing channels, construction of
coastal protection structures, and installation of water,
electric, or communication lines in existing right-of-ways may
be permitted in approved shellfishing areas.
Surface waters of the Indian River within Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, Sebastian Inlet state recreation
areas, and the Malabar to Vero Beach aquatic preserves are
considered "Outstanding Florida Waters". This designation
affords highest priority to water quality protection in these
areas. Additional regulations regarding public access, dredge
and fill, and other potentially damaging activities are estab-
lished by the D.N.R through the proposed management plan.
Restricted Activities In The Aquatic Preserve
The plan provides that activities such as the sale or lease of
state submerged lands. cannot be approved unless they -can be
shown to be in the.public interest. Activities such as waste
discharges, drilling of gas or oil wells, or creating bulkhead
lines waterward of the mean high water line are generally
prohibited. Dredging and filling of submerged lands are
prohibited except in specific instances and only after approval
by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund
(Governor and Cabinet).
The plan also addresses environmental concerns relating to boat
docking facilities. Single-family docks are permitted within
the preserve; however, dock width and length is restricted.
Multiple dock facilities, including marinas and yacht clubs are
restricted to areas containing. little or no significant natural
resources. These facilities are also limited.by width and
length.
The Trustees and the D.N.R. will use the proposed plan as a
policy document in the review of application for the use of
state-owned lands and related activities surrounding the
Preserve. Examples include the lease of state lands for marina
sites as well as dredge & fill permit applications. In addi-
tion, the'document will serve to guide D.N.R. personnel when
interacting with various government entities, interest groups,
and individuals.
The Proposed Effect Of The Plan On Indian River
The proposed plan contains many policy directions important to
Indian River County. The plan objectives are in conformance
with the policies and regulations contained in Indian River
County's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Laws and Ordinances.
The plan will assist County staff in the review of shoreline
development activities. In addition, the proper enforcement of
these plan objectives ensures that County residents will
continue to enjoy the many diverse recreational opportunities
provided by the Preserve.
29
CT 9 1985 Boos 62 PA X30'
� � J
1; •
Bou 62 PAGE 33 7
The plan specifically discusses the construction of future
bridges and causeways in the Preserve by stating, "Existing
bridges and causeways within other sections of the Indian River
have resulted in losses of grassbeds and mangroves. Proposals
for bridge and causeway construction within the preserve will
be reviewed in light of these potential impacts. Causeways
restrict natural flushing and create unnatural circulation
patterns."
Indian River County, in planning for a future bridge to North
Orchid Island, must consider the resource management issues
contained in the plan. Of particular importance is selecting
potential sites; the County should consider areas where environ-
mental impacts to aquatic habitats are minimal and where
natural circulation patterns will be maintained. In addition
to specific management plan consistency standards, the County
must prove -that the proposed bridge project is in the public
interest as provided in F.A.C. 16Q-20.
Staff discussions with D.N.R. personnel indicate that any
bridge siting proposal to North Orchid Island would be reviewed
on the basis of a "least biological impact" alternative and
public interest test. The County, by selecting a site of
minimal ecological value and demonstrating that a future bridge
will improve and enhance the public health, safety, welfare,
and low enforcement by improved evacuation of the Island,
should not have difficulty in obtaining the required environ-
mental permits.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
the proposed Malabar to Vero Beach Aquatic Preserve Management
Plan as a review document by which shoreline projects within
the Preserve will be evaluated by the County. It is also
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners send a
County representative to the public meeting concerning this
plan to be held October 14, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in Sebastian to
speak in favor of the proposed plan.
Mr. Challacombe noted that staff reviewed the proposed
management plan with regard to planning for a new bridge to north
Orchid Island. In order to get a permit from the DNR to build
the bridge, the County must choose an area with the least
biological impact and be able to prove that the bridge is in the
public interest. He felt fairly confident that we could obtain
the necessary permits without too much difficulty in the future
and proceed with projects of that nature.
Chairman Lyons inquired if the control practices mentioned
under (L) on Page 25 of the proposed management plan are grand-
fathered in, such as mosquito impoundments.
Mr. Challacombe explained that many of the requirements and
prohibitions in the plan are areas where the DNR either prohibits
or requires lease agreements from the developer. This particular
30
prohibition would include any mosquito impoundment that is within
the aquatic preserve, such as Hole -in -the -Wall or Pine Island.
However, any private lands would be exempt from the aquat.ic
preserve area.
w
Chairman Lyons assumed the Board would ask Mr. Challacombe
to represent Indian River County at the meeting of October 14th
in Sebastian and recommended that he get the mosquito impoundment
matter clarified.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested that Mr. Challacombe ask for
the exact definition of a "deep water port." He expressed great
concern over a document that contains so many policy directives
starting with the word "Prohibit..." and wondered if this
management plan had additional restrictions that we have not had
in the past. Specifically, he asked if Item (J) would affect the
fishing industry, and Mr. Challacombe stated it would not, only
in relation to marinas and docking facilities.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if docks would be allowed in the
Indian River along Sebastian, and Mr. Challacombe stated this is
yet to be determined by the DNR as it will depend on what water
classification they receive.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired if this policy is saying that
there would be no docks or marinas east of the Intercoastal all
the way up the river, and Mr. Challacombe explained that with
regard to commercial marinas, our land use plan already limits
the commercial area for marinas.
Planning & Development Director Robert Keating noted that we
have a requirement with the new growth management legislation
which was passed last year to establish a marina siting element
to address.commercial marinas, marinas for multi -family
developments and single-family subdivisions with multi -slip
facilities. To determine the best places for these docks, we are
going to have to use these provisions and various other
information that we have developed. He pointed out that water
31
OCT 91985 MOK
I
OCT 9 1985 ,® 62 mE 8
classifications I, II, and 111already exist in the general rules
relating to aquatic preserves.
Commissioner Bird wished to have further clarification
regarding the County use of some of the spoil islands for public
recreational purposes.
Administrator Wright asked if we would be allowed to go in
and clean out the underbrush in Joe Earman Park, for instance,
and Chairman Lyons vowed he would fight until his last breath for
these last wildlife breeding areas.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if these proposed rules for this
aquatic preserve stretching from Malabar to Vero Beach are
special from the general laws pertaining to all aquatic preserves
and whether it is going to be up to the County to enforce these
special regulations or is it going to be up to the DNR or the
Governor and Cabinet.
Mr. Challacombe stated he could answer only part of that
question with respect to docks and marinas. Any lease agreement
for use of submerged lands would have to be approved by the
Governor and Cabinet, such as for a condominium multi -slip marina
on the river. A single-family dock would merely require a
consent of use permit by the DNR. The management plan recognizes
the riparian rights of the shoreline property owners and
specifically allows the right of egress and ingress through w
single-family docks.
Commissioner Bird asked what agencies would be involved and
to what extent if the management plan is adopted, and Mr.
Challacombe explained that the DNR is going to be in charge of
regulating and enforcing this particular plan and already have
hired enforcement officers to cite illegal docks in the aquatic
Y
preserve. He pointed out that the County is going to be required
to adopt the management plan dock and policy provisions by July
1, 1986 or it will be impossible for developers to obtain leases
through the DNR and a lease is necessary to utilize submerged
bottom lands, unless they are owned in fee. However, these would
32
still have to get DNR permits. The Moorings is a good example of
this.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that while it is going to be
relatively easy for a large developer to get a permit through
Tallahassee, it is going to be very hard on a single family to go
through this whole procedure to get a permit for one little dock.
Director Keating interjected that a lot of these
recommendations try to ensure some kind of coordination among all
the various agencies and jurisdictions that have responsibility
for regulating development and other activity within the aquatic
preserve area. He noted that a lot of these things that we are
discussing today are already in effect in the general rules
relating to all aquatic preserves.
Commissioner Bird understood that the proposed management
plan will go through a series of public hearings to receive
testimony before it is finally adopted and felt it would be a
little premature for us to go ahead and adopt this today before
we see what the final draft looks like.
Chairman Lyons believed it was the Board's concensus that
Mr. Challacombe be appointed to attend the meeting and convey our
concerns. The Commissioners indicated their agreement.
Mr. Challacombe understood he was to ask for clarification
of the status of mosquito impoundments and the recreational
impact to the spoil island areas.
Commissioner Wodtke was concerned also about the control by
the Marine Fisheries Commission as noted in Item (X), and Mr.
Challacombe believed the directive given in that item was
directed to the DNR enforcement s.taff.
Chairman Lyons agreed that question needed an answer.
Commissioner Wodtke also felt that Items (Y) and (Z) were
inconsistent and wanted to know if that meant that the local plan
has to jibe with the State plan or the other way around. He
wished to have Mr. Challacombe get further clarification re the
many inconsistencies with the DNR and DER about what local rules
33
OCT 9 1985 Qo� 62i
r
OCT
91985
Boa
62
are going to be in effect.
He also wished to know if we
must
include some policy on shellfish harvesting when we adopt a
marina siting element in our Comp Plan, and Director Keating
stated he did not believe we would.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there was an organized group
somewhere in the Vero Beach to Malabar area that has had an
opportunity to review the entire aquatic preserve management plan
and is planning on attending the October 14th meeting in
Sebastian.
Commissioner Bowman advised that there is a lagoon committee
for the entire river, and Intergovernmental Relations Director
Tommy Thomas reported that a number of organizations are taking a
close look at the proposed management plan. He suggested another
important question Mr. Challacombe should ask at the meeting is
what is the exact procedure for implementing anything in this
plan.
Tim Adams reported that another meeting is being held on
this proposed plan this week at the Florida Institute of
Technology and several interested people from this area will
attend that meeting as well as the Sebastian meeting.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made and
Seconded, the Board adjourned at 11:10 o'cl.ock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
34
W
W