HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/5/1986Wednesday, February 5, 1986
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,
February 5, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard
N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also
present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Rabbi Richard Messing, Temple Beth Shalom, gave the
invocation, and Administrator Wright led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Lyons requested that an agreement with the
Division of Library Services for state aid to our libraries be
added to the Consent Agenda.
Attorney Vitunac asked that an item dealing with the
donation of a piece of property for the golf course be added
under his matters. -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, to add the items as de-
scribed above to today's agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 8, 1986,
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 8, 1986, and the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 14, 1986. There were
none.
Bou 63 P,! �E 490
L_ FEB 5198fi
FEB 5 1986
BOOK 63 Fret491
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
January 8, 1986, the Special Meeting of Janu-
ary 8, 1986, and the Special Meeting of Janu-
ary 14, 1986, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Attorney Vitunac requested that Item M be removed for
discussion.
A. & B. - Reports
The following reports were received and placed on file in
the Office of the Clerk of the Courts:
Traffic Violations by Name, December, 1985
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund,
December, 1985 - $39,918.35
The following reports were received and placed on file in
the Office of the Clerk to the Board:
Florida Inland Navigational District:
1. Audit report fiscal year ending 9/30/85
2. Annual Financial Report, 1985
3. Statement of Condition, 9/30/85
C. Proclamation - Retired Senior Volunteer Day
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
approved the following Proclamation desig-
nating February 10, 1986, as Retired Senior
Volunteer Day.
2
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, each year many retired senior citizens of our
community and county volunteer countless hours of service in
order to help others; and
WHEREAS, the RETIRED SENIOR VQLUNTEER PROGRAM is founded on
dedication and a commitment to provide a variety of opportunities
for retired persons who are age 60 or more to- participate more
fully in life through significant volunteer service; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County benefits greatly by the
thousands of volunteer hours that senior citizens donate each
year; and
WHEREAS, presently more than 40 non-profit organizations
and agencies have senior volunteers doing a number of challenging
and interesting volunteer jobs in our community; and
WHEREAS, membership in the RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM
is open to anyone age 60 or more who is willing to donate 5 hours
a week to volunteer service;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA That February 10,
1986 be observed as
RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER DAY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
and the Board invites all citizens to honor our senior citizens
who contribute so unselfishly of their time and energy to
volunteerism.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY -�.r.. C
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
BY
FREDA WRIGHT, CLEIff
�3
BOOK 63 r,,CF 492
FEB1,986 BOOK 63 FACE 493 7
D. Bid #273 - Reflective Pavement Markings, 49th St_
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Jan. 15, 1986 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #273 -Reflective Pavement
County Administrator Markings
49th Street Project
FROM: dx't
REFERENCES:
Carolyn oodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, January 14, 1986 at 11:00 A.M.,
for IRC #273 -Reflective Pavement Markings -49th Street for
the Traffic Engineering Department.
9 Bid Proposals were sent out, 4 Bids were received.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Best Striping, Loxahatchee, Fl.,
in the amount of $3,313.00.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #273 be awarded to the low bidder,
Best Striping, Inc.
Funds to come from Account #105-214-541-35.39.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #273 for Reflective Pavement Markings
for the 49th Street Project to the lowest and
best bidder, Best Striping, Loxahatchee, FI., in
the amount of $3,313.00, as set out in the follow-
ing bid tabulation:
4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
a& c1q y�� ,,� Q0
..c
c°j44°i v �a '^, y"
F� m� �QFQ y tu�
Q1�
BID NO.
IRC BID #273
DATE OF OPENING
Jan. 14, 1986
BID TITLE Reflective Pavement Markings
49th St. Project. -
ITEM DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT P
1. 710-2 Solid Traffic Stripe
.06
LF
.065
LF
.045
LF
.06
LF
11 21,8 0 LF
1311
00
1420
25
1 983
251
1311
00
"
2. 711-1 Skip Traffic Stripe
490
00
1584
00
1254
00
350
00
(4" Yellow Center Line) 2.01GM
984
90
3185
84
2520
54
703
50
3.
160
00
150
00
250
00
120
00
711-3 Pavement Message RR 2 Ea
320
00
300
00
500
00
240
00
4. 711-6 Solid Traffic Stripe
.28
LF
.35
LF
.95
LF
.24
LF
4" Yellow Center Line 3150 LF
882
00
1102
50
2992
50
756
00
5. 711-6 Solid Traffic Stripe
(24" White) (Eleven 11/ft Stop
2.40
LF
2.4
LF
3.7E
LF
2.5C
LF
Bars 121 LF
290
40
290
40
453
75
302
50
Total --
;3788
30
6296
99
7450
043313
00
Earliest Date to Start Work
10 da
From n
s
tic
as
equir
d
10 cays
from
notice
E. Bid #274 - Road Striping Edgelines
1-2
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
5
FEB 1996 Bou 63 FA -H494
e
BOOK 63 PAGE 495
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Jan. 15, 1986 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC #274 -Road Striping-Edgelines
County Administrator
IF
,,�
FROM: ./6 REFERENCES:
Carolyn G odrich, Manager
Purchasi g Department
1. Description and Conditions --
Bids were received Tuesday, January 14, 1986 at 11:00 A.M.
for IRC #274- Road Striping-Edgelines for the Traffic
Engineering Department.
10 Bid Proposals were sent out, 7 Bids were received.
2. Alternatives and Anal sis
The low bid was submitted by Premier Striping, Naples, F1., in
the amount of $10,211.22, or .034 per L.F. Last year's bid
was .04 per L.F.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #274 be awarded to the low bidder,
Premier Striping.
Funds are budgeted in Account #111-245-541-35.35.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #274 for Road Striping Edgelines to
the lowest and best bidder, Premier Striping,
Naples, FI. in the amount of $10,211.22, as set
out in the following bid tabulation:
6
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
w
Q `'� j
tro'c y roro ro C
I �m k,
^
BID NO.
IRC BID #274
DATE OF OPENING
Jan. 14, 1986
BID TITLE
ROAD STRIPING-EDGELINES
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE UNIT
PRICE UNIT
PRICE
UNIT
PRICE
UNn'- PRICE
UNIT
1.
4th Street Old Dixie to 43rd
.05
.05
.088 .03
.03
.05
Ave.
23,840 L.F.
1072 80
1311
0
1192
00 2097
32 8101
56
929
76
1190
00
2.
Oslo
Road/CR606 (US
.045
1 .055
1
.05
.08
.03
.03
.05
74,770 L.F.
3364 65
4112
1 35
3738
50 6579
76 2542
18
2916
03
3738
50
3.
43rd
Ave/CR 611 (23 St.SW to
.045
.055
.05
.08
.034
.039
.05
41st
St.) _ 71,270 L.F.
3207 15
3919
85
3563
50 6271
76 2423
18
2779
153
3563
50
4.
82nd
Ave/CR 609 (Oslo Rd to
.045
.055
.05
1 .08
.03
.039
.05
SR 60)
36,740 L.F.
1653 30
2020
70
1837
00 3233
12 1249
16
1432
86
1837
00
CR
510
(A - 1-A
.04
.055
.05
.088
.034
.039
.05
93,710 L.
4216 95
5154
05
4685
50 8246
48 3186
14
3654
69
4685
50
Total
13514 85
16518
15
15016
50 26429
04 10211
22 11712
87
15014
50
Earliest Date to Start 10
day
2 wks
20 da
s as
10 d
ys
rom n tic
after
award
d
requir
d
F. Release of Assessment Lien -_Indian River Heights
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
approved Release of Assessment Lien for
Richard and Barbara Parker, Lot 27, Block G,
Indian River Heights Subdivision, and author-
ized the signature of the Chairman.
7
BOOK 63 FAGS 496
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
BOOK 63 PrwF. 497
For and in consideration of the sum of $538.02, RECEIVED
from RICHARD and BARBARIC PARKER, 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 661, Page 1288, for a special assessment in the
41
amount of $538.02 levied in accordance with the provisions of
Ordinance No. 81-27 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:
Lot 27, Block G, Indian River Heights Subdivision,
Unit 4, as recorded in Plat Book 6, page 86, in the
Official Record Books of Indian River County, Florida.
I�
Executed by the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and,
al
countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this 5th day
i
of February,1986.
Attested and countersigned by:
FREDA WRIGHT, C rk of
Circuit Court
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
G
DON C. SCU LOCK, JR
Chairman
G. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Applications - Indian River Farms
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
8
TO: The Honorable Members DATE. January 27, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
SUBJECT: & D.N.R. PERMIT
Robert t a ing� ICP APPLICATIONS
Planning & Develo ment Director
FROM:''` REFERENCES:
Arthur Challacombe IR Farms
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 5, 1986.
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION FILE NO. 31-114824-4
(After the fact)
APPLICANT: Indian River Farms
WATERWAY & LOCATION: Indian River Farms Water Control District
R-2 Canal, 16th Street, 250 feet west of 90th Avenue, Section
3, Township 33 S, Range 38E within the unincorporated portion
of Indian River County.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to install a culvert to
provide an outlet for interstate commercial park subdivision.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following.
- The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan;
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and
- The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan.
- The Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian -River County
- Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserves Management Plan
This culvert outfall is part of an overall plan for the 20 acre
interstate commercial park subdivision which has received
approval from all local agencies. The cut back into the
existing bank of the canal was done at the request of the
Indian River Farms Water Control District to minimize erosion
of the opposite bank.
An alternative to the proposed outlet is rerouting this
discharge point to an existing culvert 200 feet East.
According to the applicant, this would add substantially to the
cost and would not function as well since the existing culvert
is not sized for the additional flow and is at a higher
elevation.
Precautions to prevent degradation of the waters of the State
include silt screening.if necessary and stabilization of all
exposed earth cuts with sod.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to submit a letter of no objection to the
D.E.R.
9
Boa 63 F�a,�.{ 498
r FEB 51986
BOOK 63 PnE.499
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to submit a letter of no
objection to the D.E.R. re the above project.
H. Budget Amendment - Space at 2001 Building
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
approved the following budget amendment for
additional space at the 2001 Building:
TO: Honorable Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Josep A. Baird
OMB Director
DATE: January 29, 1986 FILE:
SUBJECT:
Budget Amendment
for Space Needed
at 2001 Building
REFERENCES:
Account Title Account Number Increase --Decrease
Rent - Buildings 001,-220-51934.42 $27,306
Electrical Services 001=220-519,34.31 10,500
Other Buildings 001-220=51946.29 6,600
Reserve for Contingency 001-199e-581-99.91 $44,406
Explanation•
The above budget amendment is for the cost of additional space at the 2001
Building, which was approved by the Honorable Board of. County Commissioners.
The $6,600 is for the leasehold improvements. The rent and electric have.been
pro -rated for the remaining three quarters of the 1985/86 fiscal -year.
JAB/ew
001-199-581-99.91
- Contingency Balance
Beginning Balance $375,000
Adjustments (101,756)
Balance as of 01-29-86 $273,244
10
I
I Budget Amendment - Additional Space at Existing Jail Site
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the follow-
ing budget amendment for the additional space required
for prisoners at the existing jail site:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 29, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
FROM: Joseph A. Baird for Additional Space
OMB Director Required at Existing
Jail Site
Account Title
Rent - Buildings
Other Buildings
Reserve for Contingency
-Expl anal on
Account Number Increase
001-906-523-34.42 $17,600
001-906-523-66.29 15,800
001-199-581-99.91
Decrease
$33,400
Indian River County was required to make additional space for prisoners at
their existing site at 1725.= 17th Avenue. The $17,600 is for eight months rental
of modular buildings. The $15,800 is the cost of putting these modulars in place.
This includes electrical work $2,000., alarm system $300., plumbing $1,500., con-
crete $1,000., fencing $6,000., and modular set-up $5,000.
JAB/ew
001-199-581-99.91 --Contingency Balance
Beginning Balance $375,000
Adjustments (101,756)
Balance as of 01-29-86 $273,244
J. Release of Assessment Liens - Pine Creek Condo II
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved Release of
Assessment Liens for SR 60 Sewer and for SR 60 Water for
Charles and Mary Meisinger, Condo Unit #104, Pine Creek
Condominium II.
1 1 BOOK 63 pni-r 590 i
FEB 1986
FEB 5 1996
Booz 63 F,�b-c 591
State Road 60 SEWER Project
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $1,225.00
RECEIVED from CHARLES H. METSTNGER and MARY MACE METSTNGER, his %ai *e,
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 # 104 of PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUM II
according to the Declaration of Condominium, recorded
in O. R. Book 720, Page 1990, 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 Sth day
of February , 19 86
Attested and countersigned:
Freda Wright, C14erk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By / G
Don C. Scurloc , r
12
State Road 60 Water Project
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $970.45
RECEIVED from CHARLES Ii. MEISINGER and MARY ALICE MEISINGER, his wife,
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 ful-ly
satisfied.
The property,
located in Indian River County, is more fully described as
follows:
Condominium Unit # 104 of PINE CREEK CONDOMINIUM II
according to the Declaration of Condominium, recorded
in O. R. Book 720, Page 1990 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 5th day
of February 19 86 .
Attested and countersigned:
I
Freda Wright, Plerk
am=
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
.By / C
jzltIA
Won' curJr.
Chairman
13
BOOK 63 F 502
r
-7
Boos 63 F,�crr503
K. Execution of Quitclaim Deed - Lake Rose Property
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac:
T0: Commissioners County DATE: 1 28 86 FILE:
':SUBJECT.. Board Action at its
• �Meeting 2/5/86
V
FROM: REFERENCES:
Charles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney
During a road paving project in the Sunnyside Subdivision and
while assessing adjacent property owners, the City of Vero
Beach discovered an apparent interest of Indian River County
in Lake Rose, as shown on the attached plat.
Tommy Thomas has researched this matter and is aware of no
County interest in the lake; however, Tom Nason from the City
of Vero Beach has indicated that if the County will quitclaim
any interest it has in the lake to the City, the City will
take care of the road assessment.
I request direction from the Board of County Commissioners on
this subject. Attached is a quitclaim deed prepared by the
City which can be exectued if the County so desires.
to TN
14
7903
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved Quit
Claim Deed to the City of Vero Beach re Lake Rose and
authorized the signature of the Chairman.
2/18/86 (23c) C.A.
QUITCLAIM DEED
THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, made this Sth day of February , 1986, between the
Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter
"Grantor", and the City of Vero Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Florida, hereinafter "Grantee",
WITNESSETH:
That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $10.00, to him in hand
paid by the Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does release,
remise, and quitclaim, and by these presents releases, remises, and forever
quitclaims unto the said Grantee, its heirs and assigns forever, all right, title, and
Interest of the Grantor in and to the following described land, to -wit:
Situated in the State of Florida, County of Indian
River, City of Vero. Beach, and being a part of
Tract 12 of Section 3, Township 33 South, Range
39 East, and being more particularly bounded
and described as follows:
All of Block A, designated as Lake, on the Plat
of Sunnyside Park Subdivision as recorded in
Plat Book 1, Page 7 of the Official Records of St.
Lucie County, Florida.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all the hereditaments and
appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining to the said Grantee,
its heirs and assigns forever.
Signed, Sealed, and delivered INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD
in the presence of: OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that /the
is day, before me, an officer duly authorized in
the State aforesaid and i County aforesaid to take acknowledgements,
personally appeared Freda right and Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Clerk and Chairman
of the Indian River County Board of Commissioners to me known to be the persons
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged
before me that they executed the same.
, WITNESS,my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this
-- -- -day of , 1986.
Mary P blic, Sta e f Florid
My Co fission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UND .
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986
This instrument prepared by:
ity Attorney
P.O. Box 1389
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1389
15
BOOK 63 e,1GE 50
4
Clerk �Q/C�
Chairman
;�r' -�'- • a; 1�� f " ,�
Freda Wright
�.
Don C. Scurlock,
Jr.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
n�.L�
i
Or-C11-
Cl,�r"
►fir dh:Cc��.riy
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that /the
is day, before me, an officer duly authorized in
the State aforesaid and i County aforesaid to take acknowledgements,
personally appeared Freda right and Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Clerk and Chairman
of the Indian River County Board of Commissioners to me known to be the persons
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged
before me that they executed the same.
, WITNESS,my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this
-- -- -day of , 1986.
Mary P blic, Sta e f Florid
My Co fission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
BONDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE UND .
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 8 1986
This instrument prepared by:
ity Attorney
P.O. Box 1389
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1389
15
BOOK 63 e,1GE 50
4
1986'
aooK 63 FnF 50
L. Contract for Legal Services re 9.5M FmHA Loan (Gifford)
The Board reviewed memo of County Attorney Vitunac:
TO: Board of County DATE: 1 /28/86
FILE:
Commissioners •
SUBJECT: Board Action at its
Meeting 2/5/86
_ u
FROM: REFERENCES:
Charles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney
Request authorization for the Chairman to execute the attached
contracts for legal services in connection with the $9.5
million FmHA loan for sewer- construction in the Gifford area.
These legal services were previously approved by the Board at
its meeting on September 18, 1985.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
i
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
approved FmHA Legal Services Agreement with
Rhoads 6 Sinon to act as Bond Counsel for the
above described 9.5 million FmHA loan.
16
a
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ACRICULTURE
Farmers home Administration
LEGAL SERVICES AGREP11ENT
'fills agreement made lhlu Sth d;►y isl February
19 86. •,between Indian River County, Florida
(sponsors) (organizing committee) (Name of organization)
hereinafter referred to as "Owners," and Rhoads & Sinon ,
attorney at law, of Vero Beach, Florida , hereinafter referred
to as "Attorney":
WHEREAS, Owners-arm.-1ate�ding--tom-.form-__��UaYe_Earmedl_____ _
�.� ("public water supply
.district," "public service district," "not for profit corporation," or
other of ficial designation) N ("hotly politic," "municipal
------ -
corporatlon," "nonprofit corporation," or other organization)
•fn is a County
under the provisions of Chapter 10148, Laws of Florida and Chnprprcz 125
(Cite statute(s) under which applicant will be
and 159, Florida Statutes ; and
organized)
WHEREAS, the Attorney agrees to perform all legal services necessary
fio-mran�sr:-n�-ti+c�cs�{+wt-at�e•-.►a�ld as Bond Custng-uP1 ,
ande r -t i ve--pt-eY4-rAeea- e-€
ss44-stagerte&-end--tso--pei-f,&vm-*A4-ether,customary legn+--servfeee-necessary-
to the ergatti-a-E-fon-, financing, construction, and initial operation of
a sewer system;
WITNESSETiI:
That for and to consideration of the mutual covenants and promises between
the parties hereto, it is hereby agreed:
SECTION A - LEGAL SERVICES
• �, as Bond Counsel,
That the Attorney will perform such services as are necessary to accomplish
- the above recited objectives including, but not limited to, the following:
17
BOOK 6 _r 5'J6
BOOK 6 ,ula 507
l , at+d-fc�-if+earpe�rst#e�-$ad-
Supervision and assistance in the taking of such miter actions
as may be necessary or tricidental to cause the Owners. to become •^+,�,
duly or and -fneorperated- u4 -to- be authorized to undertake
the proposed system. n
2. Furnish advice and assistance to the governing body of the duly
Incorporated association in co -clte n with (a) the-ncticr-far and
conduct of meetings; (b) the preperet-ion of minutes of meetings; or ordinances
(c) the preparation and enactment of such resolutions as may be
necessary in connection with the authorization, financing,
construction, anti initial olvratlon of the system; (d) the-;rMpatattvn
of --out;!. atfi�avtt�-pabti caritm-not-ices; -bxri-iota; reporra,-
sera. I F&.1eats.,-aad-Otlu►c- as►d-.-41vLca-as-may-bv, aa4ded-
tw the ta•;r-ire-rrressarrg-(t} .
the prgparation and completion of such bonds or other obligations
as may be necessary to finance the system; (c£) the completion and
execution of documents for obtaining a loan made or insured or
a grant made by the United States of America, acting through the
Farmers Nome Administration, U. S. Department of A culture;
reeves Lion-and-
Eg}-et�t-et-tttg-#tee-eerrrr�s�k�r+-eor�t-r-erste-j
e4epe-!eTM of By -haws, Rules and Regulations, and rate schedules;
(g) such other corporate action as may be necessary in connection
with the financing, construction, and initial operation of the system.
it Revi�r-of••eotrrtrtiet-ls�a-eeats�►s Cs.T-hide-letti+--{sr-oced+ue,_aud
surety-8•nd--e t-rse-t*w4-beads-f4w-carute�czt,Lw�..tlter�+wlth.
4r of contract W111L-a`C121C-Qt
QCFIC�I''�d011fi�-O�W�i;B� tL{1�'L;t_WheJl nCn.�acen ry.
3: P�-iar-�--wltor�-sepesser-lrT--a-ad.-r-c►�k+�+-of-�kx�s.,-Qsun�aeA�c
end- et he-r4-vay-deeumertt-s,-�►Ad--ot�t+er--i-nst��atc-.fos
•s#ses- fc►E-amour-oe-.of-�.►afar-cupPl r-P11MP'ABr-- "'M -treatment
F11 antar am-=and-Lo-pcoulAp-
eone-+rsy-el+erefee�-a!��-tea-epic#ear
aftfr y f renes wg--for--tale•-r-eF�s�at-lea-tbor�a�..
6: 9bEa-ifr-seeessar-y--pew#ts-aatl-caFri-ficaws-.r.Ora-aty aud-mualc.i.paL
bQtlie&r from egarletosy-agescSos-r-a+Ki-4r4N5-4t4ax-fub1l4
or--pr-i atom--sour-oar- +#tli- osiwcC.-ta..ti+e_-als{unufal Of-tb4-sYstemr
rht:-c U115 t L U%. t t0ff-a•nd-operaefQn-`_&TT -=-` : -pf pe -14i e -e ress#flges-aad
rhe H-ke'.-
�r 6Qepe- rate --r R4t--t-iia-e"#+aeef-erapl�syed--by--Owner-s-��-row�aact,isA
With --preparation -$€-tesee-sheet-s•r-ease;aer�t-tri-,eftrl-��e�-flesessat�y
_ et•rl:e--doeument-s;-eon"feeE#ew-eertEFac:&sr-�+ater- 1�► eeaCsactc*
' hea-lNr-pe-rjmi-E� mese#trg-�e�#E-stead--carer--l�►star+�+oe�tr�
3.8. When applicable, secure assistance of and cooperate with recognized
bond counsel in the preparation of the documents necessary for
the financing aspects of the system. The attorney shall pay
all bond counsel in perfecting the financing aspects,
assessment procedures and completion of documents. Where bond
counsel is retained, the Attorney will not be responsible for the
preparation and approval of those documents pertaining to the
issuance of the Owner's obligations.
SECTION B - COMPENSATION
1. Owners• will pay to the Attorney for professional services rendered
In accordance herewith, fees as follows:
$15,000, plus out-of-pocket disbursements (Which diahnrcPmPntc _-
will not include travel to or from Indian River County from our
offices) which we estimate_to not exceed S2,000.
18
Said fees to be payable in the following wanner and at the following
times:
upon settlement of -financing if Permanent finanni„�
Initially,
upon terms agreed to by Owner and Attorneys if interim
financing is undertaken initially.
:ih� i�f{lam-(r---f1�IFiiii-a►�liVi �1 AAIS
1•. �kaE--�rpo�r-o-r-garr!-ea##en-eed-fReeeparat�otr--tt�e-as�eeiatfeer-skarn
��-A f(l�i A1C!'--!'etle-�tlE-SAH-ae ,per aHd--wrt-may-tints-�1EreemeRe;-t10
t -he. aseoai a E-ls -$#�a -be-rate o -r --t F -•i�d ty#dus€-9wnrrs•
ac's--pa.u3►..-to-��ia-Agee emew�r-a�ri.-�taa�--t�wHei: e-es-#�#�r.�ua-i-s•
Sba1.L-Ll�e.r�A-be-well-�ruea-a���-1-iu�-r-�a-1-�-ia�l#�y-e�feE-1 Hg.
a�..asisi�►�.Fsy+a-tl�.ic-Ag.wva�t�.-
2-r khat --upon organfzati ii-the-asgactattow
fa+1--or-- ref use-to-adoptjind-- ratify r7ttrirAg-m-emant-bya -
• reso eti�n-tr#tt►fn----------,days--franrthe-date-cf-rhe-
of--i-ts-3cge#-exfeteneett his -Agreement vha-H-term1-nvtLr and -yrs
• sttel-i--be-�iab-le-to-Fkt Attotney--ferr��yme7rt-of-$------------
wh4eh-•sum -i epeesentr&e�nnc-fre-4n--f-trio-4'&r-t}ke-org&rtiewNfmr-and-
litet}r-pe a eH-a€-tl�e sear i-trt-� oFt--ntid-•€e c-a##-eeher-kegs-l--ae�vfc-e s
reirodered-#e-Awneea-wWe - tifte--tr�ri+w-o€--t-k#g-Agree+ *t--to--Nte--det -
o� -sa-int-#e"€eatr#ae.
Rhoads- &/ Sinon
At to me $
Owne r&:
Indian River County
By:
__2�" es
Board of County Commiss ers
M_ Approval of Stipulation re Overpopulation of County Jail
The Board reviewed memo of County Attorney Vitunac:
TO• Board of County/29/86 1 / 29 / 86 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Board Action at its .
Meeting 2/5/86
FROM:All.
Charles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney
The attached Stipulation and Order was prepared by the
Department of Corrections, after a meeting with County staff
in Tallahassee several months ago, to settle the long-standing
lawsuit filed by the State against the County concerning
excessive population at our County Jail.
The County staff recommends approval of the Stipulation with
the change of the date of the interim period from August 1st
to November 1, 1986. I believe this change will be acceptable
to the State.
19
1986 Boas. 63
FEB 5 Book 63 F; F 5.99
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that since this item was
put on the agenda, the D.O.C. has agreed with us on some changes
- in Paragraph 1, they changed the date from December Ist, to the
date we signed the contract which was December 5, 1985, and in
that same Paragraph 1, 4th line down about complying with the
rules and regulation, they added "including those dealing with
outside exercise." This was already in there, but they wanted
to emphasize that the outside exercise requirements would be
complied with. Attorney Vitunac advised that the Stipulation
protects us to November 1st, and it will end the lawsuit. If the
Jail should not be ready by November 1st, we can ask for an
extension.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Stipulation with the changes as
outlined by County Attorney Vitunac and author-
ized the signature of the Chairman.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
CASE NO. 85 274 CA -17
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, Secretary,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY; and R. T. DOBECK, SHERIFF
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
Defendants.
STIPULATION AND ORDER
THIS STIPULATION, entered into this 10th day of
February 19861 between the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
herein referred to as the "Department"; and THE BOARD OF COUNTY
20
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Herein referred to
as the "County";
W I T N E S S E T ii :
WHEREAS, the parties to this Stipulation are currently
involved in litigation in the above -styled cause; and
WHEREAS, this action was instituted by the Department
to seek compliance with the rules and regulations contained in
Chapter 33-8, F.A.C., as they relate to the conditions at the
Indian River County Detention Facility; and
WHEREAS, certain issues raised in the above-described
action will be resolved by*the actions of the parties pursuant to
this stipulation; and
WHEREAS, the County is in the process of constructing
new County Detention Facilities; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of justice to
resolve the issues in this action and that the resolution of the
issues, as to the conditions at the Indian River County Detention
Facility, will resolve all remaining matters in this action;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the actions to be
taken and of the further covenants contained herein, the parties
agree, covenant and stipulate to the following:
1. That on or before February 10, 1986, the County
shall reduce the population of the Indian River County Detention
Facility to its state authorizePcapacity of seventy-three (73)
and shall be in full compliance with the rules and regulations of
including the exercise requirements _.
Chapter 33-8, F.A.C./ with regard to the population -capacity of
the County Detention Facility. Defendant may, during the interim
period from the signing of this agreement until November 1, 1986,
as circumstances warrant, exceed the authorized capacity of the
County Detention Facility for no more than forty-eight (48)
consecutive hours. Defendant agrees to provide Plaintiff monthly
inmate population counts during the interim period.
2. That in order to reduce the population of the
Indian River County Detention Facility and achieve and maintain
the authorized population Level, Defendant shall implement a
"Fast -Track Committee". This Committee shall be composed of the
21 600K 63 Ft�;r t�1®
FEB5 1996
BOOK �� a� FA G E �JL11 -,
�
Chief Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, or his designee;
a representative of the Indian River County State's Attorney
office; a representative of the Indian River County Public
Defender's office; the Indian River County Jail Administrator, or
his designee; and, two (2) private citizens appointed at -large by
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County. The
"Fast -Track Committee" shall meet on an as needed basis, during
the interim period and until the new Indian River County
Detention Facility is fully operational, to determine and
recommend which inmates, if any, must be released or transferred
to another program under the terms of this agreement, in order to
maintain the population of the Indian River County Detention
Facility within the authorized state capacity of seventy-three
(73) .
3. That the Defendant agrees that the present level of
compliance with Chapter 33-8, F.A.C., particularly with respect
inspection report dated April 3, 1985, shall be maintained at its
current level or improved during the interim period from the
signing of this Stipulation until November 1, 1986, at which time
Defendant shall begin operation of the new County Detention
Facility and shall cease utilizing the existing County Detention
Facility for the incarceration o? pre-trial detainees and
sentenced prisoners, until such time as the existing facility is
in full compliance with the requirements of Chapter 33-8, F.A.C.
Under no circumstances shall the Defendants allow the Indian
River County Detention Facility to deteriorate from the current
level of compliance with applicable regulations. The time period
commitment in this paragraph is without prejudice to Defendant to
move for an extension of time for good cause shown.
4. That as long as Defendant maintain the present
level of compliance with Chapter 33-8, F.A.C., or improve that
compliance, that the Department shall hold all further action in
connection with this case in abeyance, until November 1, 1986.
This cause shall not be subject to dismissal for failure to
prosecute during this interim period.
22
5. That so long as Defendants maintain the Indian
River County Detention Facility in compliance with the terms of
this Stipulation, this facility may continue to house prisoners
up to its authorized state capacity.
6. That during the interim time period, nothing
contained in this Stipulation shall be construed to require the
Defendant to refuse to accept into custody, or to require the
Defendant to release from the County Detention Facility, any
person who reasonably appears to present a potential danger to
the physical safety of others or his or her own safety.
7. That the agreements set forth above are done so for
the purpose of settlement only and do not constitute any admis-
sion by Defendants of violations of any law and may not be used
in any other proceeding wherein the Defendant is a party.
8. That this Stipulation shall be construed to promote
and insure the operation of the Indian River County Detention
Facility in a manner consistent with Florida Statutes Section
951.23 and Chapter 33-8, F.A.C. Nothing contained herein shall
be construed to prevent the Department from initiating any
enforcement action to remedy violations which arise after the
date of execution of this Stipulation.
9. That the parties agree and desire that this Court
approve this Stipulation and enter an appropriate order requiring
all parties and their successors in office to comply with the
provisions of this Stipulation, until further order of court.
10. That all parties agree and desire for the Court to
retain jurisdiction over the provisions of this Stipulation and
to enter such orders as are necessary to enforce compliance with
this Stipulation.
WITNESS our hands and seals the day and year first
above written.
C an LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, S cretary
Board of County Co sioners FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Indian River County Courthouse 1311 Winewood Boulevard
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
23
FEB 5 1986 . �oo� 63 512
Boa 63. mu 513
N. Final Payment Lindsey Rd. Box Culvert (J.E.Hill Contractors)
The Board reviewed memo of County Engineer Brescia:
TO: Tm HONORABLE MMERS OF DATE: January 27, 1986 FILE:
TX BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator
r^.
James W. Davis, P. E.
Public Works Director ^ INV
FROM:
Ralph N. Brescia, P. E.
County Engineer
SUBJECT: Final payment to J.E. Hill
Contractors -Lindsey Road Box
Culvert. Public Works
Project 8341 A.
REFERENCE�§Ifidsey Rd -final pym.
Construction of the Lindsey Road Box Culvert was completed by December
1985. At that time the Engineering Division recommended payment of
$57,712.48 in accordance with contract documents and inspection procedures.
This represented approximately 85% of the total contract price of
$67,499.97. Since that time, final inspections by members of the Engineer-
ing Staff have been conducted. The staff is satisfied that the project has
been completed properly and within the spot fied time requirements.
The Engineering Staff recommends that final payment in the amount of
$9,787.49 be remitted to the J.E. Hill Contracting Co. Rinds will cane
frau► the Lindsey Road Account No. 105-214-541.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
authorized final payment in the amount of
$9,787.49 to J. E. Hill Contracting Co. as
recommended by staff.
O. Agreement for State Aid to Libraries
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
approved the Agreement with the Division of
Library Services for State Aid to Libraries
and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
24
® M
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION OF LIBRARY SERVICES
and the
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
of
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
This Agreement, made and entered into this
M
day of
, 19860 by and between the State of
Florida, Department of State, Division of Library Services, hereinafter referred to
as the DIVISION, and the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the DIVISION is authorized pursuant to Sections 257.17, 257.172,
257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes, to administer operating, regional library,
equalization and establishment grants for public library service; and,
WHEREAS, funds have been appropriated to the DIVISION under Sections
257.17, 257.172, 257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes; and,
WHEILEAS, the cuu.J'1'Y has trade nppliention and certified eligibility for
receipt of a grant as authorized under 257.17, Florida Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, the CUUN 1'Y has centrally expended for the operation of public
liurary service during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984, the amount of
$253,91 U, exclusive of federal and state grants;
NOW THEREFORE, WITNESSETH TH 1 T' the parties hereto mutually agree,
in execution of the Agreement, as follows:
I
The COUNTY agrees to expend grant funds awarded pursuant to this
Agreement in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Chapter 257,
Florida Statutes, and Chapter l B-2, Florida Administrative Code, relating to free
public library service, and to provide access to financial records when an audit is
deemed necessary by the DIVISION.
25
Boo.
FED 5 1996 Bou 63 F,c-L515
n
The DIVISION, for and in consideration of the COUNTY'S performance
hereinunder, and contingent upon the availability and release of funds to the
DIVISION, awards an operating grant in the amount of twenty-three thousand,
eight hundred fifty-seven dollars ($23,857), to be released in quarterly allotments,
in aecordanee with the schedule set forth in ATTACHMENT A.
IN WITP4ESSETH NHEREOF, the parties hereto have agreed and executed
the Agreement the date and year first above written.
ATTEST:
" �411
Jerk of the Circuit/Court
Indian River County
59-600-674
Federal Employer's Identification Number
October 1, 1985
January 1, 1986
April 1, 1986
July 1, 1986
George Firestone
Secretary of State
State of Florida
� G
Chairman, Bonfd of Coun
Commissioners of Indian Riker
County
ATTACHMENT A
Quarterly Allotments
$5,964.50
5,964.50
5,964
5;964
Payments
.$11,929
11,928
The first payment will be made on receipt of the signed contract.
The third and fourth quarterly allotments will be processed for payment
in April, 1986.
26
r
OFFICIAL DONATION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY QUILT
Mrs. Gillespie, past President of Sun Bonnet Sue Quilters
made the following presentation, noting that since they have been
asked to display the quilt at the State Fair, they felt it should
be formally presented to the County:
ARTISTS SEN I= HISUM
It was difficult enough to put Indian River County
history and highlights into writing but twenty women in
the Sun Bonnet Sue Quilters not only accomplished the
task, they have recorded it with sewing needles and
thread and created a 90" x 108" pictorial quilt.
Since March 1982 this beautiful work of art has
been on permanent display at the County Administration
Building in a frame with a plexiglas cover specially
built to protect it.
The idea was first suggested by Arna Lyons, wife
of Commissioner Pat Lyons, when she saw another quilt
with the same theme on display in another state. With
some convincing, the members of the Club agreed to take
on the project, and Audrey Troutman, a member and art-
ist, began the task of designing the blocks. After
six months of library research using photos in Bicen-
tennial 1776 Edition 1976 of Florida's Historic Indian
River County, corresponding with Florida State agencies,
etc., the sketches were ready for distribution to the
members, who selected their blocks and used their own
creativity and ideas as to color, piecing, applique
and/or embroidery. They also chose and supplied their
mm materials.
The Quilt was two years in the designing, making
and quilting. The Sun Bonnet Sue Quilters spent many
enjoyable hours together working on the blocks shar-
ing talents and know-how, overcoming unanticipated
difficulties, and later working around the quilting
frame.
While the joy of quilting is the main force that
holds the Club together, they have used income from
their activities to serve a broader social purpose
and have made contributions to various local civic
and charitable organizations.
THB FOLIANING IDENTIFIES THE PARTS OF THE MILT AND
THE PERSON MID PRODUCED IT:
1. All designs by Audrey Troutman
2. TT center - Florida's Famous Sun - Tina
Eta esa
Starting at upper left corner:
3. Treasure Coast Sunken Treasure - June Kragh
4. Vero Beach Municipal Airport - Andrea Luliak
S. Memorial Island and Berber Bridge -
Marge Konopaska
6. Cardinal - Helena Kennedy
Second Row:
7. Chief Osceola - Laura Boswell -Friend
8. Vero Beach Fire Station - Area Lyons
9. Driftwood Inn 1935 - Audrey Troutman
10. Egrets in Swamp - Elsie Ponkop
Third Raw:
11. Pelican and Mangroves - Arna Lyons
12. First Church 1915 - Margaret Kircher
13. Woman's Club and First Library 1916 - June Kragh
14. Hibiscus - Daisy Smith
Fourth Row:
15. Pineapple and Other Fruits - Phyllis Homan
16. Vero Beach Railroad Station - June Kragh
2
LEGEND OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY QUILT
27
17. School HBuse - Audrey Troutman
18. Florida Map - Canwila Mullis
Fifth Row:
19. Sea Turtle - Maxine Million
•20. Dodgers - Karen Rockhill
21., Alligator - Pat Cantrell
22. �bekingbird - Elva Gillespie
Seals at bottom:
23. Indian River County Seal - Iris Marningstetn
24. State of Florida Flag - Carolyn Davies
2S. Vero Beach City Seal - Doris Hall
Left quilted border titled INDIAN RIVER includes
game fish, dolphin, manatee, sloop, seashells.
Right quilted border titled ATLANTIC OCEAN includes
shark, dolphin, sailfish, schooner, anchor.
BOOK
3
0� F"uC516
FEB 19 6 Bou 63 Ft �517
Chairman Scurlock accepted the quilt on behalf of the
Commission, and expressed the County's appreciation to all those
who had participated in the creation o.f the quilt.
REQUEST TO WITHHOLD COs FOR OLD DIXIE SHOPPING CENTER (BERLIN)
Cont Id.
Director Keating made the staff presentation, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 24, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO JOSEPH
BERLIN'S QUESTIONS
FROM: Robert M. Keating .PJ'K REFERENCES: Joseph Berlin
Director IBMIRD
Planning & Development Division
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 5, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the January 15, 1986 meeting of the Board of County Commis-
sioners, Mr. Joseph Berlin addressed the commission, requesting
that future certificates of occupancy and renewals of CO's for the
Old Dixie Shopping Center be withheld. During his presentation,
Mr. Berlin posed a number of questions to the County staff regard-
ing actions undertaken during the review, approval, and certifica-
tion of the subject project. Based upon a recommendation from the
County Attorney, the Board of County Commissioners directed the
staff not to respond to the questions during the meeting but,
instead, to prepare a written response to each of the questions.
These would then be presented to the commission at its February 5,
1986 meeting.
This item constitutes the staff's response to Mr. Berlin's in-
quiries. To provide background and perspective for this reply,
two attachments which describe the project and relate its history
have been appended to this memo. The specific questions raised by
Mr. Berlin at the January 15, 1986 meeting are as follows:.
I. Why were building permits issued to Gary Parris and Dr. J.
Thomas Springer for the project before they assumed ownership
of the project? Why was one building permit issued to two
properties? When ownership of the project was transferred to
Parris and Springer, why were they not required to formally
transfer site plan approval?
2. Why did the County not require DER 17-25 Stormwater Manage-
ment permit to be obtained prior to release of the site plan?
28
3. Why were Parris and Springer allowed to subdivide the center
after the center was constructed without firewalls having
been installed between units constituting separate lots?
4. Why was the proposed subdivision of the center presented to
the commission as a land condominium as opposed to a party -
wall subdivision since no condominium, as defined by Florida
Statutes, was proposed or approved for the project?
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the January 15, 1986 Board of County Commissioners meeting,
the staff has researched County records relating to the Old Dixie
Shopping Center project and analyzed the actions taken and ap-
provals given. 'Based upon that analysis, the staff provides the
following response to Mr. Berlin's questions.
1. Building permit records were researched to determine the
timing and sequence of building permit issuance. According
to County records, an application for a permit to construct
the center was submitted to the County Building Department on
June 22, 1984 by Gary Parris. This was submitted for review
only since no general contractor was identified. On July 11,
1984, the review was completed by the Building Department,
and the permit was put on hold pending receipt of necessary
information. The permit was released to Dave Autry, general
contractor, on November 14, 1984, one day after a deed for a
portion of the subject property was executed between Mary K.
Berlin and Dr. J. Thomas Springer. Subsequently, on November
19, 1984, a second deed for the remaining part of the proper-
ty was executed between Mary K. Berlin and Gary Parris. It
should also be noted that, throughout the site plan and
building permit review process, the construction process, and
the subdivision platting process, Joseph Berlin and Gary
Parris appeared together on numerous occasions during both
official and unofficial meetings with County staff.
When the building permit was issued, Dr. Springer was the
owner of a portion of the project. In addition, the building
permit application was submitted in conjunction with a copy
of the approved site plan, an indication that the building
permit applicant had the owner's permission to obtain a
building permit. Previously, at the initiation of the site
plan review process, Mary K. Berlin had designated Total
Development, Inc. as agent for the project. For that reason,
the staff feels that it was reasonable to accept a building
permit application from an individual having possession of a
copy of the approved.site plan.
As to issuance of one building permit for two properties,
that is not unusual. Oftentimes, a site plan is approved for
one project comprised of several parcels. In this case, one
site plan had been approved for the entire project, so
issuance of one building permit°was consistent with standard
procedures.
Two aspects of this situation may require action. The
division of land upon which site plan approval had been
obtained and transfer of the site plan approval without
29
FE B 5 1986 Boa 63 -u*-, 518
FEB 1986
BOOK 6 SAGE 519
notifying the County constitute violations of Section
23(h)(2)(a) and (b) of Appendix A, Zoning, of the Indian
River County Code of Laws and Ordinances (then in effect).
These violations committed by Mary K. Berlin, owner of the -
project when site plan approval was obtained, would have
served to suspend all zoning and site plan approvals for the
project, had the Planning Department been aware of these
actions. The reason why Parris and Springer were not ordered
to formally transfer site plan approval from Mary K. Berlin
to themselves was that the Planning Department which imple-
ments and enforces this section of the code was unaware of
the transaction. Since it is the applicant's responsibility
to be aware of the law and to meet ordinance requirements, it
is the staff's position that Mary K. Berlin violated the site
plan ordinance.
CONCLUSION: The County acted properly in the issuance of
building permits for the project.
2. The issue of the County failing to require the applicant to
obtain a DER Stormwater Management permit prior to release of
the site plan was addressed in detail in the December 19,
1985 letter from Robert Keating to Joseph Berlin. Basically,
that letter states that the applicant's engineer/agent failed
to identify DER as an agency having permit jurisdiction over
the project. Therefore, the County staff assumed that the
applicant had obtained an exemption from DER, and the site
plan was approved based upon the submittal of inaccurate
information by the applicant's agent.
CONCLUSION: Failure of County to require evidence of DER
permit was the result of incorrect information having been
submitted by the applicant's engineer.
3. As to the question of why Parris and Springer were allowed to
subdivide the center after the center was constructed, there
is a simple answer. Nothing in the County's ordinances
prevent the subdivision of land, even land on which struc-
tures have already been built, into lots as long as all
applicable County standards are met in the subdivision of
this land. In fact, the County's Subdivision and Platting
ordinance, Section B of the Indian River County Code of Laws
and Ordinances, contains a definition of land condominium
which does not differentiate between residential and commer-
cial nor between developed or undeveloped land.
In the case of the Old Dixie Shopping Center, application for
subdivision of the property was not made until after certifi-
cates of occupancy had been i.ssued for the center. As
submitted, the subdivision plat depicted lot lines which
conformed to the unit lines delineated in the site plan for
the center. Although the walls separating units in the
center were constructed according to interior wall standards
because the center was approved as a rental project, conver-
sion to a facility where each unit is on a separate lot
could, in certain cases, require separation of the units by a
firewall.
The applicant was informed of the firewall requirement at the
initial phase of the platting process. Because the applicant
was unsure of the size of units to be sold, in particular
whether several units as depicted on the floor plan of the
center's site plan would be sold together to form larger
spaces, the staff determined that firewalls would not be
30
required to be installed along proposed lot lines prior to
final plat approval. However, the applicant was informed
that installation of firewalls may be required prior to
occupancy of units. The County Attorney's Office approved
this procedure.
Table 600, Standard Building Code, is the reference regarding
fire separation along property lines. It is to be used in
.conjunction with Section 403, Standard Building Code,
regarding tenant separation. Since subdivision of the
center, the staff has determined that the code does not
mandate zero setback construction requirements for condo-
minium type construction for purposes of applying the code.
In order to apply zero setback construction, the property
line division must give each individual owner complete
accessibility to and control of his property. The code does
not differentiate between tenant occupancy vs. ownership in
this type of construction, nor does the code consider unit
ownership or rental situations to mandate zero setback
construction requirements, i.e., firewall construction.
One hour construction, as permitted in certain tenant
separations and condominium apartment construction, is cost
efficient and practical in buildings were tenants and/or
owners have common access, maintenance responsibilities, etc.
CONCLUSION: Subdivision of center without firewalls was
consistent with County regulations, including building codes.
The method by which the subject property was subdivided has
no bearing on the original plan review. This project
complies with the building code requirements for tenant
separation.
Party walls and firewalls are synonymous in function, the
difference being in locations. Party walls are located
equally on a separation line and are shared in ownership
and/or responsibility of the common wall. A fire wall is an
independent wall under the exclusive control of the enclosed
space. These walls are not to be confused with tenant
separation partitions which are defined as simply a wall or
partition between tenants which may be non -fire rated.
4. The final question concerned the terminology used in present-
ing the proposed subdivision to the Board of County Commis-
sioners for approval. Mr. Berlin noted that the subdivision
of the center was presented to the Board as a land condomini-
um. However, he stated that the subdivision was not a
condominium because it was not approved as a condominium
under the condominium laws of the State of Florida. It is
Mr. Berlin's contention that Old Dixie Center should have
been presented as a party wall subdivision rather than a land
condominium. He also implied that, because of the semantics,
the Board of County Commissioners adopted a plat based upon
inaccurate information presented by the staff.
In the County's ordinance, there is no reference to party
wall subdivision. The Subdivision and Platting ordinance,
however, does specifically reference land. condominiums. As
defined in the code, land condominiums are the result of
applying the state's condominium laws to a subdivision of
land. It was the opinion of the County Attorney's office
that the intent of this provision of the ordinance is
met upon creation of an association and creation of a decla-
ration of covenants and restrictions which adequately provide
for the project's common areas. In this as in all cases, the
association documents were reviewed and approved by the
County Attorney's office; execution of the final plat docu-
ment by the County Attorney also indicates concurrence with
all plat submittals.
31
BOOK
FEB5 1986 .
Boos 6 u 5`'�
CONCLUSION: Subdivision of the center conformed to County
ordinances; terminology reflects subdivision ordinance
definitions. In County codes, party wall subdivision and
land condominium are synonymous.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept
the staff analysis and provide Mr. Joseph Berlin with this formal
reply to his questions.
Commissioner Lyons noted that staff has stated that it is
their position that Mary K. Berlin violated the site plan
ordinance, and he wished to know what action we are taking in
that regard.
Director Keating stated that right now staff had not planned
on taking any action unless the Board directed them to. He
explained that there is definite specific action that would be
taken re such a violation i'f it was found out during the site
plan process, but after site plan approval has been completed and
a C.O. issued, no specific action is referenced in the ordinance.
County Attorney Vitunac noted that every violation of an
ordinance is a misdemeanor and could be taken to county court if
desired; otherwise, it goes to the Code Enforcement Board. He
believed Director Keating is saying this isn't the type you would
want to take to criminal court or the Code Enforcement Board.
Director Keating confirmed that he did not feel it would go
to the Code Enforcement Board as that body sets requirements for
rectifying the violation, and in this case actually the require-
ments have been met, and a C.O. has been issued.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that there are some tenants in
those buildings who are wondering just what the situation is -
whether they are going to be evicted or the building condemned,
and he would like them to know that actually there is no action
recommended for the county to take.
Director Keating concurred that staff basically responded to
the questions raised by Mr. Berlin, and staff does not recommend
that any specific action be taken. Mr. Berlin is the one who was
requesting action, and the Board declined.
32
,.,A
Commissioner Lyons noted that the building has met the
county requirements, and if Mr. Berlin or someone else feels it
does not and that there is question as to whether the building is
a risk or not, they have the option of having it checked out.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to accept staff recommen-
dation to take no action, as set out in Alterna-
tive #1, staff memo dated January 6, 1986. -
Mr. Berlin asked for the opportunity to review the answers
he received from staff, and he made the following statement:
, PAGE I
,,,,,.WHY WERE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED TO PARRIS & SPRINGER FOR THE
PROJECT BEFORE THEY ASSUMED OWNERSHIP?
ANSWER: A permit was issued one day after Springer received his deed
and 5 days before Parris received his deed. THIS ANSWER PROVES THAT
THE STAFF KNEW THAT SPRINGER AND PARRIS OWNED TWO PARCELS OF LAND.
FURTHER: Throughout the site plan and building permit review process,
and the subdivision platting process, Joseph Berlin and Gary Parris
appeared together on numerous occassions during both official and un-
official meetings with County Staff. WHAT THIS INDICATES IS THAT IF
JOSEPH BERLIN APPEARS WITH ANYONE APPLYING FOR A PERMIT, THEY ARE
RELIEVED OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROVING OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY
THEY ARE APPLYING FOR PERMITS FOR, EVEN THOUGH THE CODE SPECIFICALLY
REQUIRES WRITTEN EVIDENCE.
QUESTION: WHEN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROJECT WAS TRANSFERRED TO PARRIS &
SPRINGER, WHY WERE THEY NOT REQUIRED TO FORMALLY TRANSFER SITE PLAN APP
ROVAL?
ANSWER: When the building permit was issued, Dr Springer was the
owner of a portion of the project. In addition, the building permit
application was submitted in conjunction with a copy of the approved
site plan, in indication that the building permit &pplicant had the
owner's permission to obtain a building permit.
COTDUWIENT: AGAIN WE HAVE PROOF THAT THE STAFF KNEW THAT DR SPRINGER
OWNED LAND INVOLVED IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS. THE FACT THAT THE NEW
OWNERS HAD A COPY OF 14RS BERLIN'S SITE PLAN DOES NOT IN ANY WAY
CONSTITUTE OWNERSHIP AND CERTAINLY DOES NOT WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE SITE PLAN TRANSFER MUST BE IN WRITING. FURTHER, THE PREVIOUS
OWNERS PERMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
TO CONTINUE: Previously, at the initiation of the site plan review,
process, Mary Berlin had designated Total Development Inc as agent
for the project. For that reason, the staff feels that it was
reasonable to accept a building permit application from an individual
having possession of a copy of the approved site plan.
ANSWER: THE FACT THAT MARY BERLIN USED TOTAL DEVELOPMENT INC AS HER
ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTUAL FIRM DOES NOT GIVE THE STAFF THE
RIGHT TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY A ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
ENGINEERING FIRM WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARCHITECT WITH AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITE PLAN. A COMPARISON OF THE TWO SITE PLANS
33
BOOK 63 F,� c 5?2
FEB 5 1986 Bo
WOULD REVEIL THAT JUST ABOUT EVERY GRADE IS DIFFERENT, THAT THE
RETENTION IS DIFFERENT, THE UNDERGROUND RETENTION IS DIFFERENT
AND THE PARKING IS DIFFERENT. THE TWO SITE PLANS DIFFER COMPLETELY.
THE NEW OWNERS DID NOT SUBMIT TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS SITE PLAN OR
ARCHITECTUAL DRAWINGS, THEY SUBMITTED NEW DRAWINGS BY PETERSON
AND THE STAFF HAD ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO ISSUE PERMITS TO ONE
ENGINEER WITHOUT ALL THE REQUIRED FORMS, TESTS, AND DRAWINGS THAT
ARE REQUIRED FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND TO CONTINUE STATING THAT
THIS PROCEDURE WAS CORRECT:MAKES THE STAFF LOOK MORE AND MORE
REDICOULOUS. --
STAFF STATES: THE REASON THAT PARRIS & SPRINGER WERE NOT ORDERED TO
FORMALLY TRANSFER SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM MARY K. BERLIN TO
THEMSELVES WAS THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHICH IMPLEMENTS AND
ENFORCES THIS SECTION OF THE CODE WAS UNAWARE OF THE TRANSACTION.
SINCE IT IS THE APPLICANTS RESPONSIBI:ITY TO BE AWARE OF THE LAW
AND TO MEET ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, IT IS THE STAFFS POSITION
THAT MARY K. BERLIN VIOLATED THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE."
COMMENT: THE STAFF WAS WELL AWARE THAT PARRIS AND SPRINGER OWNED
THE LAND. I JUST READ WHERE A PERMIT WAS ISSUED ONE DAY AFTER
SPRINGER RECEIVED HIS DEED AND FURTHER STAFF STATED "WHEN THE
BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED, DR SPRINGER WAS OWNER OF A PORTION OF
THE PROJECT" NOW COMES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION... SINCE MARY K. BERLIN
WAS NOT THE APPLICANT,'HOW COULD IT BE HER RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET
COUNTY ORDINANCES?
YOU WILL SEE THAT THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION APPEARS TO BE IN DEFENSE
OF THE TWO OWNERS OF THE LAND WITH REMARKS LIKE THIS APPEARING
THROUGHOUT. IT MAKES ONE WONDER WHY THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW PATH
WAS NOT FOLLOWED ALL DURING THIS PROJECT. WHAT DID THE STAFFS HAVE
TO GAIN BY DIVIATING FROM THE LAWS SO MANY TIMES ... OR IS THIS
HAPPENING IN OTHER CASES???
QUESTION: WHY WAS ONE PERMIT ISSUED TO TWO PROPERTIES?
ANSWER: As to the issuance of one building permit for two properties,
that is not unusual. oftentimes, a site plan is approved for one
project comprised of several parcels. In this case, one site plan
had been -approved for the entire project, so issuance of one
building permit was consistent with standard procedures.
COMMENT: WHAT THE STAFF IS SAYING, IN EFFECT, IS THAT TWO OR MORE
PROPERTY OWNERS; FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIVE COMMISSIONERS, COULD SUBMIT
ONE SITE PLAN AND ONE SET OF BLUEPRINTS IF THEY WERE TO ERECT
FIVE DIFFERENT OFFICE BUILDINGS1, OR APARTMENT HOUSES, OR SHOPPING
CENTERS. THESE BUILDINGS WOULD BE OWNED INDEPENDENTLY BY EACH
COMMISSIONER AND NOT AS A GROUP OR JOINTLY. PARRIS AND SPRINGER
OWNED THEIR PROPERTIES INDIVIDUALLY. THE STAFF NOW STATES THAT THEY
WOULD ACCEPT ONE SITE PLAN AND ONE BLUEPRINT FOR THE COMBINED EFFORT
RESULTING IN ONE ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY, ONE EXIT DRIVEWAY, ONE OR TWO
RETENTION AREAS, COMBINED PARKING AREAS.
FURTHER: WE KNOW THAT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE. WHY DID THE STAFF WRITE
THIS ANSWER TO ME AND TO THE COMMISSION? IT IS AN EMBARRASEMENT FOR
ME TO HAVE TO EVEN READ THIS TO THE PUBLIC.
AT THIS POINT THE STAFF CAME UP WITH A BRIGHT IDEA, WHY NOT CHARGE
MARY K BERLIN WITH VIOLATING THE VARIOUS REGULATIONS RELATING TO
SUBDIVIDING LAND PRIOR TO SALE. THIS WOULD PUT THE ENTIRE BLAME ON
HER AND THEY WOULD BE HOME FREE. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN BUT A FEW MINUTES
OF THEIR TIME FOR THE STAFF TO ASCERTAIN THAT KATHY BERLIN SOLD THE
ENTIRE TRACT OF LAND TO MR. PARRIS. THEY WOULD HAVE UNCOVERED A COPY
OF THE SALES CONTRACT OF PART OF THE LAND TO SPRINGER BY PARRIS. THEY
WOULD HAVE ALSO DISCOVERED THAT THERE WERE NO MONIES TRANSFERED TO
KATHY BERLIN FROM SPRINGER BUT ONLY FROM PARRIS. MONEY FROM SPRINGER
WENT TO PARRIS IN PAYMENT FOR THE LAND THAT WAS DEEDED TO SPRINGER.
WE CONSTANTLY DEED LAND AND DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN DEALS FROM
PENN TO FLORIDA AND IN MOST INSTANCES THE BUYERS TAKE TITLE IN
TWO OR MORE NAMES USING CORPORATIONS, TRUSTS, INDIVIDUALS ETC. THE
SELLER HAS NO RIGHT TO QUESTION A BUYER ON HOW HE TAKES TITLE AS LONG
AS THERE IS ONE SALE INVOLVED TO ONE PERSON. I RESENT THIS ATTEMPT TO
PUT BLAME ON AN INNOCENT THIRD PARTY, COMMISSIONERS, BUT IT TYPLIFIES
THE ACTIONS THE PUBLIC OFTEN HAS TO CONTEND WITH.
QUESTION: WHY DID THE COUNTY NOT REQUIRE DER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PERMITS?
ANSWER; The County ASSUMED that the engineer had acquired a permit
COMMENT: THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ASSUMPTIONS. THE COUNTY REQUIRES
PERMITS FROM ALL RELATED BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE
LAW STATES THAT CONSTRUCTION CANNOT COMMENCE WITHOUT A PERMIT. WE
NOW HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THE STAFF HAS
CHOSEN TO TOTALLY DISREGARD STATE LAW AND BRUSH OFF THEIR RESPONSIB+
ILITY BY STATING THAT THEY ASSUMED THE ENGINEER HAD OBTAINED A PERMIT.
QUESTION: WHY WERE PARRIS AND SPRINGER ALLOWED TO SUBDIVIDE THE CENTER
AFTER THE CENTER WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIREWALLS HAVING BEEN
INSTALLED BETWEEN UNITS CONSTITUTING SEPERATE LOTS?
ANSWER: Nothing in the County's ordinances prevent the subdivision
of land, even land on which structures have already been built, into
_ lots as long as all applicable county standards are met in the
subdivision of this land. In fact, the.County's Subdivision and
Platting ordinance, Section B of Indian River County C19de of LAWS
AND Ordinances, contains a definition of land condominium which
does not differentiate between residential and commercial nor between
developed or undeveloped land.
COMMENT: I AGREE WITH THIS CONCEPT. THE COUNTY'S SUBDIVISION &
PLATTING ORDINANCE READS THUS: "LAND CONDOMINIUM... THE RESULT OF THE
APPLICATION OF THE CONDOMINIUM LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE
OWNERSHIP OF WHICH GRANTS THE OWNER THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE AND
_ ENJOY A PARTICULAR AREAOF LAND TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS INCLUDING
PAGE III
•' Y
BUT NOT LIMITED TO TOWNHOUSES, ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT, ETC EX-
CLUDING PARKING AREAS, BOAT DOCKS, AND OTHER SIMILAR USE AREAS."
Ir
ANSWER CONTINUES...In the case of the Old Dixie Shopping Center,
application for subdivision of the property was not made until after
certificates of occupancy had been issued for the center..As sub-
mitted, the subdivision plat depicted lot lines which conformed with
the unit lines delineated in the site plan for the center. Although
the walls seperating units in the Center were constructed according
to interior wall standards because the center was approved as a rental
project, conversion to a facility where each unit is on a seperate
lot could, in certain cases, require seperation of the units by a
fire wall.
COMMENT: IF EACH UNIT IS ON A SEPERATE LOT, THEN WHY WERE WALLS
NOT REQUIRED BETWEEN EACH LOT? YOU HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT THIS
WAS A LAND CONDOMINIUM AND WALLS BETWEEN UNITS ON SEPERATE LOTS
CANNOT BE OMITTED, CUT OR OTHERWISE PENETRATED.
ANSWER CONTINUES:... The applicant was informed of the firewall
requirement at the initial phase of the platting process. Because
the applicant was unsure of the size of units to be sold, in part-
icular whether several units as depicted on the floor plan of the
center's site plan would be sold together to form larger spaces,
the staff determined that firewalls would not be required to be
installed along proposed lot lines prior to final plat approval.
However the applicant was informed that installation of firewalls
may be required prior to occupancy of°units. The County Attorney's
Office approved this procedure.
COMMENT ... WHEN THE SUBDIVISION PLAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL, IT
INDICATED SEPERATE UNITS. LOTS WERE SOLD OFF ON THE BASIS OF
THESUBDIVISION PLAT. AT THE TIME THE PLAT WAS APPROVED, THE WALLS
SHOULD HAVE ALL BEEN IN PLACE. BW WHAT STATUTE DID THE STAFF OBTAIN
THE AUTHORITY TO PERMIT INCOMPLETE BUILDINGS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. WHEN THE PLAT WAS APPROVED EACH UNIT SIZE
WAS RECORDED BY FEET. ACTUALLY, ALL THESE UNITS DID NOT EXIST AND
STILL DO NOT. A RESUBDIVISION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO..COMBINE TWO
OR MORE UNITS.*
35
BOOK -3 F.nr 5°x'4
Bou 63 fAGC 5-5
ANSWER CONTINUES:...Table 66, Standard Building Code, is the reference
regarding seperation along property lines. It is to be used in
conjunction with Section 403, Standard Building Code, regarding
tenant seperation. Since subdivision of the center, the staff has
determined that the code does not mandate zero setback construction
requirements for condominium type construction for purposes of
applying the code. In order to apply zero setback construction,
_ the property line division must give each individual owner complete
accessibility to, and control of his property. The code does not
differentiate between tenant occupancy vs. ownership in this type of
construction, nor does the code consider unit ownership or rental
situations to mandate zeripsetback construction requirements, i.e.,
firewall construction.
One hour construction, as permitted in certain tenant seperations
and condominium apartment construction, is cost efficient and
practical in buildingl6 where tenants and/or owners have common
access, maintainance responsibilities, etc.
CONCLUSION: Subdivision of center without firewalls was consistant
with County regulations, including building codes, The method by which
the subject property was subdivided has no bearing on the origional
PAGE IV
a1 plan review. This project complies with the building code require-
ments for tenant seperation.
Party walls and firewalls are synonymous in function, the difference
being in locations. Party walls are located equally on a seperation
line and are shared in ownership and/or responsibility of the common
wall. A fire wall is an independent wall under the exclusive control
of the enclosed space. Theses walls are not to be confused with tenant
seperation partitions which are defined as simply a wall or partition
between tenants which may be non -fire rated.
COMMENT: ... THE -DEED RESTRICTIONS STATE THAT "EACH WALL WHICH IS BUILT
AS A PART OF THE ORIGIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNITS UPON THE
PROPERTIES AND PLACED ON THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN THE UNITS SHALL
CONSTITUTE A PARTY WALL AND THE GENERAL RULES OF LAW REGARDING
PARTY WALLS SHALL APPLY THERETO. THE DESCRIPTION OF A PARTY WALL
IN THE CODE IS A FIRE WALL ON AN INTERIOR LOT LINE USED OR ADOPTED
FOR JOINT SERVICE BETWEEN TWO BUILDINGS. AS WAS STATED PREVIOUSLY,
THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR TENANT
SEPERATION ... BUT DOES I.T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OWNERSHIP
SEPERATION ... THIS IS A CONDOMINIUM.
QUESTION... THIS CONCERNED THE PRESENTATION OF THE SUBDIVISION. I
NOTED PREVIOUSLY THAT IT WAS PRESENTED AS A LAND CONDOMINIUM.
I STATED AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A VALID PLAT BECAUSE
THERE WERE NO CONDOMINIUM DOCUMENTS RECORDED AND APPROVED BY THE STATE
OF FLORIDA. THE FLORIDA CODE DOES NOT PERMIT SALES OF CONDOMINIUMS
WITHOUT APPROVED CONDOMINIUM DOCUMENTS AND THERE WERE NONE IN THIS
CASE. THE STAFF EXPLAINS THIS ERROR THUS:
It was the opinion of the County Attorney's office that the intent
of this provision of the ordinance is met upon creation of an
association and creation of a declaration of covenants and restrict-
ions which adequately provide for the projects common area.'In
this as in all cases,.the association documents were reviewed and
approved by the County Attorney's office= execution of the final
plat document by the County Attorney also indicates concurrence
with all plat submittals.
CONCLUSION: Subdivision of the center conformed to County ordinances,
terminology reflects subdivision ordinance definitions
COMMENT: THE COUNTY ORDINACE CLEARLY STATES THAT A LAND CONDOMINIUM
IS THE APPLICATION OF THE CONDOMINIUM LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
_ TO LAND SALES .... as previously read. THE STAFF STATES IN CONCLUSION
36
THAT THIS RESUBDIVISION PLAT WITH THE ATTACHED DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS CONFORMED TO COUNTY ORNINANCES ... WHAT
COUNTY ORDINANCE GIVES THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE COUNTY; OR THE STAFF
THE RIGHT TO IGNORE STATE LAWS? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS ORDINANCE
NOW, PLEASE. THERE CAN BE NO COUNTY ORDINANCE THAT VOIDS A STATE
LAW. /704r�jj, W elf*
IN CONCLUSION I WISH TO STATE THAT WE ARE OWNETOF IMPORTANT
TRACTS OF LAND IN THE COUNTY AND AX PAYERS. I DID NOT
COME HERE TO ARGUE OR INSULT ANYONE. I CAME HERE TO INDICATE TO
THE COMMISSIONERS THAT MY MONEY AND THAT OF OTHERS IS NOT BEING WELL
SPENT. THINGS ARE NOT RIGHT WITH THE VARIOUS STAFFS. TOO MANY ERRORS
ARE BEING COMMITTED THAT PERSONALLY INVOLVE ME AND OTHER PROPERTY
OWNERS. I RESENT EMPLOYEES OF THE COUNTY RECEIVING MY MONEY IN THE
FORM OF SALARIES GETTING ME INVOLVED IN LITIGATION WITH OTHERS -
BECAUSE OF ERRORS MADE BY THEM. I SUGGEST THAT THE SYSTEM BE ALTERED
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM THESE.OBVIOUS MISTAKES. I ALSO ASK THAT
:.�..THTc PT -AT RF. rnNRTnF.RF.n NTILT. ANn VOTn FOR LACK OF PROPER DOCUMENTS.
Mr. Berlin continued to emphasize that the system should be
investigated. He stated that we have here two obvious cases
where state laws were completely ignored and one possibly could
have criminal charges because you cannot circumvent condominium
documents. He stressed again that this is not a legal subdivi-
sion.
Commissioner Lyons asked what Mr. Berlin is trying to
accomplish and how can the county help him.
Mr. Berlin informed the Board that he has $100,000 tied up
in two units that he bought; they are illegal because he doesn't
have condo documents; and, therefore, he can't sell them.
Attorney Vitunac again suggested that the staff respond in
writing because this matter is subject to litigation.
Mr. Berlin stated that he will not litigate with the county;
he will go elsewhere with his lawyer about the construction, but
he does not wish to lose $165,000 because this thing was
presented to the Board improperly as a land condominium.
Chairman Scurlock's personal opinion was that Mr. Berlin has
a course of civil action to pursue. He did feel, however, that
as you read through all this, it certainly has to raise questions
as to procedure, and the need to tighten it up. He believed
staff already has taken another look at internal procedure and
has made some adjustments. The Chairman, however, did not
believe the Commission will take action to stop issuing COs,
37
BOOK
� FEB 51986
E E B 5 1966
BOOK 6 59
unless Mr. Berlin should identify that building as uninhabitable.
We have done what we can through the Building Code.
Mr. Berlin advised that he does have the DER coming down to
investigate. He believed the most serious point is that the
people on this Board were "had;" this was presented without the
necessary papers; it is against the -law to offer these units for
sale without condo papers; and he did not feel the County
Attorney had a right to make his own laws.
Chairman Scurlock wished to make it clear that Mr. Berlin is
not alluding to our present County Attorney, and Mr. Berlin
agreed.
Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Vitunac what the county's
responsibility is in regard to a condo being permitted and sold.
and also re checking out documents to be sure they comply with
state law.
Attorney Vitunac stated that our concern is not so much the
form of ownership as to see if the building codes, which are
different for condos as opposed to other types of units, are
complied with. Our only interest is in the health, welfare and
safety of the people using the building; whether the documents
are correct or not is a private legal matter.
Chairman Scurlock believed we did have a question arise re
the form of ownership when we were talking about Mr. Zorc's
situation re septic tanks in Indian River Heights.
Commissioner Bird agreed there was some question re the form
of ownership, but not the actual condo documents.
Discussion continued re ownership, documents, etc., and
Attorney Vitunac reiterated that the County's responsibility
wou'Id not pertain to the condo document but only to the
difference in building codes.
Chairman Scurlock noted that our process puts great faith on
the engineer's seal, and he had a question as to where the county
should draw the line in regard to accepting that seal as carte
blanche.
38
s
Administrator Wright felt any question in that regard should
be presented to the architects' and engineers' associations.
Mr. Berlin asked if it is not possible for the county to
identify who acqui,res the environmental permit and who doesn't
and.just put it on the punch list?
Chairman Scurlock believed the Board has directed staff to
look at the process to see if it can be improved upon, and
Commissioner Bird concurred that the result of all this will be a
closer scrutiny of procedure.
Attorney Richard Bogosian came before the Board representing
Leo Quesnel, as per the following letter:
31, 1986
RICHARD P. BOGOSIAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1418 TWENTY-FIRST STREET
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960
PHONE 567-3400 (AREA CODE 308)
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
In re: Florida National Bank vs. Gary Parris
and
Leo's Private Club
Dear Commissioners:
I am the attorney for Mr. Leo Quesnel who is the long term
lessee of the building at 650 South Old Dixie Highway, Vero
Beach, Florida. Mr. Leo Quesnel has in good faith signed a
long term lease of one of the units in this building. He
leased the premises in order to establish a private bottle
club with a private membership of clients. He has recently
.invested at least $27,000 in order to install equipment and
make improvements for operating his club. Further, there
are approximately 370 members of the club who have paid a
fairly substantial membership fee in order to use the
facilities of the club. This entire transaction was done
with the understanding that the building had been approved
for occupancy and that there would be no problems in con-
sumating the lease and making this investment.
We now belatedly have become aware that there may be certain
problems connected with the building the improvements and
with the developer. Obviously, we are greatly concerned
about protecting not only this investment that my client has
39
aa�K63 r,�,c 5`x'8
FEB
r FEB 5196
BOOK 6 3 P"mUE 5 ? 9
made but also in protecting the many members of the club.
Any termination of our right to do business at this location
could conceivably cause substantial mometary damag_g-tQ my__
client and to the members'.
Therefore, we respectfully request that you consider our
plight and that you take whatever action may be appropriate
to remedy any difficulties with the building without in-
terferring with the operation of this business.
Very truly yours,
q-4 IQ 1014
Richard P. Bogosian'
Attorney Bogosian noted that he would like the Board to
state that the building is safe and not a health hazard and also
that the Board does not intend to evict any of the.present
tenants.
Chairman Scurlock believed the Board can say we will not
evict anyone, but he did not believe we have the ability to state
that the building is structurally sound.
Director Keating informed the Board that while the church
has obtained a change of use for the unit they propose to rent,
the private club has not, and this center actually was approved
for retail sales. It has come to his attention recently that
because the club did not obtain a change of use, Utilities was
not able to check to determine whether any additional impact fees
have to be paid.
Attorney Bogosian stated that he actually did not know
anything about this. He did believe Mr. Quesnel had gone to the
Zoning Department, and he felt it is confusing that a tenant can
occupy a building and then find out that he is in violation. He
noted that the tenant negotiates in good faith with the landlord.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there isn't a way for staff to
check on occupational permits to see if a tenant is in conform-
ance because he knew that the City of Vero Beach does.
40
0
Attorney Bogosian stated that his client did not know that
he was in violation of anything until he came here this morning,
and he would be glad to apply for a use permit.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion
to take no action as recommended by staff.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
R/W ACQUISITION FOR 43RD AVENUE EXTENSION (N.GIFFORD TO LINDSEY)
The Board reviewed memo of R/W Acquisition Agent Finney:
TO: THE HONORABLE NEmBERs OF THE DATE: January 13, 1986 FILE:
BOARD OF COUN'T'Y C MMISSIONERS
TIMUGi: SUBJECT: Right -of -Way acquisition for
Michael Wright 43rd Avenue extension from
County Administrator N. Gifford Rd. to Lindsey Rd.
James W. Davis, P
Public Works Director
FROM:
D,r,Ud G. Finne7� REFERENCES:
R/W Acquisition Agent
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
The County requires a 35' x 275' right-of-way along a parcel owned by
Bryant Carter & Corbitt Smith.- (9,625 square feet or .22 acres). The
property owners do not want to sell, however, they will only settle for
$5,000.
Staff appraisal indicated a market value of $2,500. The Board previously
authorized purchase at $2,500.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Obtain an outside independent M.A.I. appraisal, approximate fee
$1,000.
2) Authorize County Attorney to start condemnation by eminent domain.
3) Authorize purchase of property at $5,000 at which the property owner
is willing to settle. It is estimated that condemnation costs to the
county would be as follows:
$2,500 Estimated market value of subject property
1,000 Appraisal fee for posting of bond
1,500 Property owner's attorney fees
200 Court costs
*$5,200
*This is a conservative estimate which would be higher depending on attor-
ney's and appraiser's fees and time elapsed since staff estimated property
value.
RECOKgENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends alternative number 3 be approved as the least expensive
alternative and least time consuming to consummate the transaction and thus
have the road construction completed. Finding from Second.Gas Tax or local
option gas tax.
41
FEB 5 1 r Bou 63 F-acr 5:30
F E B 5 196
aaolc 63 F,�cE 531
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons to accept staff's
recommendation of alternative 3.
Commissioner Bird advised that he had talked to Mr. Carter
and urged him to accept the County's appraisal, and he wished to
know if staff had heard anything more from Mr. Carter since then.
Public Works Director Davis reported that nothing further
has been heard, and Administrator Wright pointed out that the
staff recommendation has changed since the last meeting. He
believed we said we would offer $3,500 before as we did not want
to get into the situation of paying full value for land, plus all
attorney's fees, etc., even though taking this to condemnation
probably would cost more.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that while he understands the
economics of the situation,- his real concern is that we would be
telling other people we need to get R/W from that they can hold
out and determine what court costs and attorney's fees might be,
etc., and he did not feel this is a good signal to send out.
However, he realized if we go with an order of condemnation, it
could not only cause considerable delay but could end up costing
more; so, his suggestion was to offer them $3,500 and if they
don't take that, then go to condemnation.
Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion.
Commissioner Bowman asked if $3,500 was offered, and
Director Davis informed the Board that in negotiations we tried
to leave all avenues open, and we were told flat out that they
would not accept a nickel less than $5,000.
Discussion continued re condemnation, and Attorney Vitunac
explained the "quick taking" condemnation process.
The Chairman asked the County Attorney's opinion of a more
realistic figure of attorney's fees for both in-house and outside
legal counsel as he felt $1,500 was a low figure.
Attorney Vitunac noted that the attorney we are paying now
to condemn the R/W for the electrical line on North Gifford Road
is charging $200 an hour. He believed in this case, attorneys'
42
fees, at a minimum, would be $2,500, and there must be some
allowance made also for the County Attorney's time.
Chairman Scurlock felt attorney's fees then could amount to
between $3-5,000.
. Attorney Vitunac agreed and also noted that there is some
dispute re the actual value of this property; possibly it is
worth more than $2,500 and closer to $5,000.
Director Davis stated that the appraisal was based on
current market sales in the area, and he felt the controversy
lies as to what comparables you look at.
Commissioner Bird advised that the land owners may argue the
land is worth more to them than the actual land cost and also
because of the possibility they could lose a lot in their
subdivision planning. He
felt
the
owner
could go
to court and
claim he lost a lot which
would
be
worth
possibly
$8,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Wodtke voted
in opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote
authorized purchase of the Bryant Carter and
Corbitt Smith property at a price of $5,000,
which the owner is willing to settle for, for
the reason that in that way the County will come
out best financially.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT ORDER
The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
43
Book 63 b �•�
. �d
FEB
1966
BOOK 63. F. c 533
�
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
' tiff a
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
7. 4 ��
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 weekly newspaper published
at Veroo Beach iin Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a ,,1�`�
in the matter of� _1E4y&2&lr
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of _ 4 19 eF
iz
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida; weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; 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 adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me t 's a o A.
IX.—
(Pusine / )iManaged
L
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
Staff presentation is as follows:
" INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Board of County Commissioners of Indian
er County hereby gives notice of a PUBLIC
3ARING to be held at 9:45 a.m. on Wednesday,
abruary 5, 1986, in the County Commission
hambers of the County Administration Building,
cated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
t the meeting, the Board of County Commis-
Dners will consider amending the Development
rder for the Grand Harbor Development of Re-
onal Impact that was adopted by the Board of
)unty Commissioners on. October 23, 1985;
ie amendments to be considered are additions
Portions of the Development Order, and are
nor in nature. Adoption of the proposed
nendments would not constitute a substantial
viation to the originally adopted Development
der.
iyone who may wish to appeal any decision
rich may be made at this meeting will need to
sure -that a verbatim record of the proceedings
made which includes the testimony and evi-
nce upon which the appeal will be based,
Indian River County'
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
i 8, 28,1988 -
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 27, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners.
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
Robert M. _Xiba.14g, CP GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT
Planning & Developilrent Director ORDER
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling 46 REFERENCES: Grand Harbor
Staff Planner STAN3
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners consider
the following information at their meeting of February 5, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact process has
followed the normal pattern of review and approval as follows:
44
1.
2.
Regional Planning Council reviewed the Application for
Development Approval and then transmitted recommendations for
the Development Order (D.O.) to the County;
County drafted and adopted the D.O.;
3. Regional Planning Council has reviewed the adopted D.O. to
ensure that the regional impacts addressed in their previous
recommendations were adequately addressed in.the adopted D.O.
At their regular meeting of December 20, 1985, the Treasure -Coast
Regional Planning Council voted to appeal the D.O. to the Florida
Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, as permitted under Sub-
section 380.07 of the Florida Statutes. The Council voted to
appeal the D.O. to ensure that certain "deficiencies" in the D.O.
would be corrected. These deficiencies are in relation to the
following three issues:
1. screening of prospective marina users (as a measure to help
mitigate adverse impacts on the manatee),
2. discharge of untreated surface water run-off (to ensure
participation of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission in the water quality issues of off-site run-off
entering the marina and waterways), and
3. sources of irrigation water (prohibiting the use of shallow
aquifer wells).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
According to the minutes of the December 20th meeting and meetings
with the Treasure Coast staff, the appeal was made to provide
impetus for the County, Treasure Coast, and the developer to reach
an agreement that addresses the three issues previously described.
Since the time that the appeal was received by the County, County
staff has held meetings with the Treasure Coast staff and the
developer. The result of these meetings is a proposal to amend
the adopted D.O., by adding provisions that address the three
issue areas. County staff, Treasure Coast staff, and the developer
are in agreement that. the proposed amendments are acceptable and
adequately address the concerns or ,interests of the parties
involved.
The Regional Planning Council has indicated that if the County
amends the D.O. in a way that adequately addresses the three issue
areas, then the Council will withdraw its appeal. Treasure Coast
staff has indicated that if the proposed amendments are adopted by
the County, they will recommend that the Council withdraw the
appeal.
An alternative to adopting the proposed amendments, or something
similar to those proposed, is for the County to let the Regional
Planning Council pursue their appeal. The appeal process would
include an administrative hearing, conducted by the Florida Land
and Water Adjudicatory Commission (the Governor and the Cabinet).
Within 30 days of the hearing, the Commission would render a
decision to deny the appeal, remand the D.O. to the County for
changes, or directly attach conditions to the D.O. The
effectiveness of the D.O. is set "aside until the appeal is
withdrawn or until the appeal process has been completed.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
The first proposed amendment would add a requirement to screen
persons using the marina facilities. The Board has previously
questioned the effectiveness of the original Council recom-
mendation. The proposed amendment differs from the Council's
45
Bou 6.3 F,:GF 534
r FEB
V
5 1986
Bou 63 F4.cr.535
recommendation in that it would establish a requirement of
screening prospective users of the marina facilities prior to any
transaction involving sales, leases, or rental agreements. The
amendment would limit the term of lease or rental agreements to a.
Period of 24 months. Thus, rather than requiring an annual
boating record review o : f all marina users (as originally
recommended by the Regional Planning Council), review of boating
violations would be required prior to transactions. This would
alleviate potential enforcement problems of prohibiting use of the
facilities to persons having violated boating laws after purchase
of a boat slip. Annual reports would have td document that
effective screening for all marina user applicants had taken place
for the reporting year. The amendment would limit the review of
violations to. the five year period prior to the time of appli-
cation for use, and would cancel the screening condition
altogether if a slow speed zone is established for the inter -inlet
area. Also, the amendment provides the developer an option to the
screening condition, whereby an arrangement could be made to
provide for increased enforcement of boating laws. If approved by
the County and the Regional Planning Council, such an arrangement
could substitute for the screening condition.
The second amendment would specifically incorporate into the
required stormwater management plan a measure to ensure that water
quality in the marinas and waterways are not degraded via off-site
sources of contaminants that might find their way into the river
system. This amendment will clarify and spell -out water quality
aspects addressed in the stormwater management provisions of the
existing D.O. The amendment also specifically includes a
provision that the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
will be consulted on the water quality issues of the plan.
The third amendment would specifically.prohibit the use of shallow
aquifer wells for irrigation. The original Council recommenda-
tion was contradictory in regards to this issue, while the
existing D.O. is silent on the issue. This amendment would
clarify the original intent of both the Council and the County..
The fourth amendment would add to the requirements of the annual
report. Each report would have to include documentation verifying
that all applicants for marina use had been screened. The report
requirement would be in effect for as long as the screening
condition was in effect. This addition would incorporate some
kind of accountability for the developer, to implement the
screening condition.
The County Attorney's office has reviewed the proposed amendments,
and has verified that adoption of the proposed resolution would
suffice to amend the Grand Harbor Development Order. Adoption of
the resolution would incorporate the amendments into the adopted
D.O. If adopted, staff will transmit copies of the amendments to
the developer, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, and the Florida Land and
Water Adjudicatory Commission. Staff will also have the amended
D.O. recorded.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution, amending the adopted Grand Harbor Development
Order.
46
M
Chairman Scurlock believed we did offer our comments re the
proposed amendments, but the Regional Planning Council turned
them down and apparently the developer is willing to go along
with the Planning Council.
In discussion, Board members indicated that they still feel
the requirements are ridiculous, and Commissioner Lyons noted
that he argued this at the TPC meeting to no avail.
Commissioner Wodtke wished it understood, if we approve
this, it will not be up to the county to do any•of the enforcing
involved as he could not see how it can be enforced.
The Chairman agreed the screening requirement is absolutely
unenforceable, and felt we should stipulate the cost of such a
monitoring program would be borne by the developer.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired whether a violation goes to the
operator of the boat, to the vehicle itself, or what?
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that this is not a state order;
this will be a county development order; and these are restric-
tions we are adding to our order; so, it is our job to make sure
they are complied with. Since our order goes to the developer,
not the boat owner, we would have to take action against the land
owner to live up to these agreements. Although it is tough to
enforce, it will be our responsibility and we will be involved.
Director Keating explained that this relates to the
ownership of the slip facilities, not the use of the marina
generally. It will be the responsibility of the developer to
submit annual reports, and we will just monitor to see that they
did do these checks. If they did not comply, that could be
considered a substantial deviation from the Development Order and
could be the basis of the project being terminated. Director
Keating continued that staff did communicate to the Regional
Planning Council staff that we did not think this was workable
and that anything like this should be done on a statewide basis,
and he believed the TPC has developed a Resolution re the state
taking some action re manatee protection on a statewide basis.
47
FEE 5 1986 BOOK 63 P,4 536
EP 1996 Boa 63 56,37
J
Commissioner Bird stated that, as he understood it, if you
had a ticket for such a violation, you would be prohibited from
leasing a space, but would you be prohibited from coming into the
marine for service, a sandwich, etc.?
Commissioner Lyons emphasized that this has been debated in
the Council at length, but they still voted for it. He would
suggest that we just take care of seeing if the conditions have
been met through the annual report.
Question arose as to what happens if we disagree with the
amendments proposed, and Commissioner Lyons believed it then will
go to the Governor and Cabinet, and since the developer has
already agreed to these amendments our chances of winning an
argument about this in Tallahassee are pretty slim.
Commissioner Bowman noted that in St. Lucie they have agreed
to enforce this, and they are doing it now.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to adopt Resolution 86-04 amend-
ing the adopted Grand Harbor Development Order.
Commissioner Bird felt it probably would be futile to
include any language about enforcement, and Chairman Scurlock
stated that he would like staff to come up with an appropriate
fee structure to pay for any services we are going to be
rendering re enforcement.
Commissioner Wodtke felt if we collect money, we will have
to enforce this, and Commissioner Bird believed the enforcement
involves only the owners of the slips, not transients.
48
r
Director Keating stated that whoever runs the marina will
check the applicant, and we will receive a summary in their
annual report.
CommissionereBird asked what would happen if someone who
never had a ticket before leasing, got one a day later, and
Director Keating stated that he would not be allowed to renew his
lease.
Discussion ensued at length about whether we would have to
audit the report; whether we would rely on the report or do some
spot checking, etc., Commissioner Wodtke felt this actually is_a
policing action.
Attorney Vitunac stated that there is no requirement re
auditing the report. We can establish how we want to enforce this
rule, and could just accept an affidavit from the developer
yearly certifying they have done what is required.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition.
49
FEB 5 1986 . BOOK 63 FACE 538
FE B 5 1986 63 F,„F 539
RESOLUTION 86 - 4
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPROVING THE GRAND
HARBOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions in Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has adopted Resolution 85-128 establishing the Development Order
approving the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to subsection 380.07, Florida Statutes,
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has filed an appeal of
the adopted Development Order to the Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission; and
WHEREAS, the appeal filed by Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council seeks amendment to the Development Order to address
adverse impacts pertaining to the West Indian Manatee, water
quality, and utilization of irrigation from the shallow aquifer;
and
WHEREAS, in cooperation with Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council and the developer, Grand Harbor, Inc., the County has
considered the issues raised by Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council and has agreed to amend the Grand Harbor Development Order
to more adequately address the referenced potential adverse
impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
Development Order.approving approving the Grand Harbor Development of
Regional Impact is"hereby amended as follows, with said amendments
to be incorporated into the adopted Development Order.
SECTION 1.
Under "HABITAT, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE" item 18 is hereby
amended to read ".... the following actions shall be taken:",
and to establish item 18b) and 18c) to read as follows:
"b) Initial and subsequent prospective renters, lessors, or
owners of boat slips shall be screened by the appropriate
marina facility administrative official(s) to determine
whether these prospective users have had any past violations
of marine laws, the nature of which may have been considered
to pose a risk to protected Manatees (e.g., speeding, opera-
tion of a boat. while intoxicated, possession of illegal
wildlife material). Individuals found to have violated any
such marine laws within five years of their application for
slip use, will be. prohibited from utilizing the marina
facilities. Screening shall be required as part of any
renewal of lease or rental agreements. Lease and rental
agreements shall be good for a period of. no more than 24
months, for ag long as the screening provision is in effect.
Information on a prospective marina user's past boating
record can be obtained from the Records Section of the
Division of Law Enforcement , Florida Department of Natural
Resources. The intent of this condition is to prevent
individuals, who by their past action have shown a general
disregard for, -the well-being of marine wildlife resources as
evidenced by violations of the law, from regularly utilizing -
the Grand Harbor marina facility.
50
The annual report shall include documentation verifying that
no applicants approved during the reporting year (renters,
lessors or owners of boat slips) have incurred violations of
marine laws (within five years of application for slip use),
the nature of which may pose a risk to Manatees.
Screening of prospective renters, lessors, or owners of slips
may be discontinued at such time that a slow or idle speed
zone in the entire inter -inlet area (Sebastian and Ft. Pierce
inlets) is established.
c) In lieu of the screening condition described above, the
developer may arrange to provide for strict enforcement of
existing speed zones and other marine laws. Such an arrange-
ment, if pursued as an option by the developer, must be
approved by the County and Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, prior to effective replacement of the screening
condition described above".
SECTION 2.
Under "DRAINAGE", item 25 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"25. The developer shall design and construct the stormwater
management system to retain or detain with filtration, as a
minimum, the first one -inch of runoff or the runoff from a
one-hour, three-year storm event, whichever is greater.
Required retention volumes may be accommodated in a
combination of exfiltration trenches, vegetated swales,' dry
retention areas, lakes with vegetated littoral zones or other
suitable retention structures. All discharge from the
surface water management lakes shall meet the water quality
standards of Florida Administration Code Rule 17-3.
Direct discharge of untreated surface water runoff from
off-site sources into the marina basin(s), the estuary/water-
way system or the Indian River Lagoon which would degrade
water quality within these systems shall not be allowed. The
stormwater management system shall be designed to prevent
water quality degradation of on-site surface water from
off-site runoff sources.
Final drainage plans of the stormwater management system
shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, St. Johns River Water Management District, Indian
River County, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council. The plans shall include plan view and cross-
sectional drawings (certified by a professional engineer) of
the swale system, exfiltration trenches, lake systems and
outfalls to waters in the lakes; and all pertinent elevations
including existing seasonal high groundwater elevation,
normal water level, design high water level and control
structure inverts. Clearing of the land shall not begin
until the plans are approved by the appropriate agencies.
Direct discharge of untreated surface water runoff from
off-site sources into the marina basin(s), the estuary/water-
way system of the Indian River Lagoon which would degrade
water quality within these systems shall not be allowed.
The plans shall be approved by the County and Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council in consultation with the Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in conjunction with any
necessary approvals of permits from St. Johns Water
Management District, prior to any land clearing, excavation,
or construction on site".
51
BOOK 63 i,r L,;--1.540
GOOF
SECTION 3.
Under "WATER SUPPLY", item 29 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"29. The primary source of irrigation water from the proposed golf
course shall be wastewater effluent. Limited amounts of
supplemental irrigation water may be derived from the surface
water management system of lakes. Under no circumstances
shall irrigation water from any part of the project be
derived from any Shallow Aquifer (Surficial Aquifer) well or
wells".
SECTION 4. -
Under item 3.i) of the "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED..." section,
items 12 and 14 are hereby amended and item 15 is hereby
established to read as follows:
"13. the total assessed value of the project property (every
other year);
14. status of the project's private security system; and
15. documentation verifying that persons approved for
renting, leasing or ownership of boat slips have not
incurred certain violations of marine laws within five
years of application for slip use. This shall be a
required part of the annual report for as long as
condition item 18.b) is in effect".
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED in a public
hearing held on this the 5th day of February , 1986.
Don C. Scurlo , Jr., C a an
Board of County Commis ners
ATTEST;
":'County Clerk; �
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
1'v�1�5�41Lp� `� �.
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
52
r
TREE PROTECTION VIOLATION (J. BERLIN)
Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, made the
following presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 16, 1986 FILE:
-of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TREE PROTECTION VIOLATION
SUBJECT: MR. JOSEPH BERLIN -
CEB-85-044
Robert M. Keaf ng,P
Planning & Dev lopment Director
FROM: REFERENCES:
Art Challacombe J. Berlin
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:IBMIRD
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regularly scheduled meeting on February 5, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
The subject property is owned by Mr. Joseph Berlin and consists
of approximately 6.13 acres, and is currently zoned M-1, Indus-
trial District. Prior to August, 1984, the property was
heavily forested by a variety of species and sizes of trees, at
least 24 of which were "protected trees" as that term is
defined in Chapter 23 1/2 of the County's Code of Laws and
Ordinances.
During approximately the first week of August 1984, Mr. Berlin,
through a hired landclearing operator and without application
for or issuance of County tree removal or landclearing permits,
cleared approximately the south 4 acres of the subject property
of all trees, including specifically the following protected
trees:
(a) 3 Maples, 10" 18" and 20" in diameter;
(b) 1 Pine, 20";
(c) 1 Bay tree, 11"; and
(d) 19 Oak trees, ranging from 8" to 27".
The clearing was done by Mr. Berlin in anticipation of making
application for site plan approval for development of the
property as an industrial mart. The site plan application for
this project was submitted to the County on October 17, 1984,
and was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on
December 20, 1984, contingent upon the submittal of a revised
landscape plan indicating the location of ten Oak trees having
a six inch diameter at breast height (DBH).
On January 28, 1985, the violation was brought before the
Indian River County Code Enforcement Board. The findings, con-
clusions, and consent order approved by that Board and agreed
upon by Mr. Berlin with his signature on the order are as
follows:
53
BOOK 6 3 F,,ar 541
BOOK 63 F-A,UE 543
"1. Respondent shall, as part of the proposed development of
the subject property, plant no less than ten live oak
(Quercus virginiana) trees having a diameter at breast
height of six inches or more, in those locations iden-
tified on the revised landscaping plan submitted to the
staff for inclusion with the site plan approved by the
Planning & Zoning Commission on December 20, 1984.
2. The ten trees required hereby may be counted towards those
otherwise required by the landscaping ordinance, on a tree
for tree basis, and once installed, whether so counted or
not, shall be treated as required landscaping with respect
to all care and replacement provisions of the landscaping
ordinance.
3. In the event Respondent does not develop the subject
property pursuant to the finally approved site plan, or in
the event site plan approval is later withdrawn, revoked,
or declared invalid or void for any reason, such that the
ten trees will have not been replaced prior to January 30,
1986, then Respondent shall proceed to install said trees
on the property in a location acceptable to the environ-
mental planner, outside the "gross buildable area" as
defined in Section 23 1/2-5(a) of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances, on or before February 21, 1986 (hereinafter
compliance date). Respondent shall -fertilize -and irrigate
such trees as may be necessary to assure their survival
once planted. If development of the subject property is
still underway in February 1986 per an approved site plan,
then Respondent may request an extension of this com-
pliance date to allow the planting to occur with the other
landscaping in the normal course of development.
4. Upon compliance with the foregoing required steps, Respon-
dent shall notify the Environmental Planner, Arthur
Challacombe, at 1840 25th Street,• Vero Beach, Florida,
(305) 567-8000, extension 247, who shall verify the action
taken and notify the Code Enforcement Board.
5. If Respondent has failed to comply with the above -required
steps on or before the designated compliance date, this
Board shall reconvene in the Commission Chambers at the
first regularly scheduled meeting thereafter, after due
notice to Respondent from the Code Inspector, to hear
further evidence on the issue of compliance and to impose
a fine in the amount of $100.00 per day for each day the
violation continues beyond the compliance date. The Board
reserves' jurisdiction in this matter to review progress
made, corrective action required, or compliance dates,
upon proper written request from either party with notice
to the other.
6. This order is intended to be enforceable and binding upon
Respondent, and any successors in interest to the subject
property and, the original or a certified copy of this
order shall be recorded in the Official Record Books of
Indian River County, Florida, constituting notice to all
such successors.
7. Take notice that any fine imposed by this Board against
Respondent constitutes a lien against the subject pro-
perty. Continued non-compliance can result in foreclo--.
sure, judicial sale, and loss of the property."
On December 20, 1985, the approved site plan expired without
compliance with the Consent Order. On January 2, 1986, staff
54
sent Mr. Berlin a letter stating that he would be required to
install the ten trees by February 21, 1986 in order to comply
with the Consent Order. Subsequently, Mr. Berlin contacted
staff and explained that he could not locate the proper number
of Oak trees six inches DBH and desired to take this matter to
the Board of County Commissioners.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
This case was the first tree protection violation to appear
before the County as an enforcement action since the adoption
of the tree protection ordinance. At that time, staff attemp-
ted to utilize mitigation as a method of solving this type of
violation. At the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners, staff has abandoned such administrative
procedures in favor of formal presentation of the issues to
the Commission for its deliberation.
Section 23 1/2-6(a) & (b) of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Indian River County, Florida prohibits landclearing and the
removal of protected trees unless the required permits -are
first issued by the County. The ordinance further specifies
that a violation of this provision shall be punishable upon
conviction by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500)
or by imprisonment in the County jail for up to sixty (60)
days, or both.
Based upon the number of trees that have been illegally
removed, the property owner faces a maximum monetary fine of
$12,000 dollars. In effectuating a settlement, the Board of
County Commissioners has the ability to consider any voluntary
payment or restoration offer from the owner as restitution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners con-
sider obtaining a voluntary payment of up to $12,000 dollars
and appropriate restoration of the area from the property
owner. In the event that any such agreement is not forth-
coming, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
grant staff the authorization to pursue available remedies in
County court.
Chairman Scurlock asked the County Attorney why this matter
is here as he felt the Code Enforcement Board action should stand
on its own.
Attorney Vitunac explained that the Commission cannot affect
a Stipulation of the Code Enforcement Board other than by direct-
ing staff to go make a proposal before that Board. Apparently
Mr. Berlin has agreed to the Order, but he wants to get out of
it; staff will not let him out; so, he wants to go over staff's
heads to the County Commission.
Chairman Scurlock asked if staff is saying that anyone who
wants to appeal what staff and the Code Enforcement Board recom-
mends has the right to come to the Commission.
55
Bou 6J F" -C 544
BOOK 63 P, 1)545
Administrator Wright noted that Mr. Berlin requested that he
be allowed to go to the County Commission and that is why this
matter is here.
Director Keating reviewed the history of this matter, noting**
that this was the first tree violation enforcement case. Staff
at that time was trying to determine how best to work out tree
violations and was looking mostly at restoration and replacement.
The County Commission did not feel that restoration/replacement
was sufficient penalty, and Director Keating believed that's when
the Commission directed staff to require people to pay the
maximum amount of fine, or come to the Commission to possibly
have it reduced or waivered somewhat. In this case, since a
stipulation had been made, the attorneys felt it was best for
staff to take any recommendations from the Commission back to the
Code Enforcement Board for ratification. Director Keating
emphasized that this is not a formal appeal, and it is not
circumventing any mechanism; the respondent is just trying to see
if the stipulated settlement can be revised somewhat and brought
back to the Code Enforcement Board.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Berlin can't appeal to the
Enforcement Board, but Attorney Vitunac noted that is over and
done with.
Discussion continued with Chairman Scurlock noting that he
did not want to be involved with this week after week.
Environmental Planner Art Challacombe wished to make a
clarification. He noted that staff does not take tree, land
clearing and mangrove violations, to the Code Enforcement Board;
they go directly to the County Commission for its deliberation or
to court. This particular case, however, did go to the Code
Enforcement Board to have the stipulated agreement formally
adopted.
Chairman Scurlock then addressed the argument made re
planting 4" DBH oak trees instead of 6" because they would have a
better survival rate.
56
Planner Challacombe did not believe that is a valid
argument. He noted that Mr. Berlin said he couldn't find the
plant material in Indian River County; however, Palm Beach Native
Plant Nursery, as -one example, does offer a 5-6" oak 18' height
with an 8-9' spread for $300 apiece, and all trees carry a 50%
guarantee for 30 days.
Chairman Scurlock asked if it was Mr. Challacombe's
professional opinion that the survival rate is not a problem, and
Planner Challacombe believed if you get the trees from a proper
facility, it would not be. He noted that possibly staff should
supply a list of qualified nurserymen throughout the state.
Mr. Berlin came before the Board and suggested that he be
allowed to put up more trees with a better chance of survival.
He pointed out that this is industrial land and the ground has to
be demucked and then filled 3-5' before it is used. The trees
would have to be removed while that is being done, and he would
hate to pay freight and bring trees from another county when they
have to be moved anyway. Mr. Berlin stated that he is willing to
put in 20-25 smaller trees right now and then move them to a high
and dry spot while they demuck and fill.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that there were large live
oaks at this location before, and she wished to know if the
drainage changed so much that they have to demuck.
Mr. Berlin noted that this is along the railroad tracks, and
all the land has to be demucked. He further stated that the
contractor claimed that he did not even push those trees down,
that they weren't there when he went in with his machines. Mr.
Berlin, however, did agree that the property was so densely
overgrown, that he never even walked on it before he bought it.
Commissioner Lyons did not believe Mr. Berlin has a site
plan now, and Mr. Berlin agreed it has expired, but continued to
emphasize that he will put trees wherever staff may want as long
as he can move them again.
57
eooK 63 PA -H546
FEB 5 1986
Boa 6J F,{:IAC 547
Planner Challacombe noted that Mr. Berlin signed the Code
Enforcement Order and essentially testified that he did remove
those trees. Considering the size of.the trees taken out, he did
not believe 20 smaller trees would be sufficient compensation,
and he suggested the fine of $12,000 be imposed.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to hear from the tree experts Mr.
Berlin has with him.
Mr. Kelly informed the Board that he has been in the nursery
business in Florida for about 25 years and emphasized if this
land has to be filled 51, it definitely would kill any oak trees.
Also, if you plant an 18-201 oak with 6" caliber, it requires at
least 20-25 gallons of water per day for 30 days, and it seems
there are no maintenance facilities near this site for water, Mr.
Kelly agreed a nursery will say they will give a 50% guaranty,
but if you don't water the trees every day, they won't guarantee
them. He recommended that if Mr. Berlin wants to put in more
trees, that he put in containerized trees to eliminate loss.
Chairman Scurlock felt an even better solution would be to
take the money, hold it in escrow, and not put the trees in until
they get the fill in.
Discussion ensued re the need for water for the trees and
also the approximate cost of the trees. Mr. Kelly figured $300
apiece, and then adding the labor factor, water, bracing, mainte-
nance, etc., felt it could be possibly $800 each.
Considerable discussion followed about whether to take the
money for the fine or put it in escrow.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to recommend the applicant
go back to the Code Enforcement Board and that we
suggest to them that the trees not be planted at
this time, but that the $12,000 be taken and held
in escrow until such time as it has been determined
what the use of the property will be.
58
Chairman Scurlock expressed concern with the Commission
telling the Code Enforcement Board anything as he still believed
this matter should not have been before the Commission
Director Keating explained the reason it was decided to
bring all tree, land clearing, and mangrove violations to the
Commission is that the Code Enforcement Board cannot impose a
fine until the applicant does not comply with the Order. It was
not felt fair to tell someone who removes large trees, that all
they have to do is replace them with a few small ones - in
essence the basis of the tree protection ordinance has not been
complied with. Here the Commission can require them to pay the
maximum fine or allow staff to take them to circuit court.
Administrator Wright felt we must look carefully on sending
a recommendation back to the Code Enforcement Board and second
guessing them as they were set up to act independently.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that we sent them a recommen-
dation and they rubber stamped it; so, he now does not have any
problem with sending them back another recommendation. If there
is not an agreement, let them continue on with the Stipulation.
It was agreed that was the intent of the Motion. If Mr.
Berlin agrees, he pays the $12,000 and it will be held in escrow.
If he disagrees, until he takes the remedial action, he will have
a fine of $100 a day and a lien will be placed on his property.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
REQUEST TO EXTEND PAVING ASSESSMENT PAYMENT - (KINGSWOOD SUBDV.)
The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis:
59
5 1966 Boos 6 Ft c 548
L_ FEB J
BOOK 6� . --549
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE:
Board of County Cotnnissioners January 24, 1986 FILE:
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator
SUBJECT:
Request from developer of
Kingswood Subdivision South of
16th Street East of Kings
Highway to Extend Road Paving
Assessment Pavement to 5 Years
FROM:
James W. Davis, P.E. �REFERENCES: Marsh
Public Works Director`/ all Sutton, Ed
Schlitt Realtors, to
Jan. 20, 1986
Ed Schlitt, Realtors, is requesting that the payment period be extended
from 2 years to 5 years for the 16th Street paving assessment.
ALTIVES AND 71TILYSIS
The Petition Paving Account does not currently have sufficient funds to
Perpetuate the Program. If the payment period were extended, additional
seed money would have to be appropriated. Also, the County funded 70% of
this project.
Jv �,�lyi�i� l� a Y •l.
It is recommended that this request be denied due to the lack of funds in
the account.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to deny the request for an
extension of the payment period as recommended by
staff.
Commissioner Lyons expressed his sympathy with their prob-
lem, but if they would rather not put out the funds now, he would
prefer they borrow from a bank rather than from the county.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if Ed Schlitt, Realtors, is aware
of the staff recommendation, and Director Davis stated that it
was copied to them.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if they will have the normal two
year payment period, and this was confirmed.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
60
r
L�
MANGROVE ALTERATION VIOLATION - (S. HALPIN)
Chief Environmental Planner Challacombe reviewed the
following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 9, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: MANGROVE ALTERATION
SUBJECT: VIOLATION - SHEILA HALPIN
Robert M. Keat ng ICP
Planning & Development Director
Op -
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: S. Halpin
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on February 5, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On December 27, 1985, County staff observed that six black
mangroves had been cut or killed prior to the issuance of a
mangrove alteration permit. The parcel on which this occurred
is located on the Indian River, north of Quay Dock Road and is
owned by Ms. Sheila Halpin. The property currently contains a
single family residence and is designated as environmentally
sensitive on the Comprehensive Plan.
The owner explained to staff that she had not intended to kill
the mangroves and only desired to trim them so that she could
have a clear view of the oncoming traffic from a shared drive-
way easement. Ms. Halpin also stated that she would be willing
to engage in a replanting program as mitigation for the vio-
lation.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Section 231-6(a), Tree Protection, of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida prohibits the
performance of any mangrove alteration unless a permit has
first been issued by the County. The ordinance further speci-
fies that a violation of this provision shall be punishable
upon conviction by a fine not to; exceed five hundred dollars
($500) for each tree or by imprisonment in the 'County jail for
up to sixty (60) days, or both.
Based upon the number of mangroves that have been illegally
cut, the property owner faces a maximum monetary fine of $3,000
dollars. In effectuating a settlement, the Board of County
Commissioners has the ability to consider any voluntary payment
or restoration offer from the owner as restitution.
61
FEB196 goon 63 556
FEB 5 19969ooi< C� 3s,y551
r",1n
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners con-
sider obtaining a voluntary payment of up to $3,000 dollars and
appropriate restoration of the area from the property
owner. In the event that any such agreement is not forth-
coming, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners grant staff the authorization to pursue available
remedies in County court.
Commissioner Wodtke had a question re the traffic on Quay
Dock Road as he noted that was Mrs. Halpin's reason for trimming
the mangroves.
Planner Challacombe explained that there are two houses on
the river there which share a common drive, and there is a
hairpin turn.
Mrs. Halpin informed the Board that they have almost had two
head—on collisions; where the cars come in, there is a turn, and
the branches came out over the driveway. Mrs. Halpin stated that
she trimmed the trees leaving a root system, and actually did not
even realize they were mangroves.
would be willing to replant.
She did this in ignorance and
Commissioner Wodtke asked if Mrs. Halpin trimmed the man-
groves herself, and she confirmed that she did.
Commissioner Bird inquired if the trimming killed the trees,
and Planner Challacombe was not positive, but noted they are in
such a state that it will take years for them to come back.
Commissioner Bird felt if Mrs. Halpin had applied for a
permit she probably would have been allowed to trim, but not to
that extent or in that time period.
Planner Challacombe agreed, and pointed out that staff would
like the applicant to contact them first so they can look at the
situation and offer recommendations for pruning and trimming.
Commissioner Lyons realized this probably was done in
innocence, but he did feel there should be some fine. He
recommended $100 a tree, or possibly a total of $300.00.
Chairman Scurlock agreed there should be some mitigation due
to the problem with the traffic situation.
62
-7
{
Planner Challacombe advised that the mangroves taken down
are part of a mosquito impoundment. There is an area along the
river that needs some additional mangroves, and it is an area
that will be a lot easier to plant than where the root systems
from the black mangroves presently exist. Rather than planting
the mangroves in the shoreline area, he would recommend planting
some spartina because that way volunteer mangroves could eventu-
ally take root there and be protected by the spartina grass.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
recommended a fine of $300 be collected, plus
restoration by planting spartina in the small
area that needs the mangroves; this restoration
planting to be done in coordination with Chief
Environmental Planner Challacombe.
APPLICATION FOR BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following memo,
noting that there is a deadline:
TO: - The Honorable Members of DATE: Jane, 30, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Michael Wright, SUBJECT:
County Administrator
Indian River County - Beach
Nourishment Project - FY 88
Funding Application to DER
FROM: Jams W. Davis, P.E.; ' REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
The Public Works Staff has completed the DER application for FY88 funding
of the Beach Nourishment Project. This application must be submitted by
Feb. 6, 1986. The County is encouraged to send a representative to
Tallahassee on Thursday, Feb. 13, 1986 to present the application at the
Annual Water Resources Development Conference.
It is recommended that the Board appoint a representative to present the
application on Feb. 13, 1986 in Tallahassee.
63
FEB5 1986 Boor 63 55�
-
EF, 5 1986 BOOK 63 P'.,[ 53
Director Davis explained that this is the annual public
works program application, but the difference is that this year
we reflect a revised cost estimate from the Corps of Engineers
for the project. The benefit cost ratios we are using are last
year's ratios. They are working on that now updating a total
revised scope of work, and it does i.nclude a larger project. The
Vero Beach section now extends northward to the north limit of
the Tracking Station property. He noted that the Public Works
Program will*be heard in Tallahassee February 12 -13th, and the
DER is recommending we send a representative to Tallahassee to
present our application at the Annual Water Resources Development
Conference on Feb. 13th.
In discussion, it was generally agreed someone from the
county should attend.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved submission to the DER of the applica-
tion for Beach Nourishment, authorized the
signature of the Chairman, and authorized
appropriate staff to present said application
to the DER in Tallahassee as set out above.
LAND ACQUISITION FOR COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDING
Administrator Wright reviewed the following memo and map:
64
TO: Board of County SATE: January 28, 1986 FILE'
Commissioners •
SUBJECT:
FROM: L • S • "Tommy" Thomas REFERENCES:
Intergovernmental Relations
Attached is a map of the Booker T. Washington Subdivision,
north of the County Administration building. The shaded lots are
those owned by the County and the other lots are owned by those
persons indicated on the separate sheet. It is my understanding
that consideration is being given to building the new Health
Department building on this property. The staff needs direction
as to how to proceed on this matter.
SE 1/4 SECTION 35 TOWNSHIP
IVERO
B6ACIO
Ar&f.V/C/PAL
Amia'aar
SUB. INDEX it
ASSESSED
26-32-39
I _
2.vo
11
I
INMAN RIVER Fa
CO'S SUR.
+°°' �:� b` =•'Y ` .+,L p • '� - 'r' -'fie. " `^�/ i
Sr.&I
t 17 TK T y ,7 TR EET
LbI i '+ /'� A •t ' Y 4 �+.� N+.:. ; N i'efb .•.e. i';1
it 71 4 1` -'1 k i
t
6_�-oL----r�; --ir
-- ��i-----�, ,
I ! � (�voa�+rws)_ ow+s�.v.•c ly � .�I I>! I �I
I .+ew IWWW±
65
FEB
V BOOK 6 3 P,aUF 5154
a
I Y
� T
IA N
I _
2.vo
I
INMAN RIVER Fa
CO'S SUR.
+°°' �:� b` =•'Y ` .+,L p • '� - 'r' -'fie. " `^�/ i
Sr.&I
t 17 TK T y ,7 TR EET
LbI i '+ /'� A •t ' Y 4 �+.� N+.:. ; N i'efb .•.e. i';1
it 71 4 1` -'1 k i
t
6_�-oL----r�; --ir
-- ��i-----�, ,
I ! � (�voa�+rws)_ ow+s�.v.•c ly � .�I I>! I �I
I .+ew IWWW±
65
FEB
V BOOK 6 3 P,aUF 5154
FEB 51996 °
BOOK 3 � Fk_'.555
Administrator Wright noted that there has been some discus-
sion about this in the past, and staff recommends that if it is
desired to locate the Health Department on this land that we go
ahead and acquire all the land, not only for them, but to allow
for future expansion of the Administration Building.
Commissioner Bird inquired if this would be done by negotia-
tion or condemnation as he would prefer it be on a cooperative
basis.
Chairman Scurlock did agree it makes sense for us to acquire
this particular area but felt it will be a sensitive issue as the
area has a long history; there is a church there; and it is
possible we may end up having to condemn.
Commissioner Bird suggested we just acquire some of the
property now rather than al*l and possibly square off some of the
blocks. He believed that, as we expand, attrition will take care
of the situation.
Commissioner Lyons asked how much room will be needed for
the Health Department, and the Administrator stated five acres or
more; the building will be in excess of 20,000 sq. ft. He noted
that we also will have to petition the City to abandon some
streets.
Commissioner Lyons believed we have a commitment to keep
some of that property open as a condition of the site plan of the
Administration Building.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that in addition to the church,
the City also owns some land over there, and he believed we may
have to look into some kind of a swap or house moving, etc. He
expressed his preference to start with acquiring the logical
areas closest to this building. He also felt we need to start
some long range talks with the School Board about the possibility
of providing them space at another location.
all.
Chairman Scurlock believed we need a master plan first of
66
� � r
M
�J
Commissioner Lyons did not feel the School Board property
lends itself to the Health Department needs. He did agree we
need additional land across the canal and also that we need to
look into culverting the canal for parking. He stated that he
would like some rough idea of how big a piece of property we
actually will need.
The Administrator felt he had been directed to look at
acquiring the entire area.
In discussion, it was agreed this is the long term objec-
tive, and Administrator Wright wished to have some specific short
range instructions.
Commissioner Lyons did not believe we really know our short
range requirements, but he felt if they will be met by the two
blocks, that would be fine.
Administrator Wright believed the entire tract is about ten
acres and stated that he will see if the architect can give us an
idea of the amount of property required.
Director Davis interjected that the Engineering Department
was asked to look at a master parking plan for the Administration
Building; however, we have the potential for adding two more
.stories and he felt the architect should look into the parking
requirements in light of that consideration.
Administrator Wright felt he had the Board's direction from
today's discussion, and staff will pursue this and report back.
CONSULTANT FOR SALARY SURVEY AND PAY PLAN
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean,
as follows:
67
cool~ 63 Fa�HC556
BOOK 613 a 55 7
'T O: The Honorable Members of DATE' January 28, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator
H. T. "SonnyD an
FROM: Director
General Services
SUBJECT: Consultant for Salary Survey
and Pay Plan for Indian River
County Employees
REFERENCES:
As requested, the Personnel Department solicited -quotations for the
subject project. Four firms sent letters of interest along with
proposals and prices. They were:
1. Matt Ellis and Associates
2. Long Associates
3. MGT of America, Inc.
4. Cody & Associates
$3,500 (Plus printing,
postage, phone,& travel)
$4,990
$7,530
$8,300
Matt Ellis and Associates has agreed in writing that the added
expenses would not exceed $500.00.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the low bidder, Matt Ellis
and Associates, to perform the work, and authorize County Staff to
proceed with the preparation for the work.
Administrator Wright believed we need to upgrade classifica-
tions and confirmed staff's recommendation to go with the low
bidder.
Chairman Scurlock stated that his only concern is that he
has not seen the top three proposals, and he would like to.
Commissioner Bird expressed concern about the considerable
spread between the high and low bidders, especially Cody &
Associates who did this work for us before.
Director Dean advised that after the proposals were
received, Cody & Associates reduced their price to $5,500, which
still was not the lowest. It also was felt we might like to
change consultants at this time.
Commissioner Bird asked if this firm is going to survey
other comparable governmental entities and their pay scales and
then come back to us with those.
68
General Services Director Dean stated that they will take
the information received on the last study and update it on the
basis stated by Commissioner Bird.
Question arose as to what we paid for the last study, and it
was.reported that it was $4,500.
Board members continued to express concern about being sure
we have a reliable company and one that will take a real
objective look at salaries, etc.
Commissioner Lyons expressed his confidence in going with
the staff recommendation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to accept staff recommenda-
tion and authorize the low bidder, Matt Ellis and
Associates, to perform the work.
Commissioner Bird asked if we have any way to check on these
people, and Personnel Director Lois Hoder reported that she has
had contact with Matt Ellis. He is new to the area, but he has
been in personnel consultant work for the last fifteen years and
sets up programs throughout the state. Mrs. Hoder stated that
Mr. Ellis works with every aspect of human resources management,
and he is highly recommended.
Question arose about time frame, and Mrs. Hoder advised that
the study is to be completed within ninety days.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION RE CONTRIBUTION TO NaCO
Administrator Wright reviewed the following memo, commenting
that NaCO seems to have a different idea as to how much Revenue
Sharing the county will get:
L
69
BOOK 63 F!.;C 55S
r FE B 5.19.x& .
BOOK 63 P'Ut.5519
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 23, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Attached Letter From
National Assoc. of Counties
Dated January 16, 1986
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
Indian River County will receive approximately
$360,000 this fiscal year from General Revenue
Sharing. If you wish to contribute to the National
Association of Counties lobbying efforts to recall
the General Revenue Sharing Program, they are
asking for the contribution of $360.00.
Please advise if you wish to contribute.
Commissioner Lyons believed we will have to fight for
everything we get and that we should contribute.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to contribute $360.00 to
the National Assoc. of Counties for their lobbying
efforts to recall the General Revenue Sharing Program.
Commissioner Wodtke felt we do pay substantial dues to NaCO,
and wondered if this same request was made to the City of Vero
Beach.
Administrator Wright advised that request was made only to
counties.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition.
70
SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT (CWA)
Administrator Wright reviewed the following memo, stating
that he felt the hearing could be held at a regular meeting:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 28, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
Pursuant to Florida Statutes 447.403(4), I have taken objection
to the recommended decision of the Special Master who has issued
a proposed settlement in the wage impasse issue between Indian
River County and Communications Workers of America.
My objections are set forth in the attached letter, which was
mailed to Florida Public Employees Relations Commission and Com-
munications Workers of America last week.
It is requested the County Commission set a public hearing at
a regularly scheduled meeting as soon as possible to allow my
staff and Communications Workers of America to present its position
with regard to the Special Master's recommendation.
RL W. • .,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
January 24, 1986
Florida Public Employees Relations Commission
2586 Seagate Drive
Turner Building, Suite 100
Tallahassee, FL 32301 .
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
Re: Communications Workers of America & Indian River County
Contract Impasse: Response to Special Master's Recom-
mendation
Dear Sir:
The County Administration takes exception to all three
recommendations set forth in the Special Master's report.
The Special Master recommended a "four percent across
the board wage increase on the existing base be provided to
all employees within the bargaining unit except those employees
who are at the top of their respective pay scales."
The County Administration proposes a two percent across
the board increase for all employees, including probationary
employees but excluding those employees at the top of their
respective pay scale. In addition, the Administration recom-
71
FEB 5 1986 nay 63 U Jc 5 fl
Boa 63 Far- 561
mends a 1.8 percent merit increase for non -probationary employ-
ees who most recently have received a "Satisfactory" personnel
evaluation; a 2.8 percent merit increase for non -probationary
employees who most recently received a "Very Good" personnel
evaluation; and a 3.8 percent merit increase for those employees
with an "Outstanding" personnel evaluation. Again, the merit
pay would not be applicable to those employees who have reached
their maximum pay levels.
As of the first of January 1986, there were 190 County
employees in the bargaining unit. The net effect of the Admini-
stration's recommendation is illustrated on the following page:
No. of Effected Culmulative
Employees and Percent of
(Percentage of Wage Increase
Employee Status or Rating Employees)
Outstanding Rating
7
(4%)
5.8%
Very Good Rating
88
(46%)
4.8%
Satisfactory Rating
48
(25%)
3.8%
Probationary Status
27
(14%)
2 %
Near Pay Scale Maximum
5
(3%)
0-1%
Marginal or Below Rating
5
(3%)
0%
Pay Scale Maximum
10
(5%)
0%
Under the Administration's recommendation, one half of
the effected employees would receive a pay raise that is greater
than the Special Master's recommendation. One fourth of the
employees would receive a fraction less than the Special Mas-
ter's recommendation. Fourteen percent would receive two per-
cent more and eleven percent would receive less than his recom-
mendation.
The Special Master recommended "a three percent one time
increase be provided in the form of a 'bonus' to all bargaining
unit employees who are at the top of their respective. scales."
The Administration believes a job only has a "certain
worth" and an employee's longevity in a position should not
determine the cost of the position. However, recognizing the
fact all positions should be periodically reviewed to determine
its comparative worth, the Administration recommends an outside,
independent consultant be retained at County expense to review
all non -contractural -job descriptions in the County and make
recommendations' with regard to an adequate pay scale for each
position.
It is recommended the consultant's report, if accepted
by the County Commission, be used to possibly adjust pay scales
for "topped out" employees in the 1986-87 fiscal year. '
With regard to the Special Master's final recommendation
the contract be effective January 1, 1986, it has always been
the Administration's position that a contract can only take
effect the day it is signed by both parties. The issue of
retroactivity to any artificial date that occurred prior to
the contract acceptance date should not be considered.
Very truly yours,
c
ichael Wright
County Administr for
72
Discussion followed as to setting a time that will be
convenient for public input.
Attorney Vitunac noted there is no requirement for ten days'
notice. We would have to have one ad in the paper and send
individual notice to their union representatives.
Commissioner Wodtke felt it is important to have the right
time and notice, particularly since this is our initial contract.
He did not want anyone to feel we are trying to rush something
through.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to advertise a public hearing
re the above for February 19th at 5:00 P.M.
LAND ACQUISITION FOR COUNTY GOLF COURSE
Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following memo:
TO: Board of County DATE: 1/30/86 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Board Action/County-
owned
ction/County-
owned golf course
land acquisition
FROM: REFERENCES:
Charles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney
Mr. Ed Smith, the owner of a triangular piece of property
necessary for the construction of the tenth hole of the new
County golf course, has offered to donate the land to the
County if the County will pay $500 to his mortgagee to release
the land from the mortgage and if the County will construct
the golf course pursuant to the proposed layout, which will
enhance his property by its proximity to the golf course.
I request permission for the County to issue a $500 check
(plus recording fees) to Michael O'Haire, Trustee, for this
purpose.
73
FEB 5 1986 . Boa 63 F6�cF.562
FEB 1966 BOOK 6 3 F A." 583
Commissioner Bird explained the importance of this piece of
property to the golf course and noted that it amounts to about
1.2 acres. He believed we are getting a very good deal and
recommended the Board accept the donation from Mr. Smith per the
terms set out in the above memo. He further noted that we do not
have any money in the golf course fund now, but he believed those
dollars can be repaid out of the golf course borrowing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
accepted the donation of property by Ed Smith
per the terms set out above and authorized
payment of the $500 as requested.
Discussion ensued regarding the bids for the construction of
the Sandridge Golf Club, and Commissioner Bird reported that he
and Administrator Wright have a meeting set up Friday morning
with the architect, Ron Garl. After they have that meeting and
get some questions answered, they will formulate a recommendation
to come back to this Board for further direction.
Chairman Scurlock inquired how long the low bid will hold
before we have to award or reject. He noted this is overbudget
based on initial bids.
Administrator Wright believed about 30 days, but stated he
would check.
The Chairman believed we have a real option at this point to
negotiate with the low bidder who has made a significant mistake
in his bid preparation. He personally now has come to the
conclusion that if we are going to do this, we should do it.in a
timely fashion and get the club financed and built as fast as
possible since he believed construction costs and interest rates
are about as low as they will get, but he was not willing to vote
for a bond issue without having that figure identified. The
Chairman was aware that the growing season is another factor that
74
has to be taken into consideration, but felt even that can be
negotiated.
Administrator Wright believed about a dozen options have to
be considered and brought back.
Chairman Scurlock noted that we also have a real time
constraint with financing because of the new resolution passed by
Congress, which possibly could require spending 50 of the total
bond proceeds within the first 30 days and, in addition, possibly
could eliminate all arbitrage.
Discussion continued re the impact of such Congressional _
action on county financing.
Commissioner Bird expressed his concern and disappointment
with the delay in the permitting process, which he had understood
was Mr. Garl's responsibility. He wanted to find out what has
caused the delay and also would like to find out what risk is
involved in proceeding while the permitting is in process. He
felt that planting is a very important factor.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the permitting first was
involved only with consumptive use, but now they are talking
about water quality, which is something new. He did not think we
.can be critical of Mr. Garl because of this.
Commissioner Bird hoped to have all the information
available by the next meeting, and it was generally agreed we
should move ahead as fast as we can.
APPOINTMENT TO PROPOSED_ COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
The Board reviewed the following letter from the Attorney
for St. Lucie County:
75
BOOK 63 564
FF- -I
FE 8 5 1986 Boa 63 F41u-[565
1.
`L JAN holo CT,
QO D n@F1hED TY
Ito
C 1°a4>4 yE S
January , 1986
Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 — 25th Stieet
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
January 24, 1986
COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Daniel S. McIntyre
Sarah W. Woods • ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
Krista A. Storey • ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
As you know, a majority of the officials at the meeting
agreed that the chairmen of the three (3) county commissions and
the mayors of the four (4) city councils would each appoint one
(1) member from their respective governing bodies to serve on a
committee to discuss the formation of a council of local public
officials. In this regard, I request that you provide me with the
name of your representative as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
aniel S. McIntyr
County Attorney
Discussion followed as to the advantages of working together
with such a group on various issues, such as solid waste, water
resource, jails, state mandates, etc., and it was agreed the
representative should be a Commissioner.
After further discussion, Chairman Scurlock appointed
Commissioner Bowman to serve as the Board's representative.
DER/ARMY CORPS/DNR PERMIT APPLICATION (DAVID H. SCHWARZ)
Chief Environmental Planner Challacombe made the staff
presentation:
76
TO: The Honorable Members. DATE: January 27, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
SUBJECT: & D.N.R. PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
Robert M. K t' , A'
Planning & Deve opm Director
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: DH Schwarz
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 5, 1986.
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NUMBER 31-114689
APPLICANT: David Howard Schwarz
WATERWAY & LOCATION:
The proposed project is located on the Indian River, at 13425
Indian River Drive, in the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County.
WORK & PURPOSE:
The applicant proposes to construct a 2,000 square foot dock
with a 700 square foot observation dock. The dock will be
utilized as a multiple boat docking facility.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
Chapter 16Q-20 F.A.0
The application states that the proposed dock will be utilized
as a residential multiple slip docking facility. The applica-
tion, however, does not specify the number of boat slips that
-• are expected to be created by the dock. This information is
necessary for a complete review of the application and, as
such, the applicant should revise the application with a
specific number of proposed boat slips.
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances specifies
that residential dock structures are accessory uses to the
principal residential use. The applicant proposes to construct
a multiple -family townhouse development on the upland property
which presently contains a single-family home. In order to
construct the proposed dock facility, the applicant must obtain
an approved site plan in conjunction with the principal use.
77
BOOK 63 566
FF,_
BOOK 63 r uC 56 A
The proposed dock facility will be located within the Malabar -
Vero Beach State Aquatic Preserve and, as such, is subject to
Chapter 16Q-20 Florida Administrative Code. A staff review of
Chapter 16Q-20 finds that the proposed dock dimensions do not
comply with the size standards set forth in the Code. The
Florida Department of Natural Resources will not issue a lease
to the submerged lands until all of the requirements to Chapter.
16Q-20 have been met by,the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners autho-
rize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. recommending
against the issuance of a permit for this project as it is
currently submitted. Staff further recommends that the appli-
cant resubmit the application along with a complete site plan
application to the Planning & Development Division for review
and coordination.
Planner Challacombe informed the Board that staff did have a
preapplication conference with Mr. Schwarz on his proposed dock,
which is to be an accessory use to a townhouse development in the
Roseland area. Mr. Schwarz was informed that an accessory use
has to be associated with a primary structure, and plans must be
submitted and approved, etc. He did not believe the applicant
has any problem with resubmitting as proposed.
Commissioner Bowman inquired just where this is to be
located, and Planner Challacombe stated just north of Judah's
Fish Market where there presently is an old and historic two
story house.
Commissioner Lyons asked Mr. Schwarz if he had any objection
to staff's recommendation, and Mr. Schwarz did not.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to transmit a letter to the
DER recommending against issuance of a permit
for the project as currently submitted; the
applicant to resubmit his application.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD
Lease Agreement with Edgar Schlitt, Trustee, for space in
the 2001 Building, as approved at the Regular Meeting of
78
7—
December 18, 1985, having been fully executed and received, is on
file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 12:02 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
79
-.10, ZA
- y G
Chairman