HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/14/1986Wednesday, May 14, 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,
May 14, 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; L.S. "Tommy"
Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Joseph Baird, OMB
Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney
Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Wright requested the addition to today's
Agenda of a discussion re the possibility of the south county
water plant affecting neighboring wells.
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition to today's Agenda of
a verbal offer to settle the courthouse roof case.
Commissioner Lyons requested the addition of a report on the
progress of the jail, plus the recommendation of the
Transportation Planning Committee to take right-of-way for the
northerly extension of Indian River Boulevard.
BOOK 64 PACE 401
NAY 141996
BOOK 64 rn-L 402'
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 4/16/86.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 4/16/86, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Administrator Wright suggested that Item B be removed from
today's Consent Agenda as the applicant is in attendance today
and wishes to address the Board.
A. Approval of Renewal Application for a Permit to Carry A
Concealed Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/1/86
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 1, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - Renewal
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following person has applied through the Clerk's Office for
renewal.of a pistol permit:
Carmine D. Gigliotti
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved
the renewal application for a permit to carry a
concealed firearm for Carmine D. Gigliotti.
B. New Application for a Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/1/86:
TO The Honorable Members of DATE: May 1, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - New
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following person has applied through the Clerk's Office for
a new pistol permit:
Robert M. Giaramita
For reason outlined in the attached letter to Mr. Giaramita, I
am recommending the request be denied.
Mr. Giaramita explained that it never occurred to him to
report the AWOL because it happened 30 years ago when he was a
very young man, and felt there was no comparison charge for this
in civilian life. He emphasized that this was known to the City
of New York where he was employed as a civil servant for many
years.
Administrator Wright explained that his standard policy has
been to recommend denial on applications where someone has failed
to report an arrest or conviction.
Mr. Giaramita stressed that he is a honorably discharged
U. S. veteran of the Korean War.
3
BOOK 6 4 PAGE 403
MAY 14 1986 BOOK 64 Fn,r 404
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the application to carry a concealed firearm to
Robert M. Giaramita, provided that the applicant adds
the AWOL arrest and conviction to the application.
C. Request for Final Payment, Contract with Collee Mechanical,
82nd Ave. & 8th St. Waterline, and 23rd St. Waterline
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/28/86:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS ONERS DATE: APRIL 28, 1986
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
!;p
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: <: JEFFREY K. BARTON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FINAL PAYMENT CONTRACT - COLLEE MECHANICAL
82 AVENUE & 8TH STREET WATERLINE
23RD STREET WATERLINE
BACKGROUND
Indian River County Project Number UW85-04-DS (82nd Ave & 8th St) and
Indian River County Project Number UW85-06-DS (23rd Street) have been
completed per the attached letter of" transmittal from our project
engineers and Indian River'County Utilities has inspected all work per
letter from us to Project Engineers.
RECOMMENDATION
Utility Staff recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the
retainage of $16531.83 on these projects be released to the contractor
- Collee Mechanical
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized
the release of $16,531.83 in retainage funds to Collee
Mechanical for the 82nd Ave. & 8th St, waterline
project and the 23rd St. waterline project.
4
D. Release of Assessment Liens on SR -60 Water & Sewer Project _
Vista Properties
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously released
(2) ERU water and (2) ERU sewer assessment liens on the
SR -60 project to Vista Properties of Vero Beach,
Inc. for Units 205 and 206 of Building 26 in Vista
Plantation.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFfCE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
E. Request Purchase of Airless Paint Sprayer
The Board reviewed the following memo -dated 5/5/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 5, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Purchase of Airless
THRU: H. T. "Sonny"Paint Sprayer
Director, Gener S rvices
Lynn Williams
FROM: Superintendent REFERENCES:
Buildings & Grounds
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Presently, all exterior and interior painting is performed by either
the Building and Grounds staff or'Weekend Work Program people with
brush and roller. Exterior painting is planned for the coming year
which will be much easier and faster with commercial airless paint
spraying equipment.
Staff has rented spray equipment -in the past -at a rate of Sixty -
dollars ($60.00) per -day. This rate applies whether you are able to
use the equipment all day or not. Rental equipment is also subject
to be unavailable the day or days you need it.
We expect to use airless equipment for repainting in the, new.
detention facility. Equipment which meets our requirements is
available locally for purchase in the price range of $1500 to $2100.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has included in the -initial FY 86-87 Budget a request for the
Building and Ground Department of $2100,00 for the purchase of
airless spray equipment.
A local vendor presently has a complete airless system available foi
$1,600.00:
5
800K 64 rAGUE-405
BOOK 64 PA,E 406
Excess funds are available in the Building and Grounds Capital
Account for Other Machinery and Equipment. This is due to the fact
that Air-conditioning replacement bids were lower than projected in
the budget request.
Staff requests that the Building and.Grounds department be allowed to -
use -these funds, not -to exceed $1,600.00, for the purchase of airless
spray equipment from the best bidder (proposals). Staff will delete
the request for this equipment from Fiscal .Year 86-87 budget.
RECOMMENDED FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the purchase of the Airless Spray
Equipment for not more than $1,600.00. Funding from Account Number,
102-220-519=66.49
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of the Airless Spray Equipment in
an amount not to exceed $1,600, funding to come from
Account #102-220-519-66.49.
F. Minimum Dwelling Space Requirements
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/28/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 28, 1986 FILE: +
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD -CONCURRENCE:
MINIMUM DWELLING SPACE
SUBJECT: REQUIREMENTS
Robert M. Keati g, P
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP
Long -Range Planning A�
FROM: Jeffrey A. Goulet AAk REFERENCES: Min. Dwelling Space
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning Jeff2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 14, 1986.
- DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On January 22, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners approved
amendments to the definition of family and group home which:
1) Limit the number of unrelated individuals living
together as a family.to not more than four (4);
2) Require that a public hearing shall be required for
all group home applications, and surrounding property
owners shall be notified;
6
M
3) Require that a group home must be reevaluated for an
administrative permit or special exception approval
with any change in resident type or capacity increase
which would raise the level of the group home.
At that time, the Board discussed whether or not these
regulations were the most appropriate way to regulate the
number of individuals living together or if a more appropriate
way would be through a minimum square footage per person
standard. Based on this discussion, the Board directed the
staff to evaluate raising the minimum dwelling space per
person*.requirement.
On February 27, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to concur with the Planning Department's recommendation
that no further changes are necessary.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Currently, the Standard. Housing Code sets a minimum square
footage requirement of 150 square feet for the first occupant
'and an additional 100 square feet for each additional occupant.
The purpose' of the housing code is to protect the health and
safety of a structure's occupants. These floor area
requirements were reviewed with the Director of the County
Building Division who recommended that the County not adopt
stricter standards. The reason given by the Building Division
Director was the fact that a stricter dwelling space
requirement cannot be justified in terms of health and safety
standards. For the same reason, the 'County Attorney's staff
concurred .that a stricter dwelling space standard would be
difficult to uphold. In addition, staff found no other
jurisdictions having minimum dwelling space requirements
stricter than the Standard Housing Code.
The County does, however, have more restrictive minimum
dwelling space requirements than the Standard Housing Code for
group homes. These requirements are included in the criteria
for group homes in Section 25.1, "Regulations for Specific Land
Uses" of the zoning ordinance. The purpose of the zoning
ordinance is to protect the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the public. In addition, the zoning code also has
the purpose of maintaining the single-family character of
certain areas and the protection of property values. Due to
the fact that the zoning code has a broader purpose than the
housing code, stricter requirements can be justified for
specific uses such as group homes. The County's requirements
for group homes are the same standards used by HRS for permits.
These dwelling space requirements are outlined below:
1) A minimum of 200 square feet of interior living space
shall be provided per resident.
2) A minimum of 80 square feet shall be provided in each
bedroom for single occupancy. A minimum of 60
square feet of sleeping space shall be provided for
each resident for multiple occupancy.
3) A full bathroom shall be provided for every five (5)
residents. An additional toilet and sink shall be
provided for each additional group of four persons (4)
or less.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the staff feels that it would be
difficult to require a higher square footage per person
requirement than that currently required by the Standard
Housing Code. Staff also feels that the County has adequate and
appropriate regulations in place and that no further changes
are necessary.
7
BOOK 64 PAGE 407
F"_ I
MAY 14 1986 Boor, 04 PAGE 408
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation for not changing the
requirements of the present Standard Housing Code with
respect to minimum dwelling space requirements.
G. Southern Bell Request for Easement
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/6/86:
TO: Board of county DATE: May 6, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Southern Bell request
for easement
FROM: L. s • "Tommy" ThomasREFERENCES:
Intergovernmental Coordinator
Attached is a -request -for a 10'x10' easement for Southern Bell on
approximately 8 acres that we own on 5th Street SW just off 43rd
Avenue SW. This*has been cleared through the right-of-way agent,
and staff recommends this easement be granted to Southern Bell._
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously granted a
101x10' easement to Southern Bell Telephone on
approximately 8 County -owned acres on 5th Street SW
just off 43rd -Avenue SW.
(FULLY SIGNED COPY WILL BE PUT ON FILE IN CLERK'S. OFFICE WHEN
EXECUTED AND RECEIVED)
Hy Approval of 1986 County Peacetime Emergency Plan
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/1/86:
8
TO: Michael Wright
County Administrator
THRU: H.T. "Sonny" D
Director, Gene 1 ervices
DATE: May 1 19 8 6 FI
SUBJECT: Agenda Item: Commission Approval
Of Indian River County Peacetime
Emergency Plan - 1986
FROM: DougREFERENCES:
WrightWri ht g NOES.
Director, Emergency Management
The Indian River County Peacetime Emergency Plan has been
completed. It was made available to the Board of County
Commissioners for review on April 11, 1986. The plan is
mandated by the Florida Statutes and establishes procedures
to respond to a variety of manmade or other disasters that
might affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the
populace of Indian River County.
Please cause the Peacetime Emergency Plan to be placed .on
the agenda for consideration/approval so it -can be forwarded
to Tallahassee in a timely manner.
Copies of the plan are.located in the Comm-ission office..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved
the 1986 IRC Peacetime Emergency Plan and authorized
staff to forward it to Tallahassee, as mandated by
the Florida Statutes.
I. Request to Close 14th Ave. between 2nd St. and 1st St. SW for
4th of July Celebration
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/6/86:
9
BOOK 6 4 PAGE 409
BOOK 64 pt -"u 410.
TO: , THE HONORABLE MEMERS OF DATE�ay 6, 1986 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator
FROM:
James W. Davis, P.E—.
Public Works Director
SUBJECRT�uest to Close 14th Avenue
between 2nd Street and 1st Street
S.W. for 4th of July Celebration
REFERENCES: perry M. Pisani to Board
of County Calm issioners
Residents along 14th Avenue between ist Street S.W. and 2nd Street have
requested permission. to close a short section of 14th Avenue frau 3:00 PM
to 9:30 PM for a July 4th Celebration. Staff has no objection to this
request; provided that:
1) Proper barricades as permitted by the Traffic Engineering
Department are installed.
2) A block representative be listed as a contact person in charge of
the event in case the road needs.to be opened.
3) Access to emergency vehicles be maintained.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved
the request by residents to close a short section of
14th Ave, between 1st St. S.W. and 2nd Street from
3:00 P.M. to 9:30 P.M. for a 4th of July celebration.
J. 20th Avenue Extension -Right-of-Way Aquisition
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/22/86:
10
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE DATE: APRIL 22, 1986 FILE:
BOARD -OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
MICHAEL WRIGHT,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
JAMES W. DAVIS, P.E.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR'
FROM: DONALD G.,1SRA
RIGHT OF WAY AGENT
DESCRIPTION
SUBJECT: 20TH AVENUE EXTENSION
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
REFERENCES:
One parcel is involved requiring a 32' foot x 810' foot acquisition
for right of way to extend 20th Avenue.
Mr. Edmund N. Ansin, owner of the parcel is not willing to donate
the right of way. The attached letter indicates that -Mr. Ansin will
settle for $6,800.00 per acre which equates to $4,050.00 for the
.595 acre parcel. The property appraiser's records..indicate a just
value of $ 6,800.00 per acre for the property.
RECOMMENDATION & FUNDING
Staff requests authorization to purchase the .595 acre for $4,050.00.
This completes all right of way acquisitions for the 20th Avenue
extension project. Funding to be from fund 109 -
Existing balance $4,830,000.00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to purchase the .595 acre right-of-way for
$4,050, in order to complete all right-of-way
acquisition for the 20th Avenue extension project.
K.
Approval of Promissory Notes for_Paving_& Drainage
Improvement Assessments
The Board reviewed letters from Tax Collector Gene Morris
asking that Rafeal Lombard, Robert A. and Addie L. Anderson, and
Mr. and Mrs. Donald J. Coleman be allowed to pay their street
paving assessments in installments.
11
BOOK 64 F°�uC 411
BOOK 64 Fku 412
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved
the promissory notes for paving and drainage
improvement assessments for the following:
Rafeal Lombard
Robert A. and Addie L. Anderson
Mr. and Mrs. Donald J. Coleman
PROMISSORY NOTES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
REQUEST FROM DAVID FELDMAN TO PURCHASE COUNTY PROPERTY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/6/86:
TO: Board of County DATE: May 6, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Request to purchase
County property
FROM: L. S- "Tommy" Thomas REFERENCES:
Intergovernmental Coordinator.
Attached is a letter from Robert Jackson, Esquire, and a map of
the subject property. Mr. Feldman is interested in purchasing
this land from the County.
This is the only sizeable tract of undeveloped land which the
County owns in the center of the County with the exception of the
property adjacent to the current Administration Building. To
the best of my knowledge at this time, no other County department
contemplates use of this property.
The current assessed value is $85,940.
I respectfully request direction on this matter from the County
Commission.
12
Intergovernmental Services Director Tommy Thomas explained
that Mr. Feldman is requesting to purchase a 20 -acre parcel
located at Kings Highway near Lindsey Road and after doing some
research on other property in this area, he believed the -price
per acre should be approximately $13,000.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board deny Mr.
Feldman's request to purchase the subject property
from the County.
Under discussion, Commissioners Wodtke and Bird expressed
their reluctance to consider any request or offer to purchase
this parcel which is contiguous to another-20=acre parcel owned
by County to the south as they believed the County might need
this property at some future time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - MOHN/FOSTER REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
APPROVAL FOR A NON-COMMERCIAL STABLE
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
13
soon 64 Fnick 413
MAY 14 1986
r
MAY 14.1986
BOOK 64 FmGE 41
-1
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
aL`Cl
in the matter of t
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of <7IL��
Affiant further further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this dilIfy1of A.D. 19
(B ss M
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,
(SEAL)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of Public Hearing to consider granting
pecial exception approval for a noncommercial
table. is presently qwned
oberta Mohan and is Located on the south
ide of 6th Street, west of 36th Avenue. -
The subject property is described as:
The north 4.0 acres of the west 10 acresof Tract 6, Section .
Townshi33.
South, Range 39 East, according to the
last general plat of lands of Indian River
Farms Comport yy as recorded in Plat
Book 2, Page 25 of the Public Records
of St Lucie County Florida,lamend land
River
now lying and be, q
County, F orida.
A public hearing at which.parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be. held in the Board of CountyCom-
missioners of Indian River County Florida, in the
Commission Chambers of the County -Adminis-
tration Buikting located at 1840 26th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday,- May. 14,
1986, at 9:15 a.m. ` a decision
Anyone who me wish to appeal any
which may to made at this meeting witi need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made which includes the testimony. and evi-
dence upon which the appeal wilt be i
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY: -a- Don C, Scurlock, Jr...
" Chairman
Apr. 24. May 6.1986
Staff Planner David Nearing reviewed the following staff
recommendation dated 5/5/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 5, 1986
the Board of County FILE:
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
REQUEST FOR
SUBJECT: SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL
Robert M. Keati g, P FOR
Planning & Deve-lopmdfit Director A NONCOMMERCIAL STABLE
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller 804
Chief, Current Development
FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES: Lynn Foster
Staff Planner etrlol DAVE
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of Wednesday, May 14, 1986.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT -AND LOCATION
Roberta Mohn, owner of the subject property has authorized Lynn
Foster, -the prospective buyer to submit a minor site plan
14
application as part of a request for special exception approval of
a noncommercial stable in the RS -6, Single Family Residential
District The subject property is located at the southeast corner
of 6th Street and 39th Avenue.
The proposed stable building will be approximately 1,200 square
feet in size and include space for 3 horses and space for storage
of a vehicle and yard tools. The building will be located over 80
feet from the rear lot line and no less than 90 feet from side lot
lines.
Pursuant to Section 25.3 of the Zoning Code, Regulation of Special
Exception Uses, the Planning and Zoning Commission is to consider
the appropriateness of the- requested use based on the -submitted
site plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The
Commission then concurrently makes a recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners regarding the special exception use and
acts on the submitted site plan. The County may attach any
conditions -and safeguards necessary to assure compatibility of the
use with the surrounding area.
At their meeting of May 8, 1986, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered Lynn Poster's request. The Planning and
Zoning Commission voted to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners that special exception approval of the noncommercial
stable be given, conditioned upon Board approval of the special
exception use. An analysis of the approved site plan is as
follows:
ANA T.YSTA
1. Property Size: 4 acres
2. Zoning Classification: RS -6, Residential Single Family
Zoning District (up to 6 units/acre)
3. Land Use Designation: LD=2, Low Density Residential (allow-
ing up to 6 units/acre)
4. Existing Use: Currently single family, the owner -states that
the site had been used to privately house horses until May of
1985. The site is heavily wooded.
5. Ordinance requirements for noncommercial stables (Sec.
25.1 (a) (9)) :
a) Noncommercial stables shall be allowed in nonagri-
cultural districts only as an accessory use.
b) Such uses shall be located on lots having an area of no
less than two (2) acres.
c) The number of horses shall not exceed one per acre.
d) There shall be a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet from
any property lines.
e) The applicant shall provide a fence which has a minimum
height of four (4) feet and totally encloses the area.
6. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Grove
South: Single family lots
East: Single family lots
West: Single family lots
Section 25.1 of the Zoning Code, Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, details specific criteria to be considered when reviewing a
% ` W' .so A
•
15
BOOK 61- Fr1GE 415
BOOK 64
noncommercial stable for approval as a special exception use.
All of the criteria have been met. Although the special exception
process allows the Board of County Commissioners to impose any
additional conditions to ensure compatibility of the proposed use
with surrounding property, the staff does not recommend the
imposition of any special conditions in this case.
RECOMMENDATION'
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
special exception approval.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Joan Piazza, 595 38th Avenue, owner of the property behind
the subject property, asked how close the stable would be to
their property line, and Mr. Nearing explained that the closest
it could be is 86 feet.
Mrs. Piazzi stated in that case they would have no
objection, and noted that at one time they also kept horses on
their property.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed
the'Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the Mohn/Foster request for special exception approval
for a non-commercial stable.
RULES 6 REGULATIONS - FRONT & BACK YARDS
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/2/86:
16
V
Noor Z �d�N
Ll
R S ' IV
'77
MAY 14 1986 BOOK 64 PAG- 418
Chairman Scurlock explained that Mr. White would like to put
a TV satellite dish in his back yard, but does not really have a
back yard. Both of his yards are defined as front yards as he
lives on a lot that extends from one street on through to the
next street and TV dishes are not allowed in side yards.
Chairman Scurlock asked the Board to consider directing
staff to modify the ordinance to redefine a front yard so that we
have some reasonableness without putting somebody through the
variance process.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development,
explained that staff suggested that this be done through the
variance process, because in situations like this where there are
different frontages, you almost have to Look at it on a case by
case basis.
Chairman Scurlock felt that was not the case here since all
the homes face the same way and have mailboxes in what they
believe to be their front yards.
Administrator Wright objected to staff preparing a blanket
type ordinance, but Chairman Scurlock felt we need to have
something. in our ordinances for new development to identify the
front yard from the back yard.
Administrator Wright suggested that staff be instructed to
go back and address the problem, and perhaps bring back a
recommendation to handle these cases by administrative approval.
Chairman Scurlock was not sure that the Board of Adjustments
has the ability to grant this type of a variance, but Attorney
Vitunac stated they do have the power to look at unique shapes of
property.
Commissioner Lyons wished to see this type of situation
handled administratively.
Commissioner Wodtke asked how fast this could be done, and
Director Keating explained that staff could bring a general
proposal back to the Board in possibly two weeks, and then go
through the process to amend an ordinance.
18
Chairman Scurlock asked the Board to waive the fee for Mr.
White to go before the variance board, because in the meantime he
would have to wait for us to do something. The two months it
takes is not much for us, but it is quite a delay for him.
Attorney Vitunac,felt if the resulting rule probably would
allow Mr. White to install the dish, the Board could allow him to
do it with a removal bond. However, if the rule turns out that
it is prohibited, then he must remove the dish.
Administrator Wright asked if it could be handled with an
agreement rather than a bond, and Attorney Vitunac confirmed that
it could.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board allow Mr.
White to place the TV satellite dish in what he
believes to be his back yard with the understanding
that if the rules are not changed, he will have
to remove the dish.
Commissioner Bird felt in this case it was pretty clear
which yard is the back yard, and Director Keating explained that
staff was ready to give a positive recommendation for this
variance, but wanted to take this opportunity to give the Board a
general briefing on some of the issues concerning corner and
through lots so that we can get a general understanding on how
the ordinance should be structured.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS_ REQUEST TO PURCHASE VOTING BOOTHS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/2/86:
19 BOOK 6 FACE 419
MAY 14 1986
J
MAY 14 1996
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394
TELEPHONES: (305) 567-8187 or 567-8000
BOOK 64 Dur 420
May 2., 1986
TO: Ron. Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
FROM: Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections AZ
RE: Agenda item for BCC meeting of May 14, 1986
I would appreciate your consideration of the following:
1. First, the good news! When we were in Kissimmee last week
at the elections workshop, I sold 15 more of the surplus
voting machines at $50 each for a total of $750.
Election Supplies Limited has two used Precinct Ballot Counters
(PBCs) for sale at $500 each; a new PBC costs about $3000. The
PBCs will be used for counting ballots for the city elections in
Fellsmere and Indian River Shores and for the Vero Beach Senior
High student council elections.
I request your approval for $750 to be put into 001-700-519-066.41,
our equipment account, toward the purchase of two used PBCs.
2. Now, the bad news. Business Records in Texas has bought many of
the voting equipment vendors,in the country, and prices on
elections supplies- and equipment are rising rapidly. On the new
price list dated April 19, the price of A voting booth is $219.•
You paid $190 for the voting booths purchased for 1986 elections.
John Ahmann, President of ESL, has agreed to sell us supplies and
voting equipment at the December, 1985 contract price until the
.end of May. Only a governing body can purchase voting equipment.
For the 1988 elections, you will need.to purchase 64 more voting
booths; this is based on the estimated number -of voters in 1988.
I recommend that you use $12,160 of your remaining Federal Revenue
Sharing funds to purchase 64 voting booths now.
3. Vero Lodge No. 250, F.&A.M.'-has offered its meeting room as a
Polling place for our elections. The Volunteer Ambulance Squad
Building on 17th Avenue has been our polling place for precincts
40.and 45, but there is not much room there for parking and voting.
I request your approval to make the Vero Masonic Temple the
Polling place for precincts 40 and 45.
Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections, added a fourth item
to those listed in the above memo.
20
� - r
•
n•
G•
o :�
•Z
i�1
,c
�E�"!00
1OF -
r
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394
TELEPHONES: (305) 567-8187 or 567-8000
BOOK 64 Dur 420
May 2., 1986
TO: Ron. Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
FROM: Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections AZ
RE: Agenda item for BCC meeting of May 14, 1986
I would appreciate your consideration of the following:
1. First, the good news! When we were in Kissimmee last week
at the elections workshop, I sold 15 more of the surplus
voting machines at $50 each for a total of $750.
Election Supplies Limited has two used Precinct Ballot Counters
(PBCs) for sale at $500 each; a new PBC costs about $3000. The
PBCs will be used for counting ballots for the city elections in
Fellsmere and Indian River Shores and for the Vero Beach Senior
High student council elections.
I request your approval for $750 to be put into 001-700-519-066.41,
our equipment account, toward the purchase of two used PBCs.
2. Now, the bad news. Business Records in Texas has bought many of
the voting equipment vendors,in the country, and prices on
elections supplies- and equipment are rising rapidly. On the new
price list dated April 19, the price of A voting booth is $219.•
You paid $190 for the voting booths purchased for 1986 elections.
John Ahmann, President of ESL, has agreed to sell us supplies and
voting equipment at the December, 1985 contract price until the
.end of May. Only a governing body can purchase voting equipment.
For the 1988 elections, you will need.to purchase 64 more voting
booths; this is based on the estimated number -of voters in 1988.
I recommend that you use $12,160 of your remaining Federal Revenue
Sharing funds to purchase 64 voting booths now.
3. Vero Lodge No. 250, F.&A.M.'-has offered its meeting room as a
Polling place for our elections. The Volunteer Ambulance Squad
Building on 17th Avenue has been our polling place for precincts
40.and 45, but there is not much room there for parking and voting.
I request your approval to make the Vero Masonic Temple the
Polling place for precincts 40 and 45.
Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections, added a fourth item
to those listed in the above memo.
20
� - r
Item _#1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the transfer of $750 from the sale of surplus voting.
machines from the general fund into the elections
equipment account to be used towards the purchase of
(2) used PBCs at $500 each.
11 1
Supervisor Robinson advised that she would have to get the
remaining $250 from another account.
Item #2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the purchase of 64 voting machines from
Election Supplies Limited for $12,160 with the funds to
come out of the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund account
which currently has a balance of $300,000.
Commissioner Bird asked if we still consider these voting
booths as state of the art, and Supervisor Robinson felt the
punch card systems are going to be around for a long time, and
that probably we would not want to even consider changing
equipment until after the next census. She noted that 3 counties
are still using paper ballots, 10 are using the old voting
machines, but the majority of the counties are using the punch
card equipment. Some new systems coming on the market are very
good, but very expensive. It would cost the County $500,000 for
one of these new systems compared to the $100,000 we have
invested in the present system. She noted that Florida Statutes
require that we have one voting booth for 125 registered voters,
and also one booth in every precinct is to be used as a
demonstrator.
21
Y 141996 Boa 64 -V AG F.4?
Fr -MAY 14 196
_I
BOOK 64 FADE 41!?2
Supervisor Robinson reported that she has been able to sell
all but 13 of the old 144 machines and is still working on
selling the rest.
Item #3
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the transfer of the polling place
for Precincts 40 and 45 from the Volunteer
Ambulance
Squad Building
on
17th Street to
Vero Beach
Masonic Lodge
No.
250.
ITEM #4
Supervisor Robinson explained that Triad Governmental
Services has offered to trade us a Documentation card reader
which reads 1000 cards a minute in return for our M-600 which we
purchased last December. They have a client who only wants a
card reader that handles 600 a minute, and she felt this is a
good offer because even a used a M-1000 costs $1500 more than an
M-600. There would not be any additional cost as this would be
an even trade.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved
the trade with Triad Governmental Services for
an M-1000 card reader in exchange for our M-600.
22
TO: Honorable, Board of County DATE: May 14, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
THROUGH: Ann Robinson 41%-�
Supervisor of Elections
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT.
Budget Amendment
to Purchase 64 Voting Booths
and Two Used BallotCounters
REFERENCES:
Account Number Account Name Increase Decrease
(1) 102-700-519- 035.11 All Office supplies $12,160
102-199-584-099.91 Reserve for Contingency $12,160
(2) 001-700-519-066.41 Furniture & Equipment 750
001-199-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency. 750
Explanation:
(1) Supervisor of Elections requested the Honorable Board of County Commissioners
purchase 64 voting booths at the cost of $12,160 using Federal Revenue Sharing
Fund. -
(2) Supervisor of Elections requested the Honorable Board of County Commissioners
purchase two used precinct ballot counters at the cost of $1,000 which only
$750 is to be funded from General Fund Contingency.
ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO ALLOW GENERAL OFFICES IN RESIDENTIALLY
ZONED AREAS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/29/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 29, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
? SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO
Ro ert M. Kea ing;, AICP ALLOW GENERAL OFFICES IN
Planning & Development Director RESIDENTIALLY -ZONED AREAS
FRONkichard Shearer, AICP REFERENCESbn. Off. /Resid. -Zoned
Chief, Long -Range Planning Areas/RICH2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners -at their
regular meeting of May 14, 1986.
23
MAY 14 1986
BOOK Fe..E4?
r MAY 14 196
BOOK PACE 42
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department has prepared two alternative amendments
to the zoning ordinance which would allow general offices in
selected residentially -zoned areas.
On January 9, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners and Plan
ning and Zoning Commission held a joint workshop to discuss the
possibility of allowing offices as a special exception use in a
few multiple -family zoning districts. The general consensus of
individuals at the workshop was that the County should permit
offices as a special exception use in multiple -family districts.
abutting arterial streets. Moreover, some individuals felt that
offices should also be allowed as a special exception use in
single-family zoning districts that abutted arterial streetsland
there was discussion about allowing offices along collector
streets and permitting accessory retail sales in conjunction with
some of these offices.
On July 24, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners decided not
to amend the RM -6, RM -8 and RM -10 multiple -family zoning di.s-
tricts to -allow offices as a special exception use on properties
abutting an arterial street. The Board stated that the proposed
amendment was too broad and would allow offices along State Road
A -1-A which they did not feel was appropriate. The Board in-
structed the staff to look at this situation again and prepare
another proposal that would be more restrictive. In addition,
the Board wanted to know specific areas where this type of
development would be permitted.
On January 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission con-
sidered these alternatives and voted 4 -to -0 to recommend that the
County allow professional offices in some residentially zoned
areas along arterial streets and that this be implemented through
the creation of a professional office zoning district.
On February 26, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners tabled
action on this item until the Planning Department could provide
maps of the areas which might be considered for professional
office development.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The staff has prepared two alternative zoning ordinance amend-
ments which would allow general offices to be established on
properties abutting arterial streets on the mainland.
The first alternative is to adopt a professional office zoning
district which would be considered consistent with the LD -2,
Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), MD -1, Medi-
um -Density Residential 1 (up to - 8 units/acre), and MD -2,
Medium -Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre), land use
designations. The advantage of this alternative is that it would
give the County discretion as to where this zoning district would
be established. A disadvantage of this alternative is that it
could result in spot zoning because of rezoning applications for
small parcels that may be suitable for office development but
surrounded by residential zoning. However, the spot zoning
problem could be avoided if the County were to rezone appropriate
areas for offices and grant rezonings only to contiguous areas.
24
� � s
The second alternative is to amend the RM -6, RM -8 and RM -1.0
zoning districts to allow offices as a special exception with
specific criteria to regulate their development. An advantage of
this alternative is that it would lessen the chances of spot
zoning for offices because offices would .be allowed in three
multiple -family districts. A disadvantage of this alternative is
that it would minimize the County's discretion as to where
offices could locate. For example, for a parcel of land located
on an arterial street with the appropriate multiple -family
zoning, an office would be allowed on the site if it could meet
the specific criteria required for offices.
- RECOMMENDATION
Based on'th'e above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners direct the staff to initiate. the process of
adopting a new professional office zoning district to regulate
office development in.areas along arterial streets and designated
as LD -2, MD -1, MD -2, MXD or commercial on the Comprehensive Plan.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, explained
that basically staff is requesting to go ahead and advertise for
public hearings on alternative methods to allow general offices
in residentially zoned areas.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize staff
to advertise for public hearings on this matter.
Under d4scussion, Commissioner Wodtke wanted the
advertisement to be broad enough to cover various changes that
could be made to the Zoning Code on that day so that we don't
have to readvertise for another public hearing.
Commissioner Lyons had great misgivings on this matter and
felt that we should have either residential or business, and
Commissioner Bowman was worried about parking.
Commissioner Bird felt that the old houses within the City
of Vero Beach which recently have been remodeled into offices -are
more attractive than the homes were.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that we are talking about new
development, and Commissioner Lyons wished to know why the
barrier island was exempted from this proposed change in zoning.
25
BOOK 64 FA,UE 425
MAY 14 1906
SAY
14
1986
Boa
64 Pref - 05
Mr.
Shearer stated that was because we don't want
to attract
a lot of traffic, and felt that if we would open it up to
offices, there would be increased traffic.
Commissioner Lyons wanted to know why they wanted to attract
traffic in.his neighborhood out SR -60.
Commissioner Wodtke believed that while this would take a
lot of effort to qualify for a special exception, there are some
areas that could be defined for this use.
Chairman Scurlock cautioned about the large developments out
on SR -60 and U.S. #1 and the traffic generated by those limited
activities, and wondered how it would impact the traffic.
Administrator Wright noted that staff brought this back at
the Board's request.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning 6 Development, shared
some of the Board's concern, but explained that the reason they
are considering this is that staff feels in some cases multiple
family is comparable to commercial.
Chairman Scurlock felt that was so much hog wash and has
never bought the idea that residential should not be placed on
U.S. #1 or SR -60.
Commissioner Lyons said he was - really not being critical of
the Planning Department, but felt this is a bit premature because
these are new neighborhoods which have not become decayed.
Chairman Scurlock wanted the public hearing to be held
because someone might change his mind, because right now he felt
that this really amounts to a vehicle to get around strip
commercial.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
EXPIRATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NODES
The Board reviewed the memo dated 5/5/86:
26
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 5, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF
Robert M. Keat ng, CP NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
Planning & Development Director NODES
FROKic�ha d shearer, REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 14, 1986.
--DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On January, 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance No. 86-15 which converted the nonresidential zoning
districts to new commercial and industrial zoning districts
adopted during 1985 so that all zoning in the unincorporated part
of the County would conform to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
At the public hearing to.'adopt this ordinance, a question came up
about converting commercially -zoned lands in neighborhood
commercial nodes to the CN, Neighborhood Commercial District.
An individual objected to having his property changed to the CN
district because the district regulations contain a provision
that states: "All neighborhood commercial node approvals shall
terminate and become null and void if construction has not
commenced... within eighteen (18) months of the date of approval."
The individual stated that 18 months was an insufficient amount
of time to prepare a site plan,d@quire financing, and commence
construction. Based on this discussion, the Board directed the
staff to review the 18 month time limitation and further define
the procedures for terminating a neighborhood node.
The CN district was created specifically to implement the
Comprehensive Plan's provision for neighborhood commercial nodes.
Neighborhood commercial nodes do not appear on the land use map
and are intended to supplement the nodes designated on the map.
Because of the strict locational criteria in the Comprehensive
Plan, very few neighborhood nodes can be located in small areas.
In order not to preclude commercial development in these areas
through. the granting of a neighborhood node, it was determined
that these node approvals should expire if the property was not
developed in a reasonable amount of time. This is implemented
through the 18 month termination provision in the CN district.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The staff feels that in order to terminate a neighborhood
commercial node the property would have to be down -zoned from CN
to an appropriate residential zoning district. In order to
accomplish this downzoning based on the 18 month time limitation,
the rezoning would have to be -initiated approximately 15 months
after the node had been designated. Staff does feel it might be
difficult in some cases for a developer to have a neighborhood
commercial development under construction' within -fifteen months.
27 BOOK 4?7
MAY 14 1986
MAY 14 1986
BOOK
Auer discussing this situation with the County Attorney, a brief
set of procedures to effectuate termination of a neighborhood
commercial was developed, and these proposed procedures are
outlined below.
The staff recommends maintaining the 18 month termination period
for neighborhood nodes. However, staff feels that at the end of
18 months, if construction has not commenced, the Board of County -
Commissioners: should hold a hearing at which the staff would
report on the status of the node, and the developer could explain
why the node status should be retained. The staff report would
include information on whether or not a site plan had been
approved, whether or not a building permit had been issued, and
if there had been interest from other individuals concerning
developing a neighborhood node in the area. Based on this
information, the Board would decide whether to terminate the node
or grant a 6 month extension. If the node were terminated, staff
would initiate rezoning of the property. These procedures would
require that the CN district regulations be amended to include
the 6 month extension provision.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board
direct the staff to amend the CN district regulations to
incorporate the above described provisions for terminating
neighborhood commercial nodes.
Commissioner Bird felt there should be a provision of this
sort for terminating neighborhood/commercial nodes.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to advertise for a public hearing to amend the
Zoning Code to include a provision for an 18 -month
termination of a CN district.
REGIONAL LIFT STATION 6 FORCE MAIN AT 11TH ST. 6 7TH CT.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/5/86:
28
- M
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MAY 5, 1986
THRU: MICHAEL WRIGHT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO
,C��illf'�
DIRECTOR, UTILITY S RVICES
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE, ENGINEERING OP RRATIONS MANAGER,
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES.4n
SUBJECT: REGIONAL LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN
AT 11TH STREET AND 7TH COURT
BACKGROUND
The area east -of US 1 near the intersection of 11th Street and 7th Court
is presently dependent on septic tanks and several private lift stations
for treatment and distribution of wastewater. Growth in this area
warrants construction of a regional lift station and- force main to
direct wastewater flows to, the City of Vero Beach wastewater treatment
plant.
Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc.; have submitted a proposal for the
engineering design in the amount of $5,400.00 -and" an estimate for the
construction costs in the amount of. $60,600.00 for the proposed lift
station and force main, for a total project cost of $66,000.00,
consistent with their "Agreement for Professional Services" dated June
5, 1985.
Vatland Oldsmobile is presently expanding their development which would
require an extensive modification to their existing onsite septic system
and have expressed their desire -to participate in the construction of
the proposed lift station and force main. Upon completion of
construction of the lift station and force main their septic system will
be abandoned and all wastewater will be delivered to. 'the County's
regional lift station. Additionally, Ziebart's private lift station -at
12th Street and 7th Court, will. be taken out of service and wastewater
flows will be diverted to the County's regional lift station.
ANALYSIS
The project will be funded in part by. impact fees in the amount of
$5,000.00 and a Contribution in Aid of Construction in the amount of
$8,500.00 totaling $13,500.00 by Vatland Oldsmobile. The balance of
funding will come from the County's utility impact fee fund. 'The
Contribution in .Aid of Construction and 'other terms as agreed to by
Vatland Oldsmobile. are. outlined in the accompanying developers
agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
County Utilities Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the construction of and authorize payment in the amount of
$66,000.00 for the proposed lift station and force main and also 'approve
the accompanying developers agreement -for Vatland.Oldsmobile.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the agreement with Vatland.
Oldsmobile has been modified slightly by .taking out the words
"credits" since no real credits were given in this one.
29
MAY 14 1986
L 71
BOOK 64 P,%E 4JN
MAY 14 1986 BOOK 64 PACE 430
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that he denied the
applicant's request to pay the $8500 at the time the Certificate
of Occupancy was issued and instead required him to pay prior to
the issuance of the building permit. He noted that the applicant'
does have the ability to contract the $5,000 impact fee if he
wishes to do so.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the construction of a lift station and force main
at 11th ST. & 7th Ct., authorized payment in the
amount of $66,000, and approved the developers
agreement with Vatland Oldsmobile with the modification
outlined by .Attorney Vitunac.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FORCE MAIN FROM LIFT STATION AT SR -60 & KINGS HIGHWAY - SIXTY
OAKS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/5/86:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MAY 5, 1986
THRU: MICHAEL WRIGHT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
f
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINT
%�/�.�7/•� / ���,� �
DIRECTOR, UTILISERV'EF Z w
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE, ENGINEERING 0 RATIONS MANAGER,
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FORCE MAIN FROM LIFT STATION AT
SR 60 AND KINGS HIGHWAY - SIXTY
OAKS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) DEVELOPERS AGiE----N^7-"
BACKGROUND
Construction of the force main from the County's recently completed =iff
station at SR 60 and Kings Highway has been delayed due to difficulties
in obtaining necessary utility easements. The County is presently
30
`finalizing aquisition of two -remaining easements. The construction is
included in the SR 60 wastewater improvements project and since ty4g
balance of that contract -is nearing completion, staff reco=end_
deleting that portion of the work from the contract. As an alternat4 e.
staff recommends that the subject force main be constructed -
conjunction with the offsite utilitias for the Sixty Oaks PRD project.
In addition to the subject force main, other utility facilities relate_
to the Sixty Oaks PRD project have been oversized to be consistent wig.
the County's utilities master plan.
ANALYSIS
Design and construction costs for the subject force main tc=a-
$19,685.00 The Sixty Oaks PRD project has committed on the assessme-=
role for water and sewer taps for 60 ERU's respectively total' --c
$133,227.00. Costs to be reimbursed for constructing the subject =
main and oversizing certain utility- facilities are outlined in ==a
attached developers agreement and total $52,176.00. _
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve =
change order deleting construction of the.subject force main from L==
current SR 60 wastewater -improvements project. Furthermore,
recommends approval of the attached developers -agreement between I^d.
River County and the Planned Development Corporation providing =
construction of the subject force main and, thereby, approve $52,1:6'•.-,_
in credit against impact fees totaling $133,227.00. for the sub=ec=
construction and oversizing certain utility facilities, resulting in
difference of $81,051.00 due the County.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto stated that this took a
tremendous amount of time to negotiate mainly because the lift
station we constructed at our water tower site needed easements
from the Wilson, Poteat, and Monroe properties and Sixty Oaks
development. Sixty Oaks is going to do some major offsite and
oversize construction and this is the agreement that sets forth
all the negotiating that took place.
Chairman Scurlock understood that basically we are still
requiring the developer to make the necessary improvements up
front, and then we will give a credit for the oversizing.
Administrator Wright pointed out that this lift station will
also service the correctional facility and we have received
easements from them as well.
�1 141,31
MAY 14 1986 31 BOOT 64 F
MAY 14 1996 B00K
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons SECONDED by
64 pna 432
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
a change order deleting construction of the subject
force main from the current SR -60 wastewater
improvements project, approved the attached developers
agreement between Indian River County and the Planned
Development Corporation, and authorized the Chairman's
signature, as recommended by staff.
Administrator Wright stressed how very difficult these
negotiations were and felt that Director Pinto deserves an "atta
boy".
Director Pinto reported that the developer wanted to make
sure that it is understood that these fees are less those he
already has paid.
DISCUSSION RE COUNTY'S OSLO ROAD WATER PLANT AFFECTING
NEIGHBORING WATER WELLS
Director Pinto explained that the nursery located next door
to the County's water treatment plant has experienced some
problems with one of their deep wells and feel it is due to our
draw down. He recommended that the County evaluate this
situation in depth at a cost not to exceed $5,000, which would
include monitoring the well next door as well as ours to see what
the actual drawdown is.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
staff recommendation to do an indepth evaluation at a
cost not to exceed $5,000 with the monies to come
out the of the Utility account.
32
REQUEST BY SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT. AND AMBULANCE SQUAD FOR
WAIVER OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ON FIRE STATION
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/2/86;
Se.bastian Volunteer Fare Department
aur ;ambulance Squad
P. O. Box 539
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
SERVING ALL OF NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VOLUNTARILY
2 May 1986
Indian River County,
Board of County Commissioners
1840 Twentyfifth Street
Vero Beach, FLorida 32960
Dear Commissioners:
We, the Sebastian Volunteer Fire Department due hereby request
a waiver on the Impact Fee on our new station on Barber Street
and Tulip Drive in Sebastian Highlands, Sebastian.
We are trying to build the.Fire Station with what money we have
and with donations, material or, labor. The City of Sebastian
has already waived all building fees, donated time and manpower,
to bring the station to a reality.
It will be very beneficial to the North Indian River County Fire
District.
Again I appreciate what.ever you can do for us.
Respectfully yours,
R.N. (Buddy) Arand
Chief
Administrator Wright pointed out that our ordinance state$.
that everyone must pay, but if the Board wishes to donate money
in behalf of the North County Fire District, that would be fine.
However, he would not encourage the Board to waive fees of this
kind as it might set a precedent.
33
MAY 14 1986
BOOK 6 4 Pr1;F-4,33
MAY
14
1996
Boot
64- P�A I,j�
Chairman Scurlock asked
if anyone from the Sebastian
Squad
wished to speak on this matter.
Nathan McCollum, Vice President of the Sebastian Fire
Department, estimated that the impact fees would amount to
approximately $1500.
Commissioner Lyons could not see taking money from the
General Fund to pay for a separate taxing district's activity.
He felt that would be improper and if there is any money to be
given to this, it should come from the North County Fire
District.
Commissioner Bowman felt that would set a precedent for two
other stations to be built in the north county area.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board call a meeting of
the North County Fire District to vote a donation
of $1500 for the impact fees, which would come out of
the contingencies account which has a current balance
of $19,000.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that this request should be
channelled through the North County Fire Advisory Board before
going to the District Board.
COMMISSIONERS LYONS AND BIRD AGREED TO WITHDRAW THEIR MOTION
as this Board is not sitting as the North County Fire District.
Chairman Scurlock advised Mr. McCollum that the consensus is
that this matter will go back to the North County Fire Advisory
Board with this Board's support for making a donation out the
contingencies to pay for the impact fee of the new fire station.
34
REQUEST BY VERO LAKE ESTATES VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT. FOR COUNTY TO
CLEAR ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/5/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 5, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
Request by Vero Lake Estates
Volunteer Fire Department for
the County Road and Bridge
Department to Clear All
Right -of -Ways and Utility
Easements
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. , REFERENCES: Jerry W. Peeler, Pres,
Public Works Director Vero Lake Estates Volunteer
County, dated Apr. 10, 1986
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Vero Lake Estates Volunteer Fire. Department and Division of Forestry
are requesting that the County clear all right-of-ways and easements in the
Vero Lake Estates Subdivision so that fire breaks are established. There
are approximately 70 miles of right-of-way and 100 miles of easements in
the area. Many right-of-ways and easements have heavy tree growth.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
.The Road and Bridge Department has inspected the area and counted several
thousands of trees to be removed. To accomplish this work, many. months of
labor and equipment costs are required. Some of the work is in the area of
overhead electric lines. Also, survey crews would have to stake out the
clearing. This would take several months of survey crew time due to
clearing survey lines.
In the past, the Sheriff's Department has been trying to discourage traffic
in the area. The right-of-ways have been used for landing strips by small
planes smuggling narcotics.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Due to the magnitude of the proposed request, staff is of the opinion that
only a few select right-of-ways be cleared to create one effective fire
break. Request authorization to work with the Forestry Division in
selecting this fire break. Once firm costs are defined, this item will be
scheduled before the Board for funding.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that the recent
drought has created a serious fire hazard in Vero Lakes Estates
Subdivision and they are recommending that all rights-of-way and
easements be cleared to create a number of fire breaks throughout
their subdivision.
35
MAY 14 1986
mor 4 Fp�GE 435
SAY 1986 Boa 64 PacE 436
Administrator Wright cautioned that once we clear the land,
we will need to maintain it.
Director Davis explained that staff has advertised for a
engineering consultant for the drainage study of Vero Lake
Estates, but did not recommend that any of those monies that are
set aside for that study be spent on this project.
Chairman Scurlock felt that some of that money could be
allocated towards clearing once the consultant's report comes in
and work begins, because some of that work would involve
clearing, cleaning, etc.
Commissioner Bowman understood that some of the culverts
have been removed and are lying right there in the street and
they can't get their vehicles into the ditches.
Director Davis reported that they have looked at that
situation and there are a few culverts that need to be restored.
Mr. Van Auken has added that to his list of projects.
Commissioner Wodtke wanted to see us get together with the
Forestry Division to see what can be done on an emergency basis
to be sure that the property is protected. He felt that we
should go ahead and put in a few fire breaks as soon as possible.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that we certainly are not in any
position to clear 70 miles of road and 100 miles of easements.
Jerry Peeler, President of Vero Lakes Estates Fire
Department, explained that the main problem is the ditches
running behind their homes. These were last mowed in 1979 and
have trees growing in them. He felt that if these could be
cleared, it would provide a fire break to the homes and then the
homeowners could maintain them. He emphasized that the road
right-of-ways always have been mowed.
Chairman Scurlock felt the best thing we could do is direct
Director Davis to work with Mr. Peeler to develop a schedule on
exactly what we can handle with respect to available time and
staff.
36
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
directed staff to work with the Forestry Division
to establish a few fire breaks in the area rather
than the complete.clearing requested by the residents
of Vero Lakes Estates.
WABASSO CAUSEWAY MALNTENANCE DREDGING AND EROSION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/14/86:
TO: DATE: 'FILE:
�-,,, -.'• April 14, 1986
` �O Ecinmis loner Pat Lyons, V. Chairman
ea"" -""UT msmissioner Dick Bird, Chairman of
1 Paris & Recreation Commission Fi ="Ce
aL � .�••a•J SUBJECT:.
Wabasso Causeway Maintenance
THROUGH: Michae ght, County Admn. Dredging and Erosion
Q
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. '� ' PEFERENgg§: SOS: 1) Commissioner Patrick
Public Works Director Lyons o c el Wright dated 3/24/86 2) Commis-
sioner Pat Lyons to Art Challacombe dated 3/24/86.
In response to your 3/24/86 memo and to inquiry voiced at the 4/10/86 Recreation
Committee meeting, I have researched the feasibility of maintenance dredging beneath
the Wabasso low level- bridges spanning the Indian River. The following permit
information and alternatives are offered: -
• N• M1
On 4/11/86, I spoke with Mr. Marc Ady, Envirormlental Specialist of the Florida
D. E. R: in Orlando (phone suncom. 393-1011) . I explained- the fact that the existing
bridges were constructed from September, 1968, to June, 1970, and that the original
design specified a 150' wide channel beneath the west bridge to a depth of -6.5' MSL. °-
The channels have repeatedly silted in, and in 1978, the County received a D.E.R.
Permit #31-11410-4E and a C.O.E. Permit #78J--1333 to excavate only 950 C. Y. of
material below the MHW to restore minimal flow beneath the bridge. This work was
done by clam shell and the spoil trucked to upland sites, all by County equipment.
In response, Mr. Ady informed me that:
1) If the original bridge work and dredging was performed prior to April 3,
1970, the County could be exempt from a General Permit, which may involve an Environ -
rental Impact Statement. This exemption depends on the original D.O.T. dredging
specifications prior to April 1970, and if the proposed maintenance dredging does not
go deeper than 5 feet below mean low water. Mr. Ady recommended that we prepare a
permit application including the following:
1) Plan view, profile and cross-section drawings of the proposed project
indicating 14LW elevations, MHW elevations, proposed and existing
hydrography and other pertinent features.
2) The D.O.T. specs for the original. dredging.
3) Date the original dredging was complete.
If we are not exempt, we may have to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
MAY 14, 1986
37
BOOK 64 pm, 37
MAY 14 1936
Ll
BOOK 64 PA;F 433,
I am fairly confident that we would be exempt from a general permit, however,.
staff does not have the original 1968 dredging specs nor a�date that the original
work was performed. Our. available records indicate the bridge was opened June 12,
1970.
ALTERMTIVE,S FOR DREDGING
If the 150' wide channel is excavated to -4.5' (original design -6.5'). to
qualify as maintenance dredging, a maximum of 10,000 c.y. of material would be
removed. If .the material is hauled away by barge, -the following two large companies
could perform the work:
1) Norfolk Dredging -Stuart
Phone 287-2557
2) Prosperity Dredging -Palm Beach Gardens
Mr. Glen Milling, President
Phone 622-6422
Phone 626-4318
Will dredge Canavel Harbor in 2 or 3 weeks and maybe able to give us a price
soon.
If the material was hydraulically pumped inland, the following companies could
do the work:
1) Dock Master's Division -American Marine
George Dawes -Representative
10,000 c.y. @ $3.00 = $30,000.
2) Doss Marine -Stuart, Florida .
287-5663
Will call back for estimate
3) North American Dredging -out of business
305-799-1640
4) Trans State Dredging -Ft; Pierce -out of business
-305-461-6129 -
The County Road and Bridge Department could do the work only if the Northwest
Dragline were stationed on shore and a dozer or track machine tow the bucket out off
shore -into position. The dragline could then pull the material out. . County trucks
would haul it away. This was tried in 1978 and the saltwater corroded the dragline,
the D-4 dozer, and county trucks to the point that the Dodge and Chevrolet trucks
were replaced.
Attached is a copy of the project area, past D.E.R. permit, etc.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that if this work is to be done, it be contracted out to a
Marine Contractor. Based upon recent inquiry, the cost could be$30,000 to $50,000.
If the work is done, perhaps the dredging can be pumped to restore the eroded
areas on the causeway.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that this concerns
the western -most bridge of the four sections of the Wabasso
causeway and perhaps the second bridge could stand some dredging
also.
38
Chairman Scurlock felt that if this problem has just come
up, perhaps we should discuss how to fund the dredging at the
upcoming budget workshops.
Commissioner Bird advised that this matter came up at the
Parks 8 Recreation meeting last week and the Committee
recommended that the Board authorize Director Davis to secure
proper permits for necessary maintenance dredging under the
bridges of the Wabasso Causeway and that funds for this purpose
be allocated during the 1986-87 budget year once the permits and
cost estimates are obtained. While it does have some effect on
recreation to the extent that it may improve the water quality,
it i's more of an environmental issue. They will check with the
Florida Inland Navigation District to see if there is any
possibility that they have any funds they could commit to.this
purpose, but they don't believe it falls under their bailiwick.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board authorize staff
to secure proper permits for the necessary maintenance
dredging under the bridges of the Wabasso Causeway, and
that as soon as the permits are secured and cost
estimates are received, that funds for this purpose be
allocated during the 1986-87 budget year.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman asked what they intend
to do with the spoil, and Commissioner Bird explained that we
need the spoil deposited back on the causeway because of the
erosion problem there, and it will also help to hold the cost
down.
Director Davis recommended, if we do that, that we hold off
on the landscaping and some other improvements on that island
until the dredging is completed, but Commissioner Bird wished to
expedite the building of restroom facilities on the causeway.
39
SAY 14
MAY 14 1986 800 ' �Tr 449
Commissioner Bowman suggested stabilizing the fill on the
causeway with mangroves and other vegetation rather than railroad
ties.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
VILLAGE GREEN MOBILE HOME COMPLEX ELECTRICAL CODE VIOLATIONS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/1/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 1, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator
FROM:
Ester Rymer
• Building Department
SUBJECT: Village Green Mobile Home
Complex Electrical Code
Violations
REFERENCES:
The purpose of this memo is to bring you up-to-date and give
you as much background information on the above subject matter
as possible.
The Mobile Home Advisory Board received a complaint on June
20, 1984 from a resident in the Village Green Complex. The com-
plainant alleged Village Green improperly installed electrical
wiring and were allowed exposed on the ground in lieu of being
run through underground conduit. The complainant stated the homes
had water standing under them most of the time creating a hazardous
situation due to the exposed electrical wiring.
On June 25, 1984 the electrical inspector investigated the
complaint and found Type USE or RHW 2/0 aluminum lying on ground
under mobile home running to the mobile home panel. The wire
should be buried two feet underground if it was subject to physical
damage. The inspector determined this type wire had a moisture
resistant covering for use in wet locations and was not required
to be buried because the wire was protected by permanent skirting
and not subject to physical damage.
'In -June 1985, another request was made by several other owners
in the complex to, inspect their units. The electrical inspector
inspected the units and advised Mr. Robert Miller, manager of
the complex that a portion of the electrical system did not meet
the code. For example, the conductor from the pedestal to the
utility room and the conductor to the air conditioning equipment
did not comply with the requirements. In some instances, type
THHN wire, which is only suitable for dry locations, was used.
Type THWN wire, which has a heat and moisture resistance covering
and is suitable for use in dry or wet locations when properly
protected, was also used. Mr. Miller was advised to contact the
40
-electrical contractor responsible for these installations to make
necessary corrections. Mr. Miller refused to acknowledge any
responsibility because he assumed the electrical installations
were inspected and approved by the Building.Department.
The Home Owners Association did not agree with Mr. Miller's
position and requested a resolution to the problem. A private
electrical contractor was hired to inspect seven (7) units and
according to his findings, the units were in violation of the'
National Electrical Code. A copy of this report was filed with
the Building Department along with a request for us to inspect.
The Building Department had previously inspected these units but
the electrical inspector who prepared the report was no longer
employed .by the County so it was necessary to re --inspect. The
current electrical inspector reported that -all seven units were
unacceptable and, in his opinion, below minimum standards. Fur-
thermore,, he concurred with the report filed by the private con-
tractor and recommended immediate action to correct deficiencies.
In an effort to resolve this matter, it was decided to seek
remedy through the Code Enforcement Board. The complex owners
and unit owners were notified of the code violations and subse-
quently ordered to appear before the Board. Since the violations
were similar in all cases, the Board elected to hear testimony
and try only one case at the first hearing. The final order of
the Board required both the property owner and unit owner to cor-
rect the violations or face a fine. Following the action of the
Board, the seven unit owners apparently hired an electrical con-
tractor to correct the. deficiencies. The work has been completed
and inspected to verify code compliance on six of the units.
The seventh unit repairs have been delayed due to an unrelated
conflict with the power company.
I will attempt to explain
after many hours of research,
during the development of this
we are addressing today.
to the best of my knowledge and
the inspection procedures followed
project that led to the problems
It became apparent in 1975 that mobile homes were becoming
a booming industry and there was a concern as to how safe these
units would be during- a hurricane. Indian River County adopted
a mobile home tie -down ordinance on ,July 21,_ 1975 to provide ade-
quate protection for -mobile homes. Prior to the adoption of this
ordinance, the Building Department authority was limited to the
pedestal supplying the electrical service to the unit. Procedures
were developed to make sure that every unit in Indian River County
was properly anchored. The first inspection was to check the
tiedown and, if the pedestal was installed, a sticker was placed
on the unit. In some cases, the electrical service was energized
at that time. After the electric was connected, the Department
lost some control over other work done on the site; such as, air
conditioning equipment and utility room wiring. The records will
clearly indicate that in some cases, no permits were issued for
air conditioning equipment and electrical wiring was added to
utility rooms that were supposed to be used for storage only.
The records also indicate these are the areas where most of the
violations occurred. Apparently a lot of this work was done with-
out securing proper permits and therefore was not subject to in-
spection.
It is important to understand mobile homes are entirely dif-
ferent than conventional on-site construction. The mobile home
unit is manufactured as a closed system, delivered to the site
as an approved structure and ready for occupancy. We have no
authority over the construction of this structure nor do we apply
any part of the Standard Building Code. This is the reason we
have different procedures for this type development. It is very
unlikely these problems would occur on conventional -type construc-
tion because the department inspects everything on-site as it
is being built. The electrical service is not energized until
all work is completed and ready for occupancy. The approval for
energizing is our best source of quality control.
41
AY 14 1986
MBoa 64 PnF 44.E
AY 14 1986
BOOK
Procedural changes were implemented for the Building Depart-
ment to have better control over mobile home developments. A
six step inspection procedure has been established requiring all
on-site work to be completed prior to energizing.
The department has been criticized by some mobile home park
developers for withholding the electrical connection until all
the accessory structures, driveways, etc. are completed. It is
their opinion that since the mobile home is approved by the State
of Florida' as ready for occupancy after it is properly anchored
in accordance with, the Florida Administrative Code, the electrical
service should be released.
Therefore I respectfully submit the following recommendation
to the Board for their consideration:
Since there is a possibility other electrical installations
in Village Green are in violation of the code, I recommend the.
County send a registered letter to all unit owners giving them
the opportunity to..request an inspection if they so desire. It
should be noted if a violation does exist, the unit owner and
possibly the complex owner, will be subject to Code Enforcement
action. An inspection fee will have to be established to defray
the cost of hiring additional personnel to provide this time con-
suming service.
Administrator Wright explained that staff is seeking some
direction from the Board on how to handle these hazardous
electrical situations, and have recommended that the County send
a registered letter to all unit owners giving them the
opportunity to request an inspection if they so desire. It
should be noted that if a violation does exist, the unit owner
and possibly the complex owner, will be subject to Code
Enforcement action. An inspection fee will have to be
established to defray the cost of hiring additional personnel to
provide this time-consuming service and staff is asking whether
the Board wants to subsidize those fees.
Chairman Scurlock asked those in attendance from Village
Green for their feelings about the best approach to this problem.
Commissioner Lyons understood that we have changed our
inspection procedure so that we will not find ourselves in this
position again, and Building Dept. Director Ester Rymer explained
that the County's present policy is not to energize a unit until
a full inspection is made and everything complies with code. We
have a 6 -step procedure prior to energizing.
Wayne Gerhold, Lot 36 in Phase I of Village Green, stressed
that the residents had moved into Village Green in good faith and
that good faith has-been violated many times in the past years.
When they purchased their all -electric unit in January, 1980, it
42
O
included the air conditioning/heating unit which is the subject
of many of these violations. The literature given to them by the
developers of Village Green at the time of purchase states: "All
homes at Village Green have a carport with concrete drive; a
utility room; a fully Landscaped and sodded lot; central air
conditioning and heating; appliances, carpeting and drapes. The
home, of course, is completely set up with decorative masonry,
underskirting, steel strap anchors, plumbing and electrical
hookups." The contract he signed on October 24, 1979, long
before he moved in on January 22, 1980, included the cost of $390
for a washer/dryer hookup. When he went to make his final
payment on Janaury 17, 1980, he asked if all the final
inspections had been made, and was told that they had and a
silver sticker had been placed on the mobile unit, proving that
these 'inspections had been made by the City inspector. Now,
however, the residents understand that if they want their homes
inspected for hazardous conditions, they will have to pay another
fee. Mr. Gerhold felt that is unfair. He noted that the Code
Enforcement Board has never discussed how the people who did this
sloppy work were allowed to get away with it. Further, nothing
much has been said about it being the fault of the developer,
Florida Atlantic. He could not understand why the individual
owners are at fault for these violations. Mr. Gerhold pointed
out another hazardous condition exists in that animals get
under-neath the skirting and cause shortages by chewing off the
insulation of the wires. The residents wonder why this condition
exists because the skirting is supposed to be solid. Why did the
inspectors pass this condition?
Director Rymer explained that it was a matter of whether
that wire should have been in conduit, and the Code gave an
exception to using conduit if the wire used was suitable for wet
locations and was not subject to physical damage. She assumed
that the inspector, who is no longer with us, used that exception
because he considered only the danger to human beings and did not
43
MAY 14 1986 BOOK 64 i'A:�F 443
FP --
MAY 14 1986
BOOK u�r 444
think animals could get under the skirting. That was his inter-
pretation of the code. Since the Village Green project started,
there has been probably 4 or 5 inspectors, and all of them have
interpreted the codes a little differently.
Chairman Scurlock felt that while the County Attorney has
advised that we don't have any legal liability in this issue, the
major point is that Florida Atlantic seems to have acted in
questionable faith all the way through for the last 7 years with
respect to water, sewer, etc. He felt the County has a moral
responsibility to help these owners who have purchased in good
faith and would like to assist in a responsible way to try to
bring some pressure on the seller of these units. He realized
that this is a civil matter and the County has been very cautious
in getting involved in these situations, but there is a potential
danger and we need to identify just how dangerous it is on each
of the units and find some solution.
Commissioner Bird asked just how dangerous the situation is,
and Administrator Wright stated that the last inspector stated it
is a serious situation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize
at no charge, inspections of mobile homes for those
homeowners who specifically request an inspection and
were given Certificates of Occupancy prior to the
establishment of the 6 -step procedure, with the
understanding that if a violation is found, it is up to
the individual home owner to find a way to correct it,
and instruct the County Attorney to investigate ways of
recovering the costs of these inspections from the
owner of Village Green.
44
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke stated that based on
the results, he even would be willing to have the County pursue
with the individual homeowners whatever legal action is necessary
against the developer of Village Green to see that the
corrections are made at the developer's cost.
Chairman Scurlock asked Attorney Vitunac if we have the
ability to make the repairs and put a lien on the mobile home
park, but Attorney Vitunac did not believe we could at this time.
Staff has discussed this at great length, as well as with the
homeowners, and find that this is not a common problem to every
lot. Some people made their improvements after they had moved in
and no inspections were ever made. In addition, they have
separate contracts.with the developer and it would be a very
complicated suit. The County's interest is to -see that no one
gets killed out there by an electrical malfunction and that is
the reason for staff's recommendation that a certified letter be
sent to every homeowner offering them an inspection.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he had suggested to the home
owners that they could file a class action suit with attorneys
who would take their fees on a contingency basis.
Mark Allison, resident of Village Green, advised that the
residents were interested in pursuing this legally, but the
drawback was the legal fees involved. He wondered about the
liability in the case of a contracted electrician was inj-ured
crawling under the mobile unit.
Commissioner Lyons felt that since we have been told there
are life-threatening electrical hazards in many of the units in
Village Green, the County Commission has the responsibility to
find out whether this is true or not. He felt that this is the
first step we must taken.
Commissioner Bird agreed that once the units are inspected,
it would give us a handle on the magnitude of the problem.
45
MAYBOOK 64 f":�E 445
14 1986
BOOK 64 Fn;, 446
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
George Morrow, one of the original seven homeowners cited
for violati.ons, stated that one very life-threatening situation
is that 220 electric lines coming from the transformer are laid
under the concrete in the carport, but are just lying on the
ground underneath the unit. He wondered why this condition ever
passed inspection. Mr. Morrow ventured to say that every other
house in Phase II is the same and that out of the 790 units in
the three phases, each has at least one violation. How was the
certificate of occupancy issued?
Director Rymer explained that the power companies install
the electrical feed from the transformers and that is not
inspected by the Building Department.
Chairman Scurlock believed the bottom line is that there
were some real discrepancies in the entire inspection process
back then, and did not feel we would be able to reconstruct the
history of those inspections. Obviously, for whatever reason,
some things fell through the crack.
Jim Hall, Lot 548, emphasized that they cannot wait to take
civil action on these hazardous conditions. He noted that this
Commission had no problem with finding out who was to blame about
the water/sewer conditions and could not see any difference
between that and these electrical hazards.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that there is a"difference
because Florida Atlantic's water and sewer treatment plants are
franchised by the County.
Attorney Vitunac suggested that if each owner is facing a
$10.00 expense for fixing an electrical violation, it might be a
good idea for Director Rymer to contract with one or two licensed
electricians who would go in and make these repairs for the
individual units, with the individuals paying the costs. The
46
M M M
County would be helping only by arranging for the contracting of
reliable electricians.
Joe Powers, the first homeowner to be cited for violations,
suggested that instead of people being notified by registered
letter, ,that they be allowed to find their own solutions. If the
individual feels his unit is not safe, he could, on his own
accord, bring in a contractor who would go to the Building Dept.
and pull a permit to correct the problems. He urged the Board to
handle the inspection notices with compassion because many of the
residents are elderly and to receive an inspection letter would
upset them unduly.
Chairman Scurlock wondered if it would be better to have the
homeowners circulate the inspection information themselves, but
Commissioner Lyons did not feel we could live with that because
the County has been notified of these life-threatening
situations.
Attorney Vitunac advised that notifying the presidents of
each of the homeowners associations for all three phases would be
okay if they all agree to put in writing that this was acceptable
to them and that they would accept the responsibility of
notifying the individual homeowners. He stressed that while the
County did not have any legal liability in these cases, the
County did have a moral responsibility to notify the people that
there might be life-threatening dangers in regard to their
electrical hookups.
Administrator Wright stated he would be glad to have two
notifications sent out, one now and one in November, since so
many of the residents are up north right now.
Commissioner Bird hoped that all the inspectors in the
Building Dept. would be consistent as to the interpretation of
the building code this time around.
Jerry Ashcraft, Lot 71 in Phase 1, noted that when the first
seven violations were found, the officers posted a notice on the
bulletin boards that there was a possibility of a defect in the
47
MAV 14 1986 Boos �,�,�
MAY 14 1996 BOOK 6 4 1, r,! r 448
wiring of other units in Village Green. He noted that this issue
was discussed at coffees also.
Commissioner Lyons understood that all we are saying is that
the Commissioners have indicated that the registered letter
should go to the officers of each association for all three
phases instead of each individual homeowner.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorizing
the mailing of registered letters of notification of
inspection to the presidents of each homeowners
association in all 3 phases of Village Green instead of
sending a letter to each individual homeowner.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION RE SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE (Cont'd. from 5/7/86
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/13/86:
�anat�/1/1aol
GOLF COURSE ARCHITECT
May 13, 1986
Mr. Michael Wright.
County Administrator
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mike:
After this lengthy investigation into the details of each irrigation
system, I would like to recommend the Toro Irrigation System for
Sandridge Golf Club. The computer analysis of both systems (done by
Rick Dring of Dri-Tec, Inc.) reflects Toro as being more economical
from an operational standpoint (see enclosed). Also, Toro currently
has 90% of the golf course irrigation market in the State of Florida
and is backed by a network of suppliers and a seven year pro -rated
warranty.
48
Mike we only want what is best for Sandridge Golf Course, and feel that
Toro can best supply these needs.
Sincerely,
LINKS DESIGN, INC.
c.
BRUCE C. SHELDON
ASSOCIATE "
704 S. Missouri Ave.
LINKS DESIGN INC.
Lakeland, Florida 33801
SAND RIDGE GOLF COURSE
RESULTS OF OPERATING COST ANALYSIS
(813) 688-8383
System
#Holes
Pump Station
OP. Time
KWH
Yearly Power Cost
Zbro
18
25, 75, 75
7 Hrs.56"Min.
771.0
$11,999.64
Toro
18
25, 50, 100
7 Hrs.56 Min.
613.8
$11,027.88
Toro
'27
.25, 75, 75, 75
7 Hrs.56 Min.
1136.7
$17,453.64
Toro
27
25, 50, 75, 100
7 Hrs.56 Min.
896.7
$15,108.00
Rainbird
18
25, 60
11 Hrs.54 Min:
683.9
$13,867.10
Rai.nbird
27
25, 60, 60
11 Hrs.54+Min.
978.6
$20,090.48
V7 We -(8, 606.77
/8 �c - ► 2, 865'86
49
MAY 14 1986 BOOK 6 4 P„ GE 449
r". -
MAY 14 i.986
Bruce C. Sheldon of Links Design, Inc., presented the
modified operational cost analysis for Sandridge Golf Course. He
explained that "programming" is watering the stations of a golf
course at a certain time.
Chairman Scurlock understood that Links Design had actually
changed designs by changing heads or decreasing heads, and Mr.
Sheldon explained that they decided that they were watering the
sand ridge side of the course too much, and they moved the heads
from 90 feet spacing to 80 feet spacings. The modified numbers
appear on the third page of the analysis. Both Toro and Rainbird
did essentially the same thing and brought the heads in a little
closer together to come up with the best operating cycle for a
1-1/2 inch precipitation on the tees and fairways and 2 inches on
the greens.
Chairman Scurlock understood that Toro's cost of operation
is now lower than Rainbird's based on the redesign.
Commissioner Bird appreciated having the operating costs
broken down so the Board can compare apples to apples.
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that because the Board was
critical of this matter at last week's meet ing, it was discovered
that the system was designed incorrectly in the first place and
the redesign will result in an annual savings of $10,000 for many
years to come. He questioned if the Toro system still has the
capability of putting out more water in the same amount of time,
and Administrator Wright confirmed that it did.
George Greenfield of Boynton Pump, distributor of Rainbird,
objected to the inequity in the operation analysis where the
Rainbird, using a 25 hp jockey pump, is put on a general time
meter rather than on a time of use meter as the Toro was. He did
not feel that was fair because they did not have enough time to
work out how that relates to dollars and cents. He also pointed
out that during the first year of a golf course, there is a lower
cost metering period of time. During the establishment of turf,
50
the reality is that'you are going to be running the system many,
many hours, many, many days, on a 6 -day water week schedule.
After the turf matures, you can consider not turning on the
jockey pump during the peak periods.
Chairman Scurlock felt that the bottom line is that we are
looking at the long term savings.
Mr. Greenfield also questioned the two pumping stations
mentioned, and Mr. Sheldon explained that the second pump station
mentioned was for comparison purposes only. Regarding the jockey
pump being on the general service rate for Rainbird and time of
use for Toro, he believed the Toro system is operating completely
within the 8 -hour envelope, which allows them to put out more
water in a shorter period of time. The fact that the jockey pump
for the Rainbird is on standard metering is.because that is the
only way their unit will work., A jockey pump is used to
stabilize the two larger pumps.
Mr. Greenfield questioned the prices of the pumps, but
Commissioner Bird and Administrator Wright pointed out that this
bid has been awarded already and the question today is operating
costs, not capital costs.
Hal Kilpatrick, President of Boynton Pump, could not
understand how the County could choose a system that is $24,000
more expensive in capital costs than the one they are offering
(Rainbird). He urged the Board to rescind their decision of
three weeks ago when Toro was represented at the meeting and
Rainbird was not.
Chairman Scurlock asked the Commissioners if they wished to
reconsider their decision and the Commissioners confirmed their
decision to go with the Toro system and instructed Director Tommy
Thomas to order the system.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Lyons reviewed the following Summary of Actions
dated 5/13/86:
51
BOOK 6 F':;F 451
MAY 14 1980
J
MAY 14 )J�6
BOOK -C 459
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
May 13, 1986
1. U. S. #1 Speed Limit, vicinity of Vista Royale:
At the request of the Vista Royale Association,
the Committee recommended to the Florida Depart-
ment of Transportation (FDOT) to reduce the speed
limit on U.S. #1 between Oslo Road and lst Street
to 45 MPH, and to study the traffic operations at
U.S. #1 and 1st Street.
2. Intersection Study, 43rd Avenue at 16th Street and
School Study, 16th Street at Rosewood Elementary:
Committee recommended appr.oval of staff report to
improve the area as follows:
a. Signalize the intersection of 16th Street/
43rd Avenue;
b. Construct a sidewalk along the east side of
43rd Avenue from 14th to 16th Streets; and
c. Expand the school zone on 16th Street in front
of Rosewood Elementary.
3. Indian River Boulevard, North Extension (SR 60 to
53rd Street) :
Item #1
Due to pressures of a proposed development in the
corridor, the Committee recommends taking the
necessary steps to reserve the right-of-way.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously formalized
the recommendation of the Transportation Planning
Committee to urge the Florida Department of
Transportation to reduce the speed limit on U.S. #1
between Oslo Road and 1st Street to 45 mph and to study
the traffic operations at U.S. #1 and 1st Street.
52
Item #2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
authorized the signalization of the intersection of
16th Street/43rd Avenue; construction of a sidewalk
along the east side of 43rd Ave, from 14th to 16th
Streets; and expansion of the school zone on 16th St.
in front of Rosewood Elementary School, as soon as
funds are available.
Item #3
Due to the pressures of proposed development in the Indian
River Boulevard corridor, the Committee recommended taking the
necessary steps to reserve the right of -way on the northerly
extension (from SR -60 to 53rd Street).
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that the County's
Thoroughfare Plan calls for a minimum of a 120 -ft, width
right-of-way on all arterials, but the existing portion of the
Boulevard already has 200 feet of right-of-way, and staff is
projecting continuing the 200 feet north through the corridor
predicated on the 1980 alignment by Reynolds, Smith & Hill.
Chairman Scurlock felt we should just go ahead and build the
road and let the chips fall where they may.
Director Davis wished to receive some direction on moving a
little west of the proposed alignment if and when he felt it was
necessary and cost feasible.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize the
County Attorney and Public Works Dept, to proceed
at once in obtaining the necessary right-of-way
for the northerly extension of Indian River Boulevard.
53
MAY 141996 aooK, 6 4 r,r°,�C 453
r-- -I
MAY 14-19864,54
986soar; U �2 F� � 4,5
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird hoped that we would
maintain the flexibility of having Director Davis make a slight
adjustment to the alignment if it is found that it would save the
County from buying some very expensive property and if it would
not affect.the overall function of the road.
COMMISSIONERS LYONS AND BOWMAN agreed to add the
flexibility clause to their Motion on the floor with
the stipulation that the alignment should stay out of
the wetlands.
Administrator Wright believed that we would have to take
some of the wetlands.
Director Davis stated that we have been communicating with
all owners from SR -60 to 53rd Street, and noted that Grand Harbor
project is buying up more property every day.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
NEW COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/7/86:
r0: The Honorable Members DATE: May 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: New County Health
County Administrator Department Building
FROM: H • T • "S4
s y' Dean
Director REFERENCES:
General Services
Mr. Lemuel Ramos, Architect for the subject project has made his
recommendations for property required to facilitate the construction.
Staff has contacted the property owners by certified mail notifying
them of our interest in acquiring their properties. As of this date
there has been no response. We will proceed along the lines as
indicated by the Board on 2/5/86.
54
a � �
Mr. Ramos has also requested that action by the County be taken to
accomplish the following:
1. Make Application for release of easements. There is a ten
foot utilities easement that runs North and South through
Block 3 which would pass under the proposed building. There
is another easement that runs North and South through Block 4
which would pass under the proposed parking lot.
2. Make Application for abandonment of right-of-way. Proposed
plan requires abandonment of 19th Avenue from 27th Street
north to the canal.
3. Make Application for Approval of Site Development Plan. The
Architect is moving to get the proposed site plan to the City
of Vero Beach. Mr. Ramos has requested monies for this
application and for items #1 and #2.
The entire proposed plan is contingent upon acquisition of the
property., abandonment of the right-of-way, and release of the
easements.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the immediate action to
proceed with the Architect's proposal as outlined above.
General Services Director Sonny Dean explained the architect
has recommended that the new health building be located on Blocks
3 and 4 of the Booker T. Washington Subdivision, which is just
north of the County Administration Building. In those two blocks
are three pieces of property that belong to private owners.
These three owners have been contacted by registered letters and
the only response received was from an owner who is not
interested in selling his property. Director Dean reported that
he does have an appointment to talk with another owner tomorrow
who has expressed an interest in selling.
Director Dean recommended that the Board authorize immediate
action to proceed with the architect's proposal as outlined in
the above memo.
Chairman Scurlock asked when we are going to get an overall
budget for this project, and Director Dean advised that the
architect will be here at next week's meeting to give a formal
presentation on the proposed cost of this project.
Chairman Scurlock felt that the appropriate staff needs to
get together pretty soon and take every one of these issues and
track the who, what, where, when and establish a graph so we know
who is responsible and how to budget.
55
BOOK 64 P°„E 455
Fr,VAY 14 1986 eooK 6r4.cF.4t56
Administrator Wright explained that they cannot do that
until they finalize the architect's estimate on the Sheriff's
Building and the Health Building. As soon as they are finalized,
staff will bring it back to the Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to take immediate action to
proceed with the architect's proposal as outlined
for the purchase of three houses with the possibility
of relocating these homes.
SETTLEMENT OF COURTHOUSE ROOF SUIT
Attorney Vitunac explained that the insurance company made
an offer of $21,000 towards the actual cost of $39,000 to fix the
courthouse roof, and requested the Board's authorization to make
a counteroffer somewhere in the low $50,000s.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
authorized the County Attorney to make a counter-
offer to the insurance company in the
neighborhood of the low $50,000s in settlement
of the Courthouse roof suit.
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE NEW JAIL
Commissioner Lyons reported that he had visited the Jail
yesterday and the bars and doors are being installed. Somehow we
have overlooked a guard tower for the recreation area and we are
moving ahead with that. The architects have advised that
construction should be complete approximately 11 weeks after the
consoles arrive, so it looks like it will be completed by the end
of September. As of this morning, however, we have 149 persons
6�
in jail, which is 30 more inmates than what our agreement calls
for with the State Department of Corrections.
DISCUSSION RE`SUPPORT _OF PIPER AIRCRAFT GETTING THE Q5106
CONTRACT
Chairman Scurlock asked for the Board's direction on writing
a letter of support for Piper to receive the drone contract. The
letter would be directed to U.S. Representative Bill Nelson.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested that the County Attorney draft
the letter, and Chairman Scurlock felt he could support this
issue now that Piper has agreed to make the necessary
improvements to the airport.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, -SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board authorized the
County Attorney to write a suitable letter to
Representative Bill Nelson in support of Piper
Aircraft being awarded the drone contract.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:00 noon.
ATTEST:
111 -AJ
Clerk Chairman
57
MAY 14 1996 Boo. "'-)7