HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/16/1986r�
Wednesday, July 16, 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,
July 16, 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 L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Acting County Administrator;
Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County
Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia
Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend John Few, Christ Methodist by the Sea, gave the
invocation, and Chairman Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock wished to add two items - a Proclamation
re observing Physical Rehabilitation Day and an award to the
Employee of the Quarter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
added the above items to the agenda.
Chairman Scurlock later in the meeting requested the
addition of discussion re acquisition of the North County
wastewater plant site.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
added the above emergency item to the agenda.
JUL 16 1986 Booz 65 P�:,F. 48
ri-UL 16 1986
BOOK 65 PAGE 49 1
EMPLOYEE_OF_THE_QUARTER _AWARD
Chairman Scurlock announced that the Employee of the Quarter
Award would go to Virginia "Tess" Whetzel, Administrative
Secretary to Planning 6 Development Director Keating. He called
Ms. Whetzel forward, presented her with a plaque and a check, and
expressed the Board's appreciation for her work.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of June 11th and
June 18th, 1986 or the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 20,
1986. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 11, 1986, the
Regular Meeting of June 18, 1986, and the Special
Meeting of June 20, 1986.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wodtke requested that Item M be removed for
discussion; Chairman Scurlock requested the removal of Item P;
and Acting Administrator Thomas requested the removal of Item H.
A. Renewal Pistol Permits
The Board reviewed memo of the Acting Administrator:
2
� � r
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 3, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permits - Renewals
FROM: L. S. "Tommy" thomas REFERENCES:
Acting County Administra or
The following have applied through the Clerk's Office for renewal
of pistol permits:
Donald R. Hunter
Elizabeth M. Hunter
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the renewal application for a -permit to carry a
concealed firearm for Donald R. Hunter and Elizabeth
j M Hunter.
B. New Pistol Permits
The Board reviewed memo of the Acting Administrator:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 23, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: pistol Permits - New
FROM: L, S. "Tommy" Thomas p��ERENCES:
Acting County Administratt=
The following persons have applied through the Clerk's Office
for new pistol permits:
Alfred Billy Horne
John W. Noll
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
3 Bou 65 Fa c 50
FFJUL 16 1996 BOOK 65 PAGE 51
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
application for a permit to carry a concealed
firearm for Alfred Billy Horne and John W. Noll.
C_, D. & E. Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of the Clerk:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund
Month of June, 1986 - $53,897.36
Month to date report for Month of June by
Last Name.
Sebastian Inlet Tax District Financial
Statements and Auditors Report - 9/30/85
F. Retroactive Approval - FmHA Legal Services Agreement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted
retroactive approval of the FmHA Legal Services
Agreement dated June 30, 1986.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ACRICULTURE
Farmers Home Administration
LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Thin agreement motile thin 30th, day of June ,
.19 86. between Indian River County. Tlorida
(sponsors) (organizing committee) (Name of organization)
hereinafter referred to as "Owners," and Charles P. Vitunac ,
the County Attorney of Indian River County,. Florida,
attorney at law, of Vero Beach, Florida , hereinafter referred
to as "Attorney":
WHEREAS, Own haye_farmeAl----- —_
("public water supply
— --------------------------
.district," "public service district," "not for profit corporation," or
------------------------------------ 1-4 ------------------------------------
other
----------------------- --------1—•a--
other official designation) ("budy politle," "municipal
curporation," "nonprofit corporation," or other organization)
4
-!r is a County
under the provisions of Chapter 10148, Laws of Florida and Ma tpra 125 '
(Cite statute(s) under which applicant will be
and 159, Florida Statutes, and
organized)
WHEREAS, the Attorney agrees to perform All legal services necessary
-trr�rr�nn4rr-trr►d-Huw�wfi►c�e--oaaid himself and through Rhoads & Sinon, attorneys
at law, of Vero Beach, Florida Bond Counsel") necessary in connection with the j
and-eite--pt owi$iews-04
I
++�1 - a Vrtut a --and--t-o--perform -- bsr c us t oma ryegega4-00*v ,e*o- neces@tt y.
+10-4-h—or , financing, eonotruetion. and initial operation of
a sewer system;
YITNESSETii:
. That for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises between
the parties hereto, it is hereby agreed:
SECTION A - LEGAL SERVICES
himself and through Bond Counsel
fn.at the Attorney/will perform such services as are necessary to accomplish
he above recited objectives including, but not limited to, the following:
-Pfepa-rst�en•-and--f+H-TT-vf-prttt$u.. x1rd-
supervision and assistance in the taking of such-o44%e-r.actions
as may be necessary or incidental to cause the Owners to become
dI'-l-r-mrga-1-ed-aAd-4sac---- c and -to -be authorized -to undertake
the proposed system.
2. Furnish advice and assistance to the governing body of the duly
Incorporated association in coTn1faJon with (a) the notice for and
conduct of meetings; (b) the lweparet-ien of minutes of meetings;
(c) the preparation and enactment of such resolutions as may be r ordinances
necessary in connection with the authorization, financing,
construction, and initial operation of the system; (d) the preparation
of such affidavits, publication notices, ballots, reports,
certifications, and other instruments and advice as may be needed
in the conduct of such bond elections as may be necessary; (e)
the preparation and completion of such bonds or other obligations
as may be necessary to finance the system; (f) the completion and
execution of documents for obtaining a loan male Ir insured or
a grant made by -the United States of America, acting through the
Farmers Home Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture;
(g) entering into construction contracts; (h) preparation and
adoption of By -Laws, Rules and Regulations, and rate schedules;
(i) such other corporate action as may be necessary in connection
with the financing, construction, and initial operation of the system.
3. ]Review of construction contracts• -bidlett!
ng procedure. and
surety and contractual bonds in connection therewith.
4. Preparation. negotiation, or review of contract with s city or,
other source of water supply when necessary.
S. Preparation, where necessary, and review of deeds, easements
and other rights-of-way documents, and other instruments for
sites for source of water supply, pumping stations, treatment
plants, and other facilities necessary to the system and to provide
continuous rights-of-way therefor; rendering title opinions
with reference thereto; and providing for the recordation thereof.
5 Bou 65 uln 52
FF-IJUL 16 196
BOOK 65 PAGE 5
6. Obtain necessary permits and certificates from county and municipal
bodies, from State regulatory agencies, and from other public
or private sources with respect to the approval of the system,
the construction and operation thereof, pipeline crossings, and
the like.
7. Cooperate with the engineer employed by Owners in connection
with preparation of tract sheets, eases+ents, and other necessary
title documents, construction contracts, watt— �e•pply contracts,
health permits, crossing permits, and or --er inr euments.
8. -When applicable, secure assistance of and coope..._-- with recognized
bond counsel in the preparation of the documents necessary for
the financing aspects of the system. The attorney shall pay
all bond counsel in perfecting the financing aspects, e.g.,
assessment procedures and completion of documents. Where bond
counsel is retained, the Attorney will not be responsible for the
preparation and approval of those documents pertaining to the
issuance of the Owner's obligations.
SECTION B - COMPENSATION
and to Bond Counsel
I. Owners will pay to the Attorney/for professional services rendered
in accordance herewith, fees as follows:
To Bond Counsel:
,$15,0009 plus out-of-pocket disbursements (which disbursements
will not include travel to or from Indian River County rom their
offices) which they estimate will not exceed $2,000.
To __o ney: None
Said fees to be payable In the following manner and at the following
times:
upon settleinent-of financing if_permanent financing is undertaken
initially. Otherwise, not more than fifty Percent (50%) upon
settlement of interim -financing, and the balance upon settlement of
rzexplaingnt_ financing.
OHS
2-r
�T �he�--upon--a;-geTMi-eatfe�►-end-4neo-rporet�4ote--glee-aeaoefaiteet-eirai-i-
. bY-�*i�i�t�-�s-1tiE-lAR-aelepE a+ril--rtett-�fij►-t-Ftl�r-�1greemertt•,--t}ra-t
Et�a-aeroal�-t-lew-ele el �-be-subsf-i-Ei*E<�--€or--E-1►e-#t►d#vf d aero-6rne-m-
a s.a_paxxir..-t.a.-t#ia-Ag aeerne,air-ttwd--�i}a•G--�iie-�,rRe�s-ee-#ewfi�ri�#ua-1-s-
ahall--Lleer-esu.pau-�a-a4l�aued.--e�-,�1--iu�r-sosial-d�a�eg-
4>r-asisiieg,-.E.r�ua..tJats-A�}tfaumuw4.-
%r T Mt'vpert U L S nfzat•farr-and t nea rput at i0t,-st=-H-the-assoct"t ton
FP+t- or --ref u e-to-adolrtand--r gal L . -eMs�Agreement-bg_aPj0L olarture
reeo3�t inn-+4th4n-----------dYrj*a--fr01rtf9e-1date-vf-trhe--•:ieemeat
of- 1-hs--Legs-1-e%1stenee,--oris _ ee-nt--Am#j-termtna•t'L and -Owners
slrel-� be-d�nb�e-to-Ehe AteorneY'-fc�-�rtrmcnt-of-
------- -----
_ wir-lclr--et,Rr-�e�eeeeREa-ped►+nit-�--f-ui-�€er--the-or6aetirertion--mtd-
i�eeot�eE#eR-e€-the•-i-ergo►r-�teei--€ac-re}}-ether-legal--mss
re+�ered-t a -AMR 9!s•-aRa#@ rz-Nva--Qersw-ef--t�t4 t: -Ag rece�e•rt t-to--N�--dete-
0�--Bair�A�TIi�RBE�6R.-
Attorney:
Charles P. yitunac
Owne r&:
Retroactive Approval: July 16, 1986
6
Indian River County
By' --2 C Chairman
Board of County Cossioners
G. Acceptance of Public Health Unit Report - 3/31/86
The Board reviewed letter from the Public Health Director,
Dr. Tucker:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT
2523 14TF+ AVENUE ENVIRONT.FNTAL HEALTH
VERO 9EACH. FL 32960 184025T" STREET SUITE N• 1 18
TELEPHONE 13051 567-1101 VERO9E^IM FL 32960
sUNcaw 451 530: TELLPHONE 13051 5679000 EaT 229
SUN -CO.. 424 1229
June 2, 1986
FROM: Indian River County Public Health Unit
SUBJECT: Report of Activities and Expenditures
THROUCH: Office of Budget and i1anagement
TO: Chairman of the Board, Indian River County Commissioners
As required by Chapter 154, Florida Statutes, and the contract between the
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Indian River County, the
attached report of the activities and expenditures of the Indian River County
Public Health Unit (CPHU) for the period ending March 31, 1986 is submitted.
This report is made up of the following sub -reports produced by the CPHU Contract
Management System:
1. DE140Ll "CPHU Contract Management Report" which compares the actual
services and expenditures with the contract plan for the second
quarter of the contract;
2. DE235L1 - "Analysis of Find Equities" which shows revenue for the report
period by source and the balance in the CPHU trust fund;
3. DE250L1 - "Statement of Budget and Actual Expenditures Per Revenue
Contribution Ratio";
4. "CPHU Program Service Area Variance Report" which explains variance in
actual expenditures for the report period which are greater
or less than 25 percent of the planned expenditure levels.
Yirectur
ucker, M.D.
, IRCPHU
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted
the Public Health Unit report of Activities and
Management for the period ending 3/31/86.
(Said Report is on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board.)
7 BOOK 65 fA�E 54
Fr-JUL16 1996 1
800K 5. FAGE 55
H. Sheriff's Contraband Forfeiture_ Report
The Board reviewed Sheriff's letter and quarterly reports:
~ � R.T.-Il W. DOB ECK - IYDIA1V RIVI,-R COUX7'Y
Honorable Doug Scurlock, Chairman June 12, 1986
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
ATTENTION: Mr. Joe Baird, Budget Officer
Dear Mr. Baird:
RE: Florida Contraband Forfeiture Report
Attached are the reports for the periods ending December 31, 1985 and
March 31, 1986. I have preformed a complete review of all activity
in this area going back to October, 1984.
In an attempt to get a clarification as to how the reports were to be
prepared, I contacted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who
in conjunction _with the Florida Sheriff's Association, developed the
report. The following is a section by section description:
(A) Beginning Balance Available - ending balance from previous
quarter.
(B) Collections - Gross Amount
Sale Proceeds - sale of confiscated property forfeited to the
-._Department
-Forfeited Cash - confiscated cash forfeited to the Department
._.Interest Earned - interest earned by Trust Funds invested
(C)_:_ Disbursements - total costs by category for expenditures direct-
ly to the forfeiture of confiscated property.
(D) Appropriations Received - amounts received from the Board of
County Commissioners per written request from the Sheriff --year-
to-date total.
(E) Expenditures - expenditures by category of funds received in
"D" --year-to-date total.
(F) Appropriation Balance - balance of amounts received from the
board --(D - E = F .
(G) Ending Balance Available - equals collections minus disburse-
ments minus expenditures -(A + B - C E = G).
Page 2 - Forfeited Property - detail of property and cash reported as
collections on page one.
Per our telephone conversation this date, I am going to deduct our
legal fees and court costs on a quarterly basis to replenish our Oper-
ating Account.
In the future you can expect to receive these reports on a timely
basis as soon as the interest earned is available from your office.
If you have any questions or any further information is required,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
R. T. "TIM" DOBECK, SHERIFF
8
_- _ r
Richa es, Business Manager
Fj
1 F.
--9.6-4 4 a fALjrAd.v A i Ur r- 6UHH I LHLY HEHUHT
(as required by Section 932.704(5), Florida Statutes; as amended 1985)
AGENCY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Quarter Beginning 10/118.9 Quarter Ending 121131.18S
Beginning Balance Available for
Law Enforcement Trust Fund (A)
$ 136,125
Collections: (g )
- Sale Proceeds
Forfeited Cash
51,425
Interest Earned
578
Total Collections
52,003
Disbursements: (C)
Lien Satisfactions
Storage, Maintenance
and Security
Agency Forfeiture
Costs
Court Costs
8,268
Remittance to Law
Enforcement Trust
Case n5eversal-4;23U—
Total Disburseme�efs�t' Expenditure
990
13,488
Ending Balance Available for
Law Enforcement Trust Fund (G)
$ _174,F4f1
Appropriations Received from o
Governing Body (fiscal year-to-date) (D) $ -0- o
m
Expenditures: (fiscal year-to-date)
Protracted/Complex
Investigations
Technical Equipment
Technical Expertise
Matching Funds for
Federal Grants
Automated Fingerprint
Identification
Equipment
Automated Uniform
Offense and Arrest
Report System
Other Law
Enforcement
Purposes
Total Expenditures
Appropriation Balance
(fiscal year-to-date) (F)
(E)
Section 932.704(5), Florida Statutes; as amended 1985, requires that "...any law enforcement agency receiving or
expending forfeited property or proceeds from the sale of forfeited property shall submit a quarterly report
documenting the receipts and expenditures, on forms promulgated by the Department of Law Enforcement, to the
Form NFCF 1 entity which has budgeting authority over such agency...". <
$ -0-
cM
EO:
MW
aLLj
r
0
0
CM
L1.:0
+
rLUnILJA LoUty 11 HADAIvu t-UH1-H-1-URE QUARTERLY REPORT
(as required by Section 932.704(5), Florida Statutes; as amended 1985)
AGENCY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Quarter Beginning - 1/1/86 Quarter Ending 3/31/86
Beginning Balance Available for
Law Enforcement Trust Fund (A)
Collections: (B)
Sale Proceeds
Forfeited Cash
Interest Earned
Total Collections
Disbursements: (C)
Lien Satisfactions
Storage, Maintenance
and Security
Agency Forfeiture
Costs
Court Costs
Remittance to Law
Enforcement Trust
Fund
Total Disbursements
Ending Balance Available for
Law Enforcement Trust Fund
(G)
$ 174,640
19,837
6,265
$ 188,212
Appropriation Balance
(fiscal year-to-date) (F) $ -0-
Section 932.704(5), Florida Statutes; as amended 1985, requires that "...any law enforcement agency receiving or
expending forfeited property or proceeds from the sale of forfeited property shall submit a quarterly report
documenting the receipts and expenditures, on forms promulgated by the Department of Law Enforcement, to the
Form MFCF 1 entity which has budgeting authority over such agency...".
Appropriations Received from (D) -0-
Governing Body (fiscal year-to-date) $
Expenditures: (fiscal year-to-date) (E)
Protracted/Complex
Investigations
Technical Equipment
Technical Expertise
Matching Funds for
Federal Grants
c
Automated Fingerprint
Identification
Equipment
Automated Uniform
Offense and Arrest
Report System
Other taw
Enforcement
Purposes
Total Expenditures -0-
Appropriation Balance
(fiscal year-to-date) (F) $ -0-
Section 932.704(5), Florida Statutes; as amended 1985, requires that "...any law enforcement agency receiving or
expending forfeited property or proceeds from the sale of forfeited property shall submit a quarterly report
documenting the receipts and expenditures, on forms promulgated by the Department of Law Enforcement, to the
Form MFCF 1 entity which has budgeting authority over such agency...".
Director Baird noted that the Board will be reviewing this
fund during budget sessions. He explained that all the monies
obtained from confiscated goods go into this special fund, which
is self -balancing, and before any of these funds can be spent, it
has to come to the Board for approval. However, any items that
are confiscated but not sold can be used by the Sheriff for his
purposes.
Chairman Scurlock felt we must look at every possible source
of revenue this year, and he would like to identify some of the
legally acceptable uses for these funds as he would like to be
able to make use of them to mitigate some of the impact of this
year's budget.
Commissioner Bird believed we formerly got a different type
form from the Sheriff to show the disposition and status of
confiscated items, and Director Baird advised that the Sheriff's
new accountant called the state and found they were filling the
forms out incorrectly. It is not required that they give an
inventory of what they have on hand.
Commissioner Bird noted that while the state may not want
this information, he felt the Board wants it, and the Chairman
agreed.
Director Baird reported that he already has asked for an
inventory.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to accept the Sheriff's Contraband
Forfeiture Report with the understanding that
this does not fully satisfy our reporting needs.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that these two reports cover
only part of the year, and there should be another one available.
The Chairman wished to know whether the interest income goes
back into that fund, and Director Baird believed that would
require a legal opinion.
11
L_ JUL 16 196
BOOK 65 F,JE 58
FrJUL 16 1986
BOOK 65 u -UE T9
The Board continued to emphasize that we have additional
requirements as to how these funds are reported, i.e., when the
confiscated items are sold, to whom they are sold, etc.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Florida Contraband
Forfeiture Acts states that these funds may be used only to
defray the costs of protracted or complex investigations by the
Sheriff's Dept., to provide additional technical equipment or
expertise, to provide matching funds for federal grants, and for
such other purposes as the Board of County Commissioners deem
appropriate; they shall not be a source of revenue to meet the
normal operating needs of the agency. It seems the funds,
therefore, have a pretty broad use.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
1 DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application (Seacrest Estates)
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner DeBlois:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD. CONCURRENCE: D.E.R, ARMY CORPS AND
SUBJECT: D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Robert M. Kea ingF AICP
Planning & Development, D'rector
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning Section
FROM:Roland M. DeBlois RMb REFERENCES: DER Permits App, s
Staff Planner DIS:ROLAND TM#86-544
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on July 16, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.S
31-121871-4
(Lot
45)
31-121881-4
(Lot
49)
31-121860-4
(Lot
68)
31-121872-4
(Lot
40)
31-121882-4
(Lot
50)
31-121861-4
(Lot
67)
31-121873-4
(Lot
41)
31-121884-4
(Lot
51)
31-121862-4
(Lot
66)
31-121874-4
(Lot
42)
31-121885-4
(Lot
52)
31-121863-4
(Lot
65)
31-121875-4
(Lot
43)
31-121886-4
(Lot
53)
31-121864-4
(Lot
64)
31-121876-4
(Lot
44)
31-121887-4
(Lot
54)
31-121865-4
(Lot
63)
31-121878-4
(Lot
46)
31-121888-4
(Lot
55)
31-121866-4
(Lot
62)
31-121879-4
(Lot
47)
31-121889-4
(Lot
56)
31-131867-4
(Lot
61)
31-121880-4
(Lot
48)
31-121890-4
(Lot
57)
31-121868-4
(Lot
59)
31-121870-4
(Lot
60)
�2
APPLICANT: Seacrest Estates, Inc., 505 Beachland
Boulevard, Vero Beach, Florida, 32963
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The projects are located on the Indian
River, adjacent to Live Oak Road, Orchid Isle Subdivision, lot
nos. 40-57 and 59-68, Sections 26 and 35, Township 31, South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. The projects are
proposed to be located in the unincorporated portion of the
County.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct 28
identical "L" shaped single boat residential docks, each having
a 4' x 401 -pier and a 20' x 8' observation deck (total square
footage per dock: 320 square feet). No dredging or filling is
to occur.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal -Zone Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan
The Code of Laws & Ordinances of Indian River Count
Chapter -16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code
The Indian River County Code of Laws & Ordinances specifies that
residential dock structures are accessory uses to the principal
residential use. The applicant is presently developing a
single-family subdivision and, until final plat approval is,
obtained, the lots in Orchid Isle Estates cannot be sold or have
homes built upon them. In order to construct the proposed dock
facilities, the applicant must have principal structures on the
adjacent lots. _
The proposed dock facilities will be located within the Malabar
- Vero Beach State Aquatic Preserve and, as such, are subject to
Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code. A staff review of
Chapter 16Q-20 finds that the proposed dock dimensions comply
with size standards set forth in the rule.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of .County Commissioners
authorize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. with the
following comments:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential
cumulative impacts of the dockage project upon the Florida
Manatee.
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of the project on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
3) No dock construction shall be permitted by Indian River
County until the requirements of all local ordinances
related to dock facilities and mangrove protection have
been addressed.
13
Bou 65 Fa --t 60
r-IJUL 16 1986
BOOK 65 FnE 61
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. with comments
as set out in the above memo.
J. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application (K. Beindorf)
The Board reviewed memo of the Chief of Environmental
Planning:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATION
SUBJECT:
obert M. K at ng, CP
Planning & Dev to ent Director
Art Challacombe
FROM:
Chief, Environmental P1aRENCES:
Beindorf
DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 16, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
APPLICATION NO. 31-121996-4
APPLICANTS: Katheryn S. Beindorf
904 Painted Bunting Lane
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in the Indian
River adjacent to Lake Drive in Section 5, Township 33 South,
Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida.
The upland property associated with the project is Lot 4 of
Riomar Bay II Subdivision located in the City of Vero Beach.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a private
single T-shaped dock extending 40 feet waterward, having a.
width of 5 feet. The terminal platform of the proposed dock is
10 feet in width and 20 feet n length; total square footage of
the dock is 400 feet. No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities
are proposed; no dredging or filling is to occur.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan
14
Coastal Zone Mana ement, Interim Goals, Ob'ectives
Policies for the Treasure Coast Re ion
The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinancesj
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding
this project to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential
cumulative impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida
Manatee.
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of dockage projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. with comments
as set out in the above memo.
K. DER/Army Carps/DNR Permit Application (H. Kipnis)
The Board reviewed memo of the Chief of Environmental
Planning:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
& D.N.R. PERMIT
SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS
Robert M. Ke i g, CP
Planning & Deve op nt Director
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Kipnis
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 16, 1986.
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NUMBER 31-122092-4
APPLICANT: Herbert Kipnis
2165 Galleon Drive
Vero Beach, FL 32963
15
JUL
16 '11986
BOOK f!,��
E �
IF-
JUL 16 1966 Boa 65 u E 63
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located on the Indian
River, The Moorings Subdivision, Lot 52, in the unincorporated
portion of Indian River County.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a 166
square foot dock on Lot 52. The dock will be utilized as a
single boat residential docking facility.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of
Indian River Comprehensive Plan;
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and
- The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan.
- The Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County
- Chapter 16Q-20 F.A.C.
The proposed dock facility will be located within the Malabar -
Vero Beach State Aquatic Preserve and, as such, is subject to
Chapter 16Q-20 Florida Administrative Code. A staff review of
Chapter 16Q-20 finds that the proposed dock dimensions comply
with the size standards set forth in the rule.
". RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. with the
following comments:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential
cumulative impacts of the dockage projects upon the
Florida Manatee;
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of the project on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. with comments
as set out in the above memo.
L. Release of SR60 Sewer Liens (Vista Plantation)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Release of Assessment Liens for SR60 Sewer to
16
Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc., for Buildings
#1 through #31 and Building #47 and authorized the
signature of the Chairman.
(Copy of said Liens are on file in the Office of
Clerk to the Board.)
M. 1986 Road Resurfacing_Program
The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis:
TO Te Honorable Members of the DATE: July 11 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Tamty Thomas,
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: 1986 Road Resurfacing Program
FROM:James w. Davis, P.E �' REFERENCES: Albert vanAuken to James
Public Works Director Davis dated June 25, 1986
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the 1985/86 Budget Sessions, the Board approved $400,000 for paving
materials to fund the annual resurfacing program. STaff has inventoried
the road system and has developed the attached list of resurfacing projects
for approval. _ The list also contains the approach paving of major
intersections where unpaved roads intersect major paved County roads. This
paving eliminates the grader frau encroaching onto major roads where high
speed vehicles operate.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
A map has been prepared to show the location of these roads. Instead of
resurfacing Lantern Lane and Cutlass Cove Drive in the Moorings during this
fiscal year, staff recd mends resurfacing Roseland Road west of US I for
one-half mile where pavement cracking has accelerated. The new Riverwalk
Shopping Center has increased traffic in this area. The FY86/87 Program
can include Lantern Lane and Cutlass Cove Drive.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recam ended that the attached list of resurfacing/paving projects be
approved with the substitution of a one-half mile section of Roseland Road
being added west of US 1 in lieu of the resurfacing of Lantern Lane and
Cutlass Cove Drive.
Funding from 111-214-541-35.31 Balance $345,229
17
BOOK 65 FA;F 64
JUL 16 1966
June 20, 1986
Mr. James W. Davis
Director of Public Works
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Jim:
BOOK 65 FA.GE 65
We were heartened to learn that we may expect Windward Way
resurfaced this July or August. Our second choice for
improvement of the four roads given the County by The Moorings
Property Owners Association is Bay Road. Further, we hope you
could also resurface Lantern Lane and Cutlass Cove Drive as
requested. In support of the proposition of repaving all four
roads, we would like to point out that the latter two roads are
very short and need the attention. The Moorings area is also a
very major tax contributor in south Orchid Island and we would
appreciate seeing some of our tax dollars utilized at home.
Please be your persuasive best in putting forth our request.
Yours very truly,
THE MOORIN S DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Dorothy H
Vice President/Staff Counsel
.TO: James W. Davis DATE: June 25, 1986 FILE:
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Road Resurfacing Request
FROM:Albert L. VanAuken, Supt REFERENCES:
Road & Bridge Dept.
Construction of the following intersections at $300.0 each.
is t Street & 20th Avenue ( 2 )
43rd Avenue & 17th Street, S. W.
Lindsey Road & 58th Avenue
Powerline Road & CR 510
Total: $1,540.00
The County Road & Bridge Department has received a request from
Mr. Victor Lunka, President of the Moorings Property Owners
Association, to resurface the following roads in the Moorings
Subdivision: • -
Bay Road
Mooringline Drive
.3
Miles
$ 7,500.
Windward Way
A -1-A to End
.7
Miles
17,500.
Lantern Lane
Reef Road to Treasure Lane
.2
Miles
5,000.
Cutlass Cove
Drive Harbor Drive to End
.3
Miles
7,500.
18
•.
ROADS
TO BE RESURFACED
Old Dixie
Plantation Ridge
Bon,
32nd
Avenue
lst St.,.
S.W. - 4th St.
.5
Miles
14th
Avenue
4th St. -
6th St.
.3
Miles
CR 512
North of
SR 60
2..0
Miles
Roseland Rd.
Collier Creek
South
1.0
Miles
69th
St.
74th Ave,
- 82nd Ave.
1..0
Miles
43rd
Avenue
41st St.
- Dodger Ele.
.2
Miles
(1)
58th
Avenue
69th St.
- 77th St.
1..0
Miles
(2)
66th
Avenue
33rd St.
- 45th St.
1.5
Miles
(3)
43rd
Avenue
9th St.,
S.W. - 21st St.
S.W.
1..5
Miles
(1) 1 Culvert to be replaced.
(2) 4 Culverts to be. replaced.
(3) 4 culverts to be replaced.
Total: $90,000.
Total
$ 5, 7n0.
12,500.
7,5n0.
5n,non.
25,nnn.
75,0nn,
5,nnn.
2.5,nnn.
37,5no
37,50n.
5269,700.
5359,700
Chairman Scurlock noted that The Moorings are a very
significant tax base for the county, and he wondered if it is
wise to delete the roads they requested, especially when this
only involves $12,500.
Commissioner Bird had the same question.
Public Works Director Davis noted that every year he has
tried to be responsive to the requests of The Moorings, but if
the Board desires he will find the funds to do those roads.
The.Board indicated that he should do so.
Commissioner Wodtke wondered if there is something that
could be deleted in the vicinity of 43rd Avenue from Oslo down to
the County line where three or four culverts are listed, if the
money is short.
Director Davis advised that when preparing this program,
staff tries to inventory the system, and we now have an employee
preparing a paving management program to be put on the computer
and provide a more systematic approach. This will be reflected
next year. We do need some flexibility in the program.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the recommended resurfacing program
but with the inclusion of the two roads re-
quested to be deleted.
19
BOQK 6 5 F,{E 66
JUL 16 1986
N. Budget - Road Impact Fee Fund
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director, and it was
noted this simply sets up the account for the Road Impact Fee Fund:
TO: Honorable Board of. County DATE: July 1, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
FROM: Jose .Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: Create Budget for Road Impact
Fee Fund
REFERENCES:
Account
Name
Account Number
Increase
Dist.
1
Road Improve
Fee
101-000-349-010.00
$ .00
Dist.
1
Vero Beach
101-000-349-011.00
1,000
Dist.
1
Indian River
Shores
101-000-349-012.00
8,000
Dist.
1
Orchid
101-000-349-015.00
.00
Dist.
2
Road Improve
Fee
101-000-349-020.00
9,000
Dist.
2
Vero Beach
101-000-349-021.00
2,500
Dist.
3
Road Improve
Fee
101-000-349-030.00
5,000
Dist.
3
Sebastian
101-000-349-033.00
50,000
Dist.
4
Road Improve
Fee
101-000-349-}040.00
1,500
Dist.
5
Road Improve
Fee
101-.000-349-050.00
5,500
Dist.
5
Vero Beach
.101-000-349-051.00
10,000
Dist.
6
Road Improve
Fee
_101-000-349-060.00
10,000
Dist.
7
Road Improve
Fee
101-000-349-070.00
500
Dist.
7
Fellsmere
101-000-349-074.00
2,000
Dist.
8
Road Improve
Fee
101-000-349--080.00
15,000
Dist.
9
Road Improve
Fee
101-000-349-090.00
3,000
Interest
-Investments
101-000-361-010.00
2,000
Cash
Forward -Oct. 1
101-000-389-040.00
.00
Other
Professional Services
101-214-541433.19
1,100
Outside
Printing
101-214-541-034.72
3,000
Legal
Ads
101-214.541-034.91
200
Reserve
for Contingency
101-214-581-099.91
40,700
Cash
Forward -Sept. 30
101214-581-099.92
80,000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment.
O__Budget _Amendment - Environmental Control Board
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director:
20
Decrease
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: July 1, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
FROM: Joseph A. Baird REFERENCES:
OMB Director
Account Name
Environmental Fees
Other Professional Services
Other Operating Supplies
Legal Ads
Explanation:
Account Number Increase Decrease
118,000,354-002.00 $ 1,80.0
118-252-529033.19 1,400
118-252-529-035.29 200
118-252-529-034.91 200
Create a budget for Environmental Control Board for 1985/86 fiscal year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment creating a budget for
the Environmental Control Board for 1985/86 FY.
P. Budget Amendment - Minimum_Security Facility
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director:
21
L_ JUL 16 196
BOOK 65 PAGE 68
rp'-JUL 16 196
BOOK 65 Fq.ui 6
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: July 8, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
FROM: Josey A. Baird
OMB Director
ACCOUNT NUMBER
Revenue
391-000-361-010.00
391-000-361-010.00
Expense
391-906-523-033.19
391-906-523-034.02
391-906-523-066.51
391-906-581-099.91
EXPLANATION:
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment for
Minimum Security Facility
REFERENCES:
ACCOUNT NAME INCREASE
Interest Investments $ 50,000
Debt Proceeds 1,300,000
1,350,000
Other Professional Srvcs. 108,707
All Travel 1,639
Construction in Progress 350,000
Reserve for Contingency 889,654
1,350,000
DECREASE
Create the Minimum Security Facility budget for the 1985/86 fiscal year.
The Board had questions about the figures shown and noted
that $1,350,000 is what was in the bond issue.
Acting Administrator Thomas explained this is just the start
of the budget; the OMB Director has not put in all the items.
Chairman Scurlock felt maybe we ought to start talking about
where we can come up with the anticipated shortfall.
OMB Director Baird advised that the shortfall will be partly
funded from the excess money in the jail, about $400,000, and we
will have to borrow about one million. This is scheduled to be
brought up in the budget hearing on Monday, and he will present a
complete overview at that time.
Commissioner Bird hoped the Finance Advisory Committee has
had a chance to review all this as he felt we need some guidance,
and OMB Director Baird assured him that they will be involved.
22
Acting Administrator Thomas explained that this money is on
hand and is just being put in the proper account. He felt the
Board is entitled to this information, and staff is making every
effort to provide them with it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment creating the Minimum
Security Facility budget for 1985/86 FY with the
understanding that this only sets up the account
and the Board has the opportunity to observe what
is going on.
Q. Resignation_ from Planning & Zoning Commission (C. Eggert)
The Board reviewed letter from Carolyn Eggert, as follows:
�odo
�tt
lrs. t l�arl H. Eggert
loo Beach Road. Apt. 219
b tJ7 `'ero Beam, Florida 32963
July 1 , 1986
B. Lyons
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Aero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Pat,
This is to confirm my decision we discussed in your
office that I.will be resigning my position as Chairman
and member of the Indian River County Planning and Zoning
Commission on July 18, 1986 --- the end of qualifying
- period.
Although I realize I do not have to resign, I do
not believe it is ethical for a person running for the _
County Commission to sit on an appointed Commission whose
decisions and recommendations are either appealed to
or forwarded on to the County Commission.
I thank you for appointing me to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and have enjoyed working with you.
The work of the P&Z_in workshops, public hearings, and
the Technical Review. Committee has been challenging and
fascinating --- and sometimes frustrating --- but I
appreciate the opportunity I've had to learn so much
about the County and at the same time work for and with
the people of the County.
Sincerely,
J
23
797aroly EggeBUK7®
65 Fr�i�C
BOOK 65 PA;E 71
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted
the resignation of Carolyn Eggert from the Planning
S Zoning Commission.
R,-Appointment_to_Planning_& Zoning Commission
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously appointed
C. C. Kleckner to the Planning 8 Zoning Commission
to fill the unexpired term vacancy created by the
resignation of Carolyn Eggert.
S. Proclamation_- Physical Rehabilitation Day
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the following Proclamation designating July 20, 1986
Physical Rehabilitation Day.
24
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, this proclamation has been designated in
conjunction with the Grand Opening of the TREASURE COAST
REHABILITATION HOSPITAL at 1600 37th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida; and
WHEREAS, Daniel M. Flanagan is Administrator/Chief Executive
Officer of the TREASURE COAST REHABILITATION HOSPITAL; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Medicine of the TREASURE COAST
REHABILITATION HOSPITAL is Dr. Cynthia Crawford; and
WHEREAS, the goals of the TREASURE COAST REHABILITATION
HOSPITAL are to provide cost effective rehabilitative care that
will return patients to a productive and meaningful life;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED -BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, Indian River County, Florida, that July 20, 1986
be observed as
PHYSICAL REHABILITATION DAY
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens to
recognize the value of this much needed facility dedicated to the
well being of our residents, and welcome_ its services and
facilities in our community.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DON C. SC—URtOCK, JR.4�,. HAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, Clerl
Adopted July 16, 1986
25
Boa 6 5 u 72
rJUL 16 1966 BOOK 65 -usE 7'
AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE - YARD DEFINITIONS & ENCROACHMENTS
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:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a %/GQ C:e
in the matter of 9
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of�a,� h'U ;; / c/
v
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befo,�e me tt s � r „ day of Gf ' A.D. 19
n V (Birusiness M�pnaq*r)
t,,,,, f
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian RIa6r Count"+, Florida)
(SEAL) �,_�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINQ`;"
TO CONSIDER THE ' ''
ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE;
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
)unty Commissioners of, Indian River. County,
Drida, shall hold a public hearing at which par-
s in interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
nity to be heard, in the County Commission
cambers of the County Administration Build -
g; located at 1840 25th street, Vero Beach,
Drida, on Wednesday, July -16, 1986; at 9:10
m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance
ititled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC-
TION 2.0 "LANGUAGE AND .DEFINI-
TIONS", AND SECTION 25 "GENERAL''
PROWSIONS" OR APPENDIX A OF THE
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, PER-
TAINING TO THE PLACEMENT - OF
TRELLISES, POOL ENCLOSURES AND
ceTn i M: nlcu-: ANTENNAS ' IN
YARDS; PRGVIDINU tort: neviacu.
DEFINITIONS -;'OF FRONTAGE,
THROUGH LOT, FRONT' YARD, AND
REAR YARD; AMENDING PERMITTED.
YARD ENCROACHMENTS; AMENDING..
SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA -LOCATION
RESTRICTIONS; AND PROVIDING' FOR.,
ALTERNATE ' SECTIONS, CODIFICA-
TION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE
DATE..
A copy of the proposed ordinance is available
at the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which -maybe made at'this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made, which includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By -s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman
June 25, July 8, 1986
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation:
26
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 30, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
�. SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Obert 11. e'a ing ICP CONCERNING YARD DEFINI-
Planning & De eldpdlent Director TIONS AND YARD ENCROACH-
MENTS
S
FRONtichard Shearer, REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning Zoning Ord. Memo
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 16, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Several questions have arisen recently concerning the definition
of front and rear yards and the requirements pertaining to
satellite dish antennas and trellises in side yards. One situa-
tion occurred when an individual was unable to install a
satellite dish antenna on his through lot (a through lot has
frontage on two parallel streets) because satellite dish antennas
are only allowed in rear yards and, according to the definitions
in the zoning ordinance, through lots have two front yards, two
side yards and no rear yard.
Another situation arose when the County's Code Enforcement Board
instructed a family to remove a structure between a house and a
fence because it encroached into a required side yard. The
individuals appealed to the Board of Adjustment claiming that the
structure is a trellis which would be a permitted yard encroach-
ment. The Board of Adjustment denied the request, and the
individuals sued the County. The court ruled that because the
zoning ordinance does not contain a definition of trellis, the
structure in question could be considered a trellis and would
therefore qualify asa permitted yard encroachment.
On June 12, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0
to recommend approval of this proposed amendment.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The staff feels that the best solution to the problem of not
allowing satellite dish antennas on through lots is to redefine
front and rear yards to establish a procedure -for designating a
rear yard on through lots. This requires amending the definition
of front yard and rear yard. However, corner lots could also be
in a situation where they would have two front yards and two side
yards or three front yards and a side yard. Based on this
situation, the staff feels that the satellite dish antenna
location restrictions should be amended to allow satellite dishes
in the side yard of a corner lot if the lot has no rear yard as
defined by the zoning ordinance.
In relation to trellises as permitted yard encroachments, the
staff feels that the current regulations would allow a wide
variety of structures to be constructed in required yards. The
staff interprets a trellis to be a vertical structure attached to
a wall that would project a minimal distance from a wall.
However, since other people have different opinions of what a
trellis is, the County needs to either define trellises in the
zoning ordinance or not allow them as a yard encroachment. After
27
BOOK Db"I U,E 74
BOOK 65 FAu- 75
discussing this matter with the County Attorney's staff, the
planning staff feels that trellises should not be a permitted
yard encroachment.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and, Zoning'
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends the attached zoning
ordinance amendment to the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Wodtke brought up a situation in Vero Shores
where you have some lots in the middle of a block that have
double frontage and wished to know how that would be handled.
Director Keating concurred there is a potential problem. In
most cases the rear of double frontage lots will be the yard
facing the road with the higher functional classification, but in
the situation Commissioner Wodtke is speaking of, it is going to
be the yard opposite the entranceway where the driveway is. He
noted that there are not too many cases in the county with double
frontage lots where one street is definitely not of a higher
functional classification, and he felt this could be handled
through a variance as it would be an unusual situation.
Planner Shearer confirmed that the double frontage lots we
have are usually situated between an arterial street and a local
street, i.e., residences in Laurelwood which back up to 27th
Avenue and also residences which back up to A -1-A. This will
take care of the majority of such situations.
Commissioner Bird inquired if the trellis problem comes into
play because of the required screening of dish antennas, and
Planner Shearer advised that is an entirely different matter. It
related to the definition of a trellis, and instead of trying to
define it, the ordinance now says you can have a trellis, but it
cannot encroach into the required setback.
Commissioner Wodtke asked about the Type A screening re- .
quired to screen dish antennas, and it was explained that it is
opaque screening 6' high. The intent is not to screen the whole
antenna, but mainly to screen it from eye level.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
28
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
CommissionerLyons, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Lyons suggested a few small changes in the
proposed ordinance. On Page 1, Frontage. "...property measured
along the street right-of-way." He requested that this be
changed to read ".--measured along a street right-of-way." He
then questioned the wording on Page 2, 25. (b) (6) "....if the
rear yard abuts a front yard..." as he did not feel it could
abut, but it could face a front yard.
After considerable discussion wherein.Planner Shearer gave
various examples of situations where you could have a rear yard
abutting a front yard, it was agreed to change the wording to
state "....if the rear yard abuts or faces a front yard."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance
86-46 amending the Zoning Code re placement of
trellises, satellite dish antennas, definitions of
yards and permitted yard encroachments, with the
changes noted above.
29
L:JUL 16 196
BooK 65 uIjE '76
J U L 16 1986
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 46
BOOK
65 FacF 77 7
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 2. "LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS", AND SECTION 25
"GENERAL PROVISIONS" OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, PERTAINING TO
THE PLACEMENT OF TRELLISES, POOL ENCLOSURES, AND
SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS IN YARDS; PROVIDING FOR REVISED
DEFINITIONS OF FRONTAGE, THROUGH LOT, FRONT YARD, AND
REAR YARD; AMENDING PERMITTED YARD ENCROACHMENTS;
AMENDING SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA LOCATION RESTRICTIONS;
AND PROVIDING FOR ALTERNATE SECTIONS, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the -Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1
Section 2. "Language and Definitions" is hereby amended as
follows:
Frontage. All tXO property abutting and measured along ='
a street right -off- - - u
Lot, tMta444 double frontage. An interior lot having
frontage on two streets.
Yard, front. On interior lots, A the yard 0tt444444 iWOA4
41666 ttOAt Of A lot 160t,0444 00 04910- tAtd 4140-41 Alid being the
minimum horizontal distance between the Ot400t 4440 Atal tAO
structure 04 Ate txoto-ofi OtAot 04A 4160 1640900tloA
Of IWOiWOa1 OUB $ and the street right-of-way. On corner lots,
all yards which abut UO a street right-of-way are considered
front yards. On double frontage lots, the yard abutting the
street with the lower functional classification as depicted on
the County's Thoroughfare Plan Map shall be the front yard. If
both streets have the same functional classification, the yard
adjacent to the main entrance of the principal use of the lot
shall be the front yard.
Yard, rear. A tAta1 fietow 00 t0 -4t Of # lot
160400064 04 4400 lot 44404 Atd UN044 tl 0 t4A4 lot 4440 A44 4160-
AoAto$t WYi¢tl O -
On lots with one 4tolit lot 141101 frontage, . the lot 1440 yard
opposite the front lot MAO yard shall be the rear lot 1140 yard.
On corner lots 0Ajj6X jQ616t too X 2 y Ott050-tO with more than one
frontage, the tOtAIy 4A4 yards AOt 416titt4A4 A OUW without
frontage shall be $4$0 tAtdo 0A0A A16iAttlAt A 0440 tA40 #std 4AA14
160 rear yards when abutting a rear yard.
0A A 00tri0t 044091 4164tO t4tO16 X( y OttOOtOj tX0 totAJ414t tA444
16sbt 11b�i4tt�ir� A 44440t 4AA41 160 4 0440 tAtal t4 It 64164tH A s4do6
� tai AAA A iWit y4tal I4 It 4161440 A iWt tAtol.
On double frontage lots, the yard abutting the street with the
higher functional classification as depicted on the County's
Thoroughfare Plan Map shall be the rear yard If both streets
CODING: Words in Ottt¢jffW4 type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
30
have the same functional classification, the yard opposite the
main entrance of the principal use of the lot shall be the rear
yard .
CRrmTnu 9
Section 25. "General Provisions" is hereby amended as
follows:
25. (b) Yard Encroachments
(6) Swimming pools and related structures
c. Pool enclosures. No screen enclosures for swimming
pools shall be located within an easement or closer
than ten (10) feet to the rear property line on
interior or corner lots. Pool enclosures shall not
encroach on the required rear yard on double
frontage lots if the rear yard abuts or faces a
front yard.
(7) TtOX14404I Play equipment, wires, lights, outdoor
furniture, etc.
xtOX14404 444 Play equipment, wires,
lights, outdoor furniture, mailboxes, ornamental entry
columns and gates, and outdoor equipment are allowed
within required yards.
25. (u) Satellite dish antennas
(2) Location restrictions. No satellite dish shall be
located between any building and any front or side
property line except on corner lots which do not have a
rear yard in which case the dish may be placed in the
side yard.
SECTION 3
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
CODING: Words intype are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
31
JILL 16 1906 BOOK 65 F ur. 78
L2
JUL 16 1986
BOOK 65 FACE 79
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 46 (Page 3)
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 5
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not
affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to
have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without
such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 6
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 16th day of July,
1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN -RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: C
DON C..SCURLO K, JR., C t3mN
W
SPECIAL EXCEPTION __RESIDENTIAL CENTER GROUP HOME (WATERFORD
ASSOC.)
The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a ;ajte
in the matter of `/ZGc��f'L�c(11� P%Gi�ct
in the
Court, was pub-
? _
lished in said newspaper in the issues of +tel
1.7
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. n
Sworn to and subscribed befgre me this q day of t A.D. 19
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River(C6unty, Florida)
(SEAL)
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the granting of
special exception approval of a residential can
ter group home in the RM -6, Multiple -Family!
Residential District. The subject property is pre-'
sently owned by Waterford Associates and is lo-
cated south of S.R. 60, west of 66th Avenuel
(S.R. 505) and east of 71 at Avenue.
The subject property is described as:
DESCRIPTION "The east 10 acres of
Tract. 11; the west 10 acres of Tract 10;
the east 10 acres of the west 20 acres of !
Tract 10; the west 10 acres of the east
30 acres of Tract 14; the east 10 acres of
Tract 14; the west 10 acres of Tract 15;
and the east- 10 acres of the west 20 I
acres of Tract 15, all being in the Indian
River Farms County Subdivision situated.
In Section 6, Township 33, Range 39 as
recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 250
1 the
Official Records Book of St. Lucie Coun-
ty, Florida, said lands now lying In Indian
River County, Florida. Subject to and
Is ss all existing right-of-way for roads,
highways, drainage ditches andcanals.
Containing 68.415 Acres of Land more
or less.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity 10- be
heard, will be.held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, 'Florida on Wednesday, Julyl
16,1986, at 9:30 a.m.
Anyone whom may wish to appeal any deci-
sion which may be made at this. meeting will
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings is made which includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal will be
based.
'Indian RivwCOunty
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Don C. Scurlock, Jr..
Chairman
June 25, July. 8, 1986
Chief Planner Michael Miller made the staff presentation:
33
J U L 16 1986 BOOK 65 ROUE 80
F'JUL 16 1986
BOOK 6 5 F,,�E 81
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 7, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
WATERFORD ASSOCIATES RE-
QUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION
Robert M. Kea i g, �p SUBJECT: OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION
Planning & Development Director APPROVAL FOR A RESIDENTIAL.
CENTER GROUP HOME
FROM; Michael K. Miller /"I 1 Waterford
Chief, Current DeveloprRF+FERENCES: MIKEII
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 16, 1986.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT & LOCATION
Waterford Associates, owner of the subject property, has submitted
a site plan application for a multiple -family development and a
residential center group home located in the RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District. The residential center group home is a
special exception use in the RM -6 district; therefore, the appli-
cant is requesting approval for the residential center special
exception use. The subject property is located on the south side
of State Road 60, between 71st Avenue and 66th Avenue.
The 68 acre site will be developed in three phases. The first
phase will include development of 196 apartment units and several
accessory uses, including clubhouse, pools, racquetball courts,
tennis court, laundry and small day care center. The second phase
includes construction of the 210 unit group home, and the third
phase includes completion of 110 additional apartment units. All
improvements, such as drainage, stormwater, and landscaping will
be constructed with each phase.
The apartment development will include studio, one, two and three
bedroom units ranging in size from 550 square feet to 1,380 square
feet. The group home units include one bedroom, one bedroom with
den, and two bedroom/two bath units ranging from 748 square feet
to 2,240 square feet.
Pursuant to Section 25.3 of the Zoning Code, Regulation of Special
Exception Uses, the Board of County Commissioners 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
County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to
assure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
At their meeting of June 26, 1986, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered Waterford Associates request to construct
306 apartment units and a -210 unit group home. The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Special Exception
Use with the conditions as recommended by staff:
a. That a 15' wide landscape strip be developed along the west
property line where Phase II (the group home) abuts the
established residential neighborhood. Tree plantings
conforming to the. landscape ordinance shall be provided to
fill in gaps in existing vegetation within the 15' landscape
strip to provide effective visual screening of the group home
from the established single family residential area.
b. That the size of the individual units be reduced to a minimum
of 750 square feet and that full kitchen facilities be
eliminated in all units;
34
C. That the HRS license permit a maximum of no more than 252
residents; and
d. That the applicant shall submit a signed affidavit stating
that all applicable regulations of the State of Florida and
Indian river County as currently exist may be met [Sec.
25.1,f,2,c,31.
In addition, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended site
plan approval subject to the Board of County Commissioners
conditionally approving the Special Exception Use and the
following conditions:
Site plan approval subject to the usual requirements of ROW
dedication, marginal access road development, and sidewalk con-
struction. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission noted that
the approved site plan must be revised to be consistent with
whatever action the Board of County Commissioners will take
regarding special exception approval.
An analysis of the site plan follows:
ANALYSIS
I. Property Size:
Apartments 51 acres
Group Home 14 acres
Out Parcel 3 acres
Total 68 acres
2. Zoning Classification: RM -6, Residential Multiple -Family
Zoning District (up to 6 units/acre).
3. Land Use Designation: LD -2, Low Density Residential (up to 6
units/acre).
4. Building Area: 7.27 acres 10.63% of site
5. Off -Street Parking Spaces Required/Provided:
Phase I: 456 spaces/456 spaces
Phase II: 315 spaces/317 spaces
Phase III: 220 spaces/220 spaces
6. Traffic Circulation: Primary access to the site will be from
State Road 60 by dual 24' wide driveways, while a secondary
24' wide two-wav drive will provide access to 16th Street.
The first two phases include provisions for turnarounds.
Fifty feet of additional R.O.W. along 16th Street will be
dedicated- to the County to bring 16th Street up to current
County standards, and the applicant will escrow the cost of
constructing public sidewalks along State Road 60 and 16th
Street. The cost of a 40 foot wide marginal access road will
also be escrowed by the applicant.
The County traffic engineer has approved the plan for
internal traffic circulation.
7. Drainage Plan: The applicant proposes the construction of an
11 acre lake for stormwater management purposes. The
applicant has submitted a preliminary drainage study as
permitted by County Code, and the County Engineer has
approved the preliminary design for stormwater management.
The applicant must obtain approval of a Type "A" stormwater
management permit prior to release of the site plan.
8. Utilities: The proposed development will be serviced by
County water and sanitary sewer. The Director of Utilities
has approved connection of this development to the County
utility system.
35
BOOK'D FAG- ��
rJUL 16 196
BOOK 65 PAGE 8'J'
9. Landscaping: The proposed landscaping is in conformance with
Ordinance #84-47. County code requires that a Type "C"
screen be constructed around the perimeter of the project,
and the applicant has agreed to install Type "C" screening
materials in accordance with County code. A Type "C" screen
includes tree planting for each 40 feet of screen length.
10. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Village Green M/H Park
South: Vacant & Citrus
East: Residential &Citrus
West: Residential & Citrus
11. Special Exception criteria for the residential center group
home is as follows:
1. Level I, II and III group homes and residential centers
shall be defined as facilities licensed by HRS which
provide a family living environment including
supervision and care necessary to meet physical,
emotional, and social life needs for clients. The
facility may also provide education and training for
resident clients. These group homes shall be
distinguished by their resident capacity as follows:
-- Level I group home, up to eight (8) residents;
-- Level II group home, up to twelve (12) residents;
-- Level III group home, up to twenty (20) residents;
-- Residential centers, twenty-one (210) or more
residents
2. The use shall satisfy all applicable regulations of the
State of Florida and Indian River County as currently
exist or may hereafter be amended.
3. The approving body shall determine that the proposed use
is compatible with'the surrounding neighborhood in terms
of intensity of land use. As a measure of land use
intensity, the expected number of persons per acre of
the proposed use may be compared to the equivalent
number of persons per acre allowed within the respective
zoning district. The number of persons per acre within
the zoning district can be derived by multiplying the
density (d.u./acre) by household size estimates for that
structure type. For the purposes of this section, the
following household size estimates shall apply: single
family homes, 2.5 persons/d.u.; multiple family, 2.0
persons/d.u. The intensity of the group home shall not
exceed one and one-half (1.5) times the intensity of
adjacent residential zoning.
4. To avoid unsafe or unhealthy conditions that may be
produced by the overcrowding of persons living in these
facilities, a minimum floor area per person shall be
required. Floor area requirements shall 'be measured
from interior walls of all rooms including closet space.
-- Total Interior Living Space. A minimum of two
hundred (200) square feet of interior living space
shall be provided per facility resident. Interior
living space shall include sleeping space and all
other interior space accessible on a regular basis
to all facility residents.
-- Minimum Sleeping Areas. A minimum of eighty (80)
square feet shall be provided in each sleeping
space for single occupancy. A minimum of sixty
(60) square feet of sleeping space shall be
provided for each bed in a sleeping space for
multiple occupancy.
36
- M
-- Bathroom Facilities. A full bathroom with toilet,
sink and tub or shower shall be provided for each
five (5) residents. An additional toilet and sink
shall be provided for each additional group of four
(4) persons or less.
5. To avoid an undue concentration of group care facilities
in one area, all such facilities shall be located at
least 1,200 feet apart, measured from property line to
property line.
6. If located in a single family area, the home shall have
the appearance of a single family home. Structural
alterations shall be of such a nature as to preserve the
residential character of the building.
7. The facility shall satisfy all applicable off-street
parking requirements of Section 24. The facility shall
meet or exceed all open space requirements for the
respective zoning district.
8. The maximum capacity of such facilities shall not exceed
the applicable number permitted by the Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services.
The above criteria detail those characteristics which are to be
considered when reviewing a residential center group home for
approval as a special exception use. As in all residential uses,
density is an important consideration. For group homes, however,
a density bonus provision was incorporated in the zoning code to
allow group homes to have more units than would normally be
allowed by zoning district regulations. This provision was
established to reflect the lower intensity of group homes, e.g.
smaller units, fewer vehicle trips, and fewer persons per unit.
The units were anticipated to be small and the clientele dependent
on the facility. In this case, however, the proposed units are
large in size (some of the units exceed 2,200 square feet) and
designed like any other multi -family project. The staff considers
this proposed development to be comparable to an apartment complex
with attached restaurant.
According to the group home density bonus provision, the fourteen
acres proposed for group home use could accommodate the following
number of residents (Sec. 25.1,f,(d),31:
6 units per acre (RM -6) x 2.0 persons per dwelling unit
x 1i the normal density = 18 people per acre.
18 people x 14 acres = 252 people.
The maximum number of residents for the proposed residential
center therefore totals two hundred fifty-two (252).
It is the staff's position that the proposed residential center
complex should be substantially modified to conform to the intent
of the ordinance. The staff feels that the units should be
reduced in size and full kitchen facilities should be eliminated
from the units, so that the complex meets the requirements of
providing a family living environment for the residents. Since
the special exception use process allows the Board of County
Commissioners to impose any additional conditions to ensure
compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding property, these
conditions can be imposed. Besides those conditions, staff
recommends a program of tree planting along that portion of Phase
II (Residential Center Group Home) that abuts an established
residential neighborhood. The planting of additional trees will
ensure that the proposed group home will be screened from the
adjoining residential neighborhood.
37
BOOK 6 F,,"F.�
J U L 16 1986
RECOMMENDATION
BOOK 6 5 pA,uE ,S5
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
special exception approval subject to the following staff and
Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations:
a. That a 15' wide landscape strip be developed along the west
property line where Phase II (the group home) abuts the
established residential neighborhood. Tree plantings.
conforming to the landscape ordinance shall be provided to
fill in gaps in existing vegetation within the 15' landscape
strip to provide effective visual screening of the group home
from the established single family residential area;
b. That the size of the individual units be reduced to a minimum
of 750 square feet and that full kitchen facilities be
eliminated in all units;
C. That the HRS license permit a maximum of no more than 252
residents; and
d.. That the applicant shall submit a signed affidavit stating
that all applicable regulations of the State of Florida and
Indian river County as currently exist will be met [Sec.
25.1,f,2,c,31.
Commissioner Wodtke questioned the wording in condition b.
which states that the size of the individuat units should be
reduced to a "maximum" of 750 sq, ft, as he felt this should read
a "minimum."
Planner Miller explained that this is a type of facility
where there is a dependence on providing of certain services, and
because of the type of environment, staff felt neither the
applicant's proposal for square footage all the way up to 2000'
nor a full kitchen was appropriate. He then reviewed the formula
used for determining the number of residents in the proposed
residential center which incorporates the 1.5 group home density
bonus provision. He explained that they use 2.5 per dwelling
unit.as the average in single family. In congregate care, you,
mostly look at one person per unit, and the bonus provision came
about because of the lower impacts of this type of development.
Chairman Scurlock asked if staff's major concern is
conversion at a later time to rental units as he believed that is
prohibited under the existing Code. Director Keating agreed, but
noted that the existence of a facility sometimes has the
potential to affect decisionmaking down the road.
38
Commissioner Wodtke asked if staff was saying that if Indian
River Retirement Estates came in now, they would not be permitted
to have kitchens in their units, and Director Keating explained
that they came in at the zoning district's regular density.
Chairman Scurlock clarified that what is in question here is
the density credits. If you go with the smaller units and leave
the kitchen facilities out, then you get the density bonus. You
have to make a choice. Indian River Estates chose to reduce
their density.
Commissioner Lyons had great difficulty with this provision
as he felt a kitchen is a very important part of these apartments
whether the facility happens to be a congregate living place or
not. He further noted that these units undoubtedly would be the
same as some time share units where there are no kitchens, but
you can always manage to cook. He believed we should face up to
this and allow kitchens.
Chairman Scurlock felt staff is saying you can have the
kitchen but not the same density.
Commissioner Bird agreed with Commissioner Lyons about the
need for a kitchen, and he also felt 750' is awfully small. He
could understand staff's concern that if this doesn't work out,
it would go on the market as rental apartments, but this could be
solved if we can find some way to lock them into this situation.
Commissioner Wodtke believed this is a type of facility
which.is providing a very important need. He felt when you talk
about density units, the key is density population, and he
believed there is a stipulation in the HRS certificate that
limits them to 252 people regardless of the amount of units. He
also felt that 750' is a very small living unit for two people.
Commissioner Lyons further noted that this type project will
generate less than one trip per day per person. Generally
transportation is provided, and the impact on traffic is very
minor.
39
L_ JUL 16 1986 Boo, 65 FnIlE 86
JUL 16 1986 BOOK 65 Fact 87
Attorney William Stewart came before the Board representing
the applicant, Waterford Associates, and wished to clarify
several points. In regard to the comparison of this project with
the circumstances Indian River Estates were faced with when their
project came through, he believed this ordinance was not
available to them at that time so the whole subject of density
credits or bonuses was not something they were able to take
advantage of. As to the size of their apartments, Attorney
Stewart advised that over 500 of the units presented on the site
plan are less than 7501; there are 40 apartments at about 993',
and the units range up to as much as 17321, of which there are
only five. Actually 980 of the units are 1120' or less. In
regard to the concern as to what happens if the project fails,
Attorney Stewart felt the Planning Commission imposed some
conditions on this particular use that helped in the issue of
enforcement. He emphasized that this project has to be a
licensed ACLF in order to qualify for the density credit, and
they have agreed that only a maximum number of 252 people can
occupy this premises. In addition, the people who will be living
in this ACLF will be paying a premium rental over what they would
pay in a normal apartment; they are in this facility because they
want the group services that are offered, and if those services
are not offered any more, they will leave.
Commissioner Bird asked what we do about the buildings if
the project failed and the people left, and Chairman Scurlock
felt our option would be just not to let the building be
occupied.
Attorney Stewart stated he would not have any qualms with
that because if a developer comes in and asks for special
treatment because of a special use, once he stops using it for
that particular use, he would have no sympathy with trying to
work out his problems.
Chairman Scurlock then inquired about the visual impact of
the facility, and Attorney Stewart advised that this particular
40
- M
M
building is a 3 story building which will sit on 14 acres with a
requirement of substantial open space around it. The part of the
building closest to the property line is 270' away from it, and
it will be barely visible from the residential homes on the west.
They do have a landscape barrier between the building and any
adjacent homes, and he felt the neighbors are satisfied.
Attorney Stewart continued that what the ordinance talks
about is trying to accommodate group homes or residential centers
that provide a family living environment, and the program being
afforded does allow the residents to be dependent on it for some
of the needs of daily living. He stressed that in order to be
licensed, you must offer certain things, which also have to be
incorporated in a contract with the resident. Some of the things
required are supervision of daily activities; supervision of
diets; daily awareness of the safety and well being of the
individual; encouragement to participate in social activities;
procedures to contact the resident's family and physicians,
handle their medication, etc.; arrangements for transportation
and support health care. The residents are paying for all these
services, one of them being congregate meals.
Attorney Stewart emphasized that what is more important in
this type project is people as opposed to units and he felt
kitchens offer the people some sense of independence. State
standards for ACLF do permit kitchens and do not have maximum
size conditions, only minimums. He felt they should have the
special exception granted without condition b. They have no
objection to conditions a, c, or d.
Larry Boan of the Central Assembly of God advised that the
proposed facility will be their neighbor, and they are speaking
in favor of the exception. He felt the folks there need their
space and also the kitchen area and that they need that privilege
available to them.
Sam Culbertson of Eugenia Road believed that Attorney
Stewart presented a good argument but he pointed out that at the
41
J U L 16 1986 BOOK 6 5 pnu-L J�
-7
Book it,,
JUL 16 1986 65 F:E 89
time Indian River Estates came in and sought a higher density of
up to 24 units per acre, they were told that if they were a
congregate living facility, they would have to meet certain
requirements in order to have those higher densities. Those
requirements would have kept them from being single entity
apartments in the nature of those being presented today; so, they
returned to the 8 units or less per acre. Mr. Culbertson did not
see the difference between the Waterford Assoc. project and
Indian River Estates because the central facilities are there on
both projects, and it was his feeling that in order to have more
density, it should be more of a congregate facility beyond the
definitions presented by the state so the residents are more
dependent on those congregate facilities. As soon as they are
allowed to have kitchens, then they are self -existing units just
as an apartment unit would be, and he had trouble differentiating
them. Mr. Culbertson also had difficulty with the density
formula mixing people and units.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that when Indian River Estates
came in, this wasn't an issue because this ordinance wasn't even
on the books.
Director Keating agreed, and explained that when Indian
River Estates came in, staff was faced with a new type of entity
and then proceeded to develop criteria for total care facilities.
One of the criteria related to the density of total care
facilities, which are different from residential centers, was
that the total care facility living units with cooking facilities
would count as one dwelling unit while living units without
cooking facilities would count as 2/3 of a- unit.
Mr. Culbertson emphasized that the one criteria there at
that time dealt with cooking units, and he also believed
Waterford probably will have in excess of one person in one
dwelling unit. He personally was in favor of the project which
he felt will be of great benefit, but he only felt that the issue
of density should be taken into serious consideration.
42
Arlene Fletcher, Director of the Council on Aging, agreed
the project is very beneficial and that we are in desperate need
of it. She noted that being a licensed ACLF facility will
definitely insure the density as they have very stringent
guidelines. Mrs. Fletcher emphasized that people will cook in
their homes, and if you say they can't have a kitchen, they will
buy a hot plate or something that is not safe, and it is
unacceptable to expect them to live in this manner. Mrs.
Fletcher believed that a stove and refrigerator are necessities
for anyone, and she also agreed they should offer large units as
well as small units, and that these people should be treated as
you would treat any age citizens.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the monthly charge for
the units and was advised that it ranges from $975 to $1,300.
Commissioner Wodtke felt when people pay that much, they are
not going to live in the unit just like an apartment but will
avail themselves of the services offered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously granted
Special Exception approval for a Residential Center
Group Home as requested by Waterford Associates
subject to Conditions a, c and d recommended by staff.
ORDINANCE ENLARGING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The hour of 9:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
43
BOOK 65' MIG] E 90
r--IJUL 16 3986
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 Bea cli in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
.✓r /J
a
in the matter
s -7
in the /Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of j G
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first Publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this a day of A.D. 19
B iness Manager)
R n / T
(SEAL) (Cler of 66 Cirouft rt; lddritn River County, Florida)
BOOK 65 UGE 91
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, will conduct a Public
Hearing on Wednesday. July 16, 1986 at 9:45
a.m. in the Commission Chambers at 1844 25th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider the
adoption of an ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY AMENDING. APPENDIX A IW
DIAN RIVER COUNTY: CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES, SECTION 26(b);
ENLARGINGTHE NG COMMING AND ZON-
SSIONLTO IS SEVEN MEM.
BERSr PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATE.
If any person. decides to appeal any decision'
made on the above matter, he/she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he/she may need to insure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes .the testimony in evidence on
which the appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
-BOARD OF COUNTY
DON C. SCURLOCK. JR., CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONERS
June 27,1986
Attorney Bruce Barkett noted that the Board had directed
that an ordinance be prepared to expand the Planning & Zoning
Commission to seven members, including two members appointed at
large, and to require at least a five -member vote on each issue,
and that is what the proposed ordinance has done.
Commissioner Wodtke had two comments. He noted that if you
have five members, they all have to vote, but if one abstains,
then they will not have a meeting. Also, he suggested that
rather than appointing the at -large members for four-year terms
that we stagger the terms.
After some discussion as to what the length of the terms
should be, the Board generally agreed to the wording of
Ilstaggered" four-year terms.
44
L__]
Commissioner Wodtke commented that he voted against going to
seven previously, but it seems that is the way the Board is
going, so he will vote for it.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that at the last Planning i;
Zoning meeting, it was necessary to get Mrs. Stanbridge out of
her sick bed in order to have a quorum.
Attorney Vitunac wished the Board to be aware that this
ordinance was not reviewed by the Planning 8 Zoning Commission
itself, and Director Keating advised that there are established
procedures for amending the Zoning Code which require considera-
tion by the Planning 8 Zoning Commission; however, Attorney
Vitunac says there is no legal problem with the way we are doing
this today.
Commissioner Lyons expressed the.Board's appreciation to
"lame duck" Planning E Zoning Chairman Carolyn Eggert for her
years of service on the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Mrs. Eggert commented that she was opposed to the expansion
of the Board, but the demands on people are getting greater and
it is hard for them to attend sometimes. She didn't like the
amendment, but she saw the need.
Attorney Dorothy Hudson felt from a practical standpoint,
that a five person quorum is very difficult to maintain.
Discussion continued re the size of the quorum and the
problems it could present, and it was agreed we should try it.
It also was agreed the effective date should be September 1st.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com -
Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 86-47
45
JUL 1 1986 Boa 65 Frc� °�
J U L 16 1986
BOOK 65 PAPE
93
enlarging the Planning 6 Zoning Commission to seven
members with the change re staggered four-year terms
for the at -large members.
ORDINANCE 86-47
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AMENDING
APPENDIX A INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES, SECTION 26(b); ENLARGING THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO SEVEN MEMBERS;
PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATE
Be it ordained by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County as follows:
Sertinn I-
Ap-, - nil i x A River County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, section 26(b)(I)b is hereby amended as follows:
Membership. The planning and zoning
commission shall be composed of *+be -f5}
seven (7) members, appointed for four-
year terms by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County
with each of the five members of the
Board of County Commissioners having
the privilege of nominating one member.
The term for each such planning and zoning
commissioner shall run concurrently with
the teras term of the board of county
commission member responsible for that
planning and zoning commission's nomination.
Two additional members shall be appointed
at-Iarge_by the board for staggered four-year
terms subject to the removal provisions
described in paragraph_c_
CODING: Words in straek-through type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
46
Appendix A, Indian River County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, section 26(b)(I)g is hereby amended as follows:
Meetings shall be at the call of the chairman
or vice-chairman or at such times as a
majority of the members may determine. The
chairman, vice-chairman or any acting
chairman may administer oaths and compel the
attendance of witnesses. All meetins shall
be open to the public. Three -{3} Five (5)
voting members shall constitute a quorum,
and a majority vote of those present shall
determine any issue before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. In no event shall
any issue be decided by less than five (5)
members voting.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become
effective September 1, 1986.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 16th
day of July , 1986.
47
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
ion � Scurlock, Jr.�
Chairman
Board of County
Commissioners
BOOK b5 PAGE 94
J U L 16 1986 BOOK 65 rmuE 95
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS - FLORIDA CONVALESCENT
CENTERS, INC.
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero
Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of.-/
in the / Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of al, P
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person; firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribers befo� me this, o�A.D. 19 ,
(SEAL)
r �. - �� � T7S�u�iiiax�liv�awaua�l
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River C nty, Florida)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
FOR ISSUANCE OF
INDUSTRIA_ DEVELOPMENT BONDS
Public Notice is hereby given that on July 16,
1986, 10:00 a.m., the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Indian River County, Florida, will meet
at the Indian River County Administration Build -
Ing, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to
consider approval of the issuance of not ex-
ceeding $4,800,000 - of Industrial development
revenue bonds of Indian River County to be
issued for the purpose of loaning the proceeds
therefrom, or using such proceeds, to finance
the acquisition, construction and equipping of a
skilled and intermediate care 91 bed nursing
home facility, located in Indian River County,
Florida, for Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., a
Florida corporation, which shall be the principal
user of said facility. The Industrial development
revenue bonds shalt bz r E,vAi 1, niely from the
)revenues drr , 1N from
with
Cemers, ins:.. -ch
o �<rnbnts as Indian River County shall
appiuve, except to the extent they are payable
from bond proceeds. Such bonds and the Inter-
est thereon shall not constitute an indebtedness
or pledge of the general credit or taxing power
of Indian River County or of the State of Florida.
Issuance of the bonds of Indian River County
shall be subject to several conditions, including
satisfactory documentation, approval by counsel
as to the tax-exempt status of the interest on the
bonds and receipt of necessary approvals for
construction of the facility to be financed. The
aforementioned meeting shall be a public meet-
ing and all persons who may be interested will
be given an opportunity to be heard concerning
the same.
Freda Wright, Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County
Lune 28, 1986
LeeAnn Fiveash, representing Rhoads 6 Sinon, Bond Counsel,
reviewed the proposed Resolution whereby the Commission approves
the issuance of the bonds in compliance with the requirements of
the Internal Revenue Code. Ms. Fiveash noted that this is
actually a formality and affords the public an opportunity to
give their input. The closing has to occur before August 26th
because of some problems with the Certificate of Need.
Mr. Evans, Vice President of Florida Convalescent Centers,
Inc., wished to address two areas brought up by the Economic
48
i � �
Development Council which dealt with what companies in Indian
River County had bid.
Chairman Scurlock did not understand why the EDC would be
involved in the actual .subs who would be used. He agreed we
should encourage use of Local firms but did not feel we should
get into telling anyone who they should use.
Commissioner Wodtke advised that the Council merely asked
them if anyone in the county had bid and whether they would be
using any local subs; it was not a requirement.
Chairman Scurlock wished to make it absolutely clear that
this Commission would be totally opposed to any pressure to use
any particular subs.
Mr. Evans just wished to assure the Commission that they
have contacted local people, have received bids, and supplies
will be bought locally. They are ready to go; they are prepared
to close on the land Friday; and they request approval of the
Resolution as their Certificate of Need expires the end of
August.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the status of their site
plan, the technical review, etc., as the timing is very critical.
Director Keating advised that they have gone through the
technical review committee and Lloyd & Associates are preparing
revised plans. In regard to the critical timing, there are
several options that can be pursued. It is possible they could
get a foundation permit after SPA before they get all the permits
from all the jurisdictional agencies, and this could serve to
keep their Certificate of Need valid. Staff is working with
them on this situation.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
49
Boon b5 u-Ut 96
J U L 16 1986
r"-JUL 16 196
Bou 65 PvUL 97
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 86-39 approving the issuance of industrial
development revenue bonds for Florida Convalescent
Centers in compliance with the requirements of the
Internal Revenue Code.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-39
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida (the "County"), heretofore
adopted a Resolution on June 18, 1986, relating to Florida Convalescent Centers,
Inc., (the "Corporation"), whereby the County authorized the issuance of its
revenue bonds for the purpose of paying the cost of acquisition, construction
and equipping of the Corporation's proposed facility consisting of certain land,
buildings, structures and equipment to be used as a skilled and intermediate
care nursing home facility (the "Project") which shall be located in Indian
River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the County is authorized to issue its revenue bonds to
finance the Project pursuant to the provisions of the Florida Industrial
Development Financing Act, Part II of Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, as amended;
and
WHEREAS, in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 103(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, the County held a public hearing on
-_the proposed issuance of its $4,800,000 Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 (Florida
Convalescent Centers, Inc. Project) (the "Bonds") on the date of adoption
hereof, more than 14 days following the first publication of notice of such
public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Indian River County,
Florida (a true and accurate copy of the publication of notice is attached
'•hereto as Exhibit "A"), which public hearing was .conducted in a manner that
provided a reasonable opportunity for persons with differing views to be heard
on both the issuance of the Bonds and the location and nature of the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, is the elected legislative body of the County;
50
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the issuance of the Bonds is
hereby approved in compliance with the requirements of Section 103(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. The Clerk is authorized to make such
applications to the State of Florida, Department of General Services, Division
of Bond Finance as may necessary to enable the County to issue the Bonds.
ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:_ �o•. C
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Cha
APPEAL - AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE RE DOCKS AS ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
The Board reviewed letters received from The Anchor Property
Owners' Assoc. and Janet Laber of Robert H. Laber Real Estate
requesting reconsideration by a full•Board of the 2-2 deadlock
decision not to hold a public hearing on the question of
installing docks as an accessory structure prior to construction
of the primary use.
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett noted that he was
asked to prepare some alternatives as there seems to be a growing
concern that the Federal Fish R Wildlife Agency and the State De-
partment of Natural Resources might clamp down on the building of
private single family docks because of concern for the manatees.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he had checked with the local
representative of the DNR, who said there are no plans to clamp
down on single family docks, but Chairman Scurlock believed that
there is some concern about the cumulative effect if a large
number of such docks are applied for. He noted that people who
have bought very expensive waterfront lots would like to be sure
they can make use of their waterfront, and he would like to find
some vehicle which would vest their rights and give them some
peace of mind while this matter is settled.
51
BOOK 65 PAGE 98
rr,--
JUL 16 196
BOOK 65 FA,r. 9
Attorney Barkett noted that the sure way to get the'
guarantee is to go ahead and build your house; however, the City
of Vero Beach does allow the docks to be built prior to the
primary structure, and our Environmental Planner has indicated
that with certain restrictions we can make these docks environ-
mentally acceptable. It is simply a question of whether the
Board wants to allow this construction.prior to the primary use.
Commissioner Wodtke felt the only issue at this point is
whether we want to allow the public hearing. He informed the
Board that he spent a day in Jacksonville recently with the
Federal Fish & Wildlife Agency, and there is a very definite
concern on their part re the cumulative effect of single family
docks. He stated that he would like to have a public hearing on
this. Anyone who builds a dock is going to have to go through
the process and acquire a permit just as if they had a house
there in any event; this is allowed in the City; and he
personally did not see it is that much of a problem.
Commissioner Bowman felt if we are going to permit this,
then we should consider that we will have a proliferation of
these structures and perhaps we need a local ordinance to write
some specifications for them.
Chairman Scurlock believed that the utmost concern of the
parties interested in having these docks is the river. He agreed
we should hold a public hearing because if we are going to allow
this, we certainly want to do it in an environmentally safe way.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman to authorize staff to schedule
and advertise a public hearing on the above matter.
Attorney Barkett felt if the Board wants an ordinance
prepared, it would be best to choose one of the alternatives
discussed previously, i.e., either to allow these docks as an
accessory use in all residential zoning districts and thereby
52
skip the permitting stage or make it an administrative permit
whereby the applicant goes before the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Commissioners Lyons and Bowman agreed to amend their
Motion to include that an ordinance be prepared that
would require administrative approval.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion as
amended. It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ST. MATTHEWS BAPTIST CHURCH RE GRANDFATHERING OF SITE PLAN
Pastor Leonard Wilson appeared and reviewed his letter, as
follows:
St. �U(atthews �JViiss�o�an p
� Ta test OhUhCh
8550 6411t v4vehue C.0. Box 947
rR2�(LUabasso. Qoh[da 32970
5-zT!ON LIST
Leonard A. Wilsoniers William C. Minnis
Chairman of Deacon Board
Pastor_
.``_
MEMO:
TO: Board Of County Commissioners
FROM: Leonard A. Wilson z"er
Date: July 3, 1986
RE: Site Plan Approval
The purpose of this request to appear before the Board is to seek co�Sideration
for our site•plan, to build an addition to our church (St. Matthews), which will
include dining room, kitchen, meeting rooms and office space.
On May 14, 1985, we submitted said plans to the Planning and Zoning Department
for approval. At that time a Mrs.,.Craven was our contact person who requested
major changes in order to meet (at that time) current ordiances. These
changes were made however, since that time, new ordiances has been adopted and
approved that will not allow us to continue.
Therefore, we are asking you to consider our situation regarding previous
Submittal of our plans and grant us permission to continue.
You'^ consideration to this matter will be greatly appreciated
53
66.:JUL 16 1986 BOOK 65 PAGE100
'JUL 16 1966 BOOK 6 PA"it 101
r--
1
Pastor Wilson explained that their problem came about when
they came back to change their entire building at which time they
had to redraw their plans all over and restructure to meet the
ordinance. When they returned with these plans, they met up with
new staff people and a new set of ordinances, which required a
setback of 30' from each lot line. Their building will not fit
in with those new requirements.
Chairman Scurlock advised that he had indicated to Pastor
Wilson that we have a real problem setting a precedent, but he
thought there might be some relief if he could document that he
was in the process and could meet the current standards at the
time it was being considered and suggested that he present this
to the Board.
Planning Director Keating - that there has been a
significant dance as to now cnui ches and
special exception uses are treated in residential areas. These
changes have been put in to protect adjacent properties. His
suggestion was that the applicant be encouraged to go through the
process and file whatever appeals or variance requests are
necessary to take care of the situation.
Chairman Scurlock stated that, in his opinion, there is no
way the church can meet the requirements of the current
ordinance, and he felt the only possible relief would be that he"
was vested under the old ordinance; although he was not sure they
could have developed the project under the old ordinance.
Pastor Wilson advised that one of the things they were told
was that they did not have the application in at the time of the
old ordinance. They would have submitted the application but
were told to hold it because of the major changes they had. They
were stuck by holding onto their application and going back to
redraw their plans to what they thought were the specifications.
He noted that this is an existing building; the church is 80
years old; and they are trying to add a fellowship hall to the
back of it.
54
M M M
Commissioner Wodtke hoped that this could go back to staff
and something could be worked out.
Director Keating noted that staff has many preapplication
conferences, and many -times when people come, they may want to do
something that is not advisable and staff works with them quite a
bit. In this particular case, it is not a case of rules changing
within a two-week period. It was well over a year ago these
changes occurred; so, the question is when are people going to be
able to rely on the information staff is giving them.
Chairman Scurlock felt the Board would just like staff to
Kook at this to see if there is a way to work within the rules to
accomplish their purpose. If this cannot be done legally, he was
sure the Pastor will understand. He asked Pastor Wilson to meet
with staff.
REQUEST FOR FUNDS - SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SQUAD
Joy Snell, President of the Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance
Squad, came before the Board in regard to the request set out in
the following letter:
3;u 5 678,0_ SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SQUAD, INC.
P. 0. Box 685
Sebastian, Florida 32958
1 July 1986
'�GcJ�7 Rid
Indian River County
County Commissioners
1840 Twenty Fifth Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Commissioners:
Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance Squad, Inc. received their State of
Florida License on 17 June 1986. We will be independent as of 4
July 1986.
As of this date, we have only approximately $3,500.00 in our
bank account. Donations are coming in, but we need more help than
simply donations from the general public.
We are scheduled to go before Sebasian City Council on 2 July 1986'
and are going to ask for funds to see us through this fiscal year.
Also, we are requesting to be put on the agenda to go before the
Commission to also ask for funds.
55
JUL 16 1986 BOOK 65 rAT
Fr"-
JUL 16 196
BOOK 65P,1;F..�J
Our insurance package for one year is approximately $15,000.00.
Our Workmen's Compensation is already paid, but that is the only
policy paid for.
We are hoping Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad, Inc.
will give us a portion of their monthly funding from the county,
but their Board of Directors tabled that portion of their agenda
until a later date. Also, we have contacted United Way of Indian
River County, and will go before them also for a portion of IRCVAS's
budget for the rest of this fiscal year, as the Sebastian Division
was included in both the County and United Way's budgets.
Please give me a telephone call if our request to be placed on
the Commission's Agenda is approved and also for the date and time.
Sincerely,
Joy Snell, President
Ms. Snell clarified that the problem is that there is about
21 months before the fiscal year is up, and they need funds to
pay for their insurance. They have paid Workman's Comp which was
$2,000, but they are short $11,073.
Commissioner Lyons asked if they are operating without
insurance, and Ms. Snell stated they are not. Their insurance
which is to be canceled this morning, is to be picked up by the
same company.
Chairman Scurlock noted that we have been making a fairly
stable contribution to the budget of the Indian River County
Volunteer Ambulance Squad (IRCVAS) over the years when this was
all part of one operation, and these needs were all taken care
of. Now he is seeing not only this adjustment of $11,000 being
requested, but Sebastian has a $30,000 request in our budget
session, and then we have Fellsmere which went from 0 to $6,000
to $10,000, and he could not understand how we suddenly went from
operating an ambulance service in the.county for $40,000 to
$90,000 all in one year.
L. B. "Buck" Vocelle, Jr., President of the Board of
Directors of IRCVAS, stated that as he understood Ms. Snell's
request, it is to appropriate some money that already has been
allocated to IRCVAS for the period of this fiscal year, and then
Sebastian is coming back for their 86/87 budget. The problem is
56
those monies were allocated to IRCVAS, included in their budget,
and already spent; in fact, right now, they are 7.30 over budget.
Mr. Vocelle reported that IRCVAS committed to give Sebastian
two of their ambulances free of charge, and they are getting the
building and all the equipment in it from the City of Sebastian
at no cost. In addition, IRCVAS promised to pay the Sebastian
squad's vehicle insurance through September; the County's year
ends the end of September so they have one month they have to
pick 'up the insurance on the vehicles. The titles to the
vehicles and the insurance on them are to be transferred from
Vero to Sebastian this afternoon, plus the credit for whatever
portion is received back from the insurance. Mr. Vocelle further
noted that Sebastian gets all their gas paid for by the City of
Sebastian, and he understood the City Council just gave them
$5,000 to help get through the remainder of the year. He pointed
out that IRCVAS doesn't get any money from the City of Vero
Beach, and they have not received one penny in donations from the
North County since December of 1985. He also believed that
Sebastian had a little over $4,000 in their operating account
when they became independent.
Mr. Vocelle emphasized that his point was that all of these
things should have been anticipated. It is true they are cutting
the geographical service area of the county; however, with ALS in
existence, IRCVAS donations are down because of the billing
problems, and the number of runs in the South County are up
notwithstanding the decrease in the service area in the north.
Mr. Vocelle did not feel the Board should do anything in regard
to monies allocated to IRCVAS for the balance of this year. As
to monies for the next fiscal year, that is an entirely separate
matter.
Chairman Scurlock believed there is some miscommunication;
he could not believe that the insurance is $11,000 a month, and
Ms. Snell explained that is the cost for a year. She continued
that she was told at their Board meeting that IRCVAS was
57
BOOK ` PA GE104
LJUL 16 1986
Fp'--JUL 16 1986
BOOK 65 FD.GE I05
canceling the automobile insurance on the two ambulances plus the
rest of the insurance as of today; so, it is not for one month
they would be paying.
Mr. Vocelle agreed it is being canceled today, but clarified
further that Sebastian is operating on their own with what is
today IRCVAS equipment, and that presents some liability
problems; so, they want to get that equipment transferred as
quickly as possible with the understanding that they will pay for
Sebastian's vehicle insurance through September 1st. As far as
Workman's Comp, building insurance, etc., is concerned, that is
not their problem. Sebastian should have raised that money
before they became independent. He felt IRCVAS has made a great
effort to cooperate with Sebastian.
Commissioner Lyons had felt it was IRCVAS' intention to pay
the insurance through the budget year, but Mr. Vocelle advised
that Sebastian's attorney, Mr. Lulich, asked in writing that
their insurance be paid through September 1st or whenever they
became independent, whichever was later, and that was agreed to
without any question.
Ms. Snell did not want to get into this as she felt there
already were enough bad feelings, but continued that the
insurance minus the auto policy for one year is $5,751. That
includes property insurance, portable equipment, general
liability, umbrella policy, etc. If IRCVAS is paying for their
vehicle insurance until 9/1, she stated that they will not
request the $5,300.
that..
Mr. Vocelle confirmed that they have already committed to
Discussion ensued re the cost of the car insurance, and
Commissioner Wodtke felt what Ms. Snell was saying is that the
insurance other than the automobile insurance is $5,751-a year
and the automobile insurance is $5,322 a year. He wondered where
the other $5,000 was as he had felt Ms. Snell's letter quoted a
figure of $15,000.
58
Ms. Snell explained that when she originally wrote the
letter, the insurance agent came up with that figure; however,
they did not have all the figures at that time, and it was later
modified. The Workmen's Comp is about $2,000.
Commnissioner Wodtke felt if IRCVAS pays their automobile
insurance, then Sebastian will need about $4,000 to take care of
the rest until October 1st, and Ms. Snell agreed.
Commissioner Bird believed when Sebastian made the decision
to go on their own, a budget was established at that time, and he
asked what happened to the revenues to cause the shortfall.
Ms. Snell stated that certain groups in Sebastian did come
forward with money for them, but then they were told by IRCVAS
that they could not solicit for funds any more.
Mr. Vocelle believed there is an obvious miscommunication
here that the Board doesn't need to be involved in. He explained
that what IRCVAS told them was that they could solicit for funds
as long as the people were informed that there are two ambulance
services and they knew which entity they were contributing to.
Mr. Vocelle continued to address Sebastian's request for this
fiscal year, emphasizing that Sebastian handles only about 100 of
the runs. If you divide the $50,000 1985-86 budget by twelve,
that is about $4,100 a month, and Ms. Snell is asking for their
entirely monthly allotment for the month of September.
Discussion continued as to the Board's need for clarifica-
tion as to the shortfall and the amount of money needed to keep
Sebastian's insurance in place until October 1st.
Commissioner Bird noted that if we come up with any money,
he certainly would not want to take it from IRCVAS.
Question arose and debate continued as to why Sebastian only
asked for the insurance to be paid to September 1st. Ms. Snell
understood IRCVAS came up with that date.
In discussion it was suggested that Mr. Vocelle check with
his Board to see if they could possibly continue the vehicle
insurance to October 1st.
59
BOOK 65 FA;406
r
of U L 16 1966
BOOK
65 Pn1jr
107
Mr.
Vocelle agreed he would present this to his
Board,
but
stressed that IRCVAS has tried to facilitate a smooth transfer by
donating free equipment, etc.
Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern about any lapse in
coverage when the vehicle titles are transferred, and Mr. Vocelle
advised him that the insurance for both entities is being handled
by the same agency and they have been assured there will be no
lapse in coverage.
Chairman Scurlock inquired about the -buildings, and Mr.
Vocelle advised they had thought the buildings were theirs but
recently learned they were constructed on land belonging to the
City.
It was agreed we need to get all this straightened out, and
that the squads should work with the Actinn Administrator and OMB
Director to accompiish this.
Mr. Vocelle wished to know when the point raised today will
be cleared up.
The Chairman believed the calculations can be done today and
this should be cleared up by tomorrow.
Commissioner Lyons expressed his belief that the calcula-
tions should be based on proportionate service.
12TH STREET R/W ACQUISITION - I.R.BLVD.'SOUTH
Public Works Director Davis made the following presentation:
60
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: July 7, 1986 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
L.S.Thomas
Acting County Administrator 12th Street R/W purchase
SUBJECT: Acquisition, Project #8409
James W. Davis, P.E.((�� Indian River Blvd. -South
Public. Works Directoir%.k
7D�U
Donald G. Finney, SRA
FROM: Right of way Agent REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION:
The Board previously approved to purchase the following three
parcels without an appraisal at the market value arrived from Armfield's
appraisal of adjoining or nearby, R/W parcels. The property owner's
figures of $5.00/sq. ft. to settle is more than Armfield's figures of
adjoining or nearby R/W parcels. Armfield's methodology is according to
the Florida Statue (before and after value) which on larger parcels
results in a lower sq. ft. value than on a smaller parcel as the subject
which would reflect a larger sq. f t.'value.
An appraisal fee for each parcel would be $1,200.00, attorney's fee
estimated at $1,500.00, court costs and miscellaneous expenses $300.00,
equals $3,000.00 additional costs which would be incurred by the County,
if we pursue condemnation. The three property owners are willing to
settle as follows:
Parcel #168 Owner: Michael Cooper
Board approved $3.10 sq.ft. for the
1,150
sq.ft, 8.5' R/W
$3,967.50
Condemnation Costs
3,000.00
(Includes $402.50 value of asphalt
in R/W
taken)
$6,967.50
The owner will settle for $4.25 sq.ft.
or
$5,290.00 which
is $1,677.50 less than minimum cost
by condemnation.
(Includes $402.50 value of asphalt
in R/W
taken)
Parcel #141 Owner: Frank Zorc
Board approved $2.00 sq.ft. for the
958.5
sq.ft., 8.5' R/W
$1,917.00
Condemnation Costs
3,000.00
Total
$4,917.00
The owner will settle for $5.00 sq.ft. or $4,792.50 which
is $124.50 less than minimum costs by condemnation.
Parcel #135 Owner: Forum Spa & Racquet Club
Board approved $2.00 sq.ft. for 2,397 sq.ft. 8.5' R/W $4,794.00
Condemnation Costs 3,000.00
Total $7,794.00
The owner, Rich Barattini will settle for $5.00 sq.ft. or
_$11,985.00 which exceeds the minimum condemnation costs by
$4,191.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the purchases of the R/W parcels .at the square foot figure
the property owner has agreed to settle for without condemnation.
2) Proceed to acquire an appraisal of each parcel and go to
condemnation on each parcel as previously approved by the Board.
61
JUL 16 1986 BOOK
r-- -I
JUL 16 1986 BOOK 66 pvUF 109 1
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
It is my professional opinion as an appraiser to question $5•.00 per
sq.ft. as an upper limit of value. Corner R/W parcels were closed at
$5.25 to $7.50 per square foot.
The appraisal of the other parcels used as a comparison was December
1985 and property values have risen since the valuation date.
It is requested to approve alternative #1 and settle the three
transactions without condemnation.
Funding by Indian River Blvd. Project #304-214-541-066.12.
Director Davis believed it would be to the benefit of the
County to pay $4.25 per sq. ft. for Parcel#168 in lieu of going
to condemnation. The other two parcels, #141 and #135, are
requesting substantially more than appraisals in that area have
shown, and the question is does the Board wish to settle or
pursue condemnation. Staff recommends Alternative 1.
Commissioner Lyons discussed timing and asked Director Davis
if his position would be stronger if we withheld this action
until he has lined up the rest of the R/W acquisitions.
Director Davis agreed there are two other parcels just north
of 12th Street and west of 6th Avenue that may be affected by the
decision today.
Chairman Scurlock suggested that we not take action today
and allow Director Davis a little more time.
Discussion ensued re appraisals, and Director Davis advised
that they did not have an appraisal on every lot as they are
trying to save money. He noted that he would not have any
problem about going to condemnation on Parcel #135 as we are just
taking a grass strip not any improvements, but if we condemn
that, Parcel #141 is right next door and also asking $5.00 per
sq, ft., and we should condemn that too
Commissioner Wodtke did not like setting the precedence of
saying they can arbitrarily pick a price just a bit under what
court costs might be because we have a lot of people who
cooperate and even donate right-of-way. Even if we have to
condemn, he felt we will be ahead of the game.
62
Commissioner Bird asked if it would move things along if the
Board gave the staff direction to get the necessary appraisals;
then offer the owners the appraised value, and if they don't take
it,.advise that we will go to condemnation.
Director Davis agreed it would.
The Board agreed with Commissioner Bird's suggestion and
directed staff to proceed accordingly.
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ROOF LEAK
General Services Director "Sonny" Dean reviewed his memo:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: June 25, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
THRU: L.S. "Tommy" Thomas
Acting County Administrat
SUBJECT: Administration Building
Roof Leak
FROM: H.T. ' onny" Dean REFERENCES:
Direct r, General Services
There is a section of approximately 3000 square feet of roof
located over the County Commissioner's suite which is leaking
and has deteriorated to a point where it is not feasible to
repair. The condition is such to'where considerable damage
could result inside the building if immediate action is not
taken.
This is a part of the 1981 renovation and roofing that was
done on the Courthouse which is now being replaced. We
received an estimate in January of this year to replace the
entire Administration Complex roof for $150,000.
Staff recommends that the Board authorize emergency funding
to replace the area that needs immediate attention. The
estimated cost from a local contractor is $7,000.
Question arose as to whether this relates to the legal
action we are taking on the Courthouse roof, and Lynn Williams,
Supervisor of Buildings & Grounds, clarified that it is the same
company that put on the Courthouse roof and the same insurance
company but he did not know where we stand on that.
63
BOOK 65
FF"_
UL 16 1986
BOOK 65 FA,r.11l
Chairman Scurlock noted that in any event we have to repair
the roof.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with having the Administration
Building roof over the Commission's offices repaired
as recommended by staff; accepted the proposal of
Lucas Waterproofing Co. in the amount of $7,000, the
monies to come from the Reserve for Contingencies per
the following budget amendment; and agreed to attempt
to recover the money from the guaranty on the roof.
TO: Honorable Board fo County
Commissioners
(E),
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Account Number
001-220-519-34.61
001-199-513-099.91
CVn1 ARIATTMI.
DATE: June 25, 1986 FILE:
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
to Repair Roof
REFERENCES:
Account Name
Maint-Buildings
Reserve for Contingency
Increase Decrease
$7,000
$7,000
Authorize the expenditure of funds to repair 3,000 square feet of roof at the
Administration Building.
64
M M M
7,7.
...... ---
'M
-7MC
OM& W01.
V 1' S.E.
WMA 32960
00 K
PROPOSAL sui3mnm To
PHONE
OATE
lan River Countr Coliunil��r'ionerc;
SWEET
JOB ISME
_.Co"ntv AdministratIve- Building Roof
CITY. STATE MO ZIP CODE
JOB LOCATION
C'xnmi7'sicins Of f i
ARCHITECT
GATE OF PLANS
JOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates tor.
:-;Copo of Wo k
"-Oo 7-TICT
'.1i-iii1nd nv.y by coun'�?' trucks.
-�oof rind 0XiL"'t_:'nq inr;ul.
X ii, !7 i t i.on, dry ation,
j.
T t;, 11 ha"zo -:10iact over insulation m3r-hanically fastened into deck.
1. Briji Srj-4 ningle-ply roof nembrane- over base sheet.
Nbitn al,5mi.num flashing.
L t 11
_( ;at 7r.ji '74 I.IM-1.717M Cicff ,a sting.
s t'i c� work cfiall be done 'in a r.--.rr;t C1_ar3s Warlananlike Manner and
"A period of 12 years by U.S. Inter, Inc. ne-r ,7arr..:Ptnr spec:Lmen.
this pronosal signing both r~bpins and
f us iso -r our records. -2hank you..
Me propose hereby to furnish material and labor-- complete in accordance with above specifications. for the sum of:
($ 7.000'.00
Payment to be made as follows;
"7
P77? r -t-"1711 oN Sr-,P!�inun, 7%CC-
Ail material Is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to to completed In a workmanlike
to Any Authorized
manner according Standard practices. alteration or deviation from above specifics-
tions Involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an Signature
extra charge over and above the estimate. Ali agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents0or
accidents-(f
of do" beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tomado and other necessary Insurance. This pro S81 may be
Our workers are My covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. Wil not accepted within days:
'Nalepun" Lit 1104100d —The above prices, specifications Signature
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. - You are authori
to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature Don S. Sc-lu*r-lock Jr., Chairmar
Date of Acceptance. 7 - 16 - R 6
MW I I" cormoff "M - AMUM here ®br_ oratm
65
14W
Box 65
BOOP(
EQUAL ACCESS BALLOT - LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE
The Board reviewed staff memo and recommendation:
5 ; A u c 113
TO:The Honorable Members July , 1986
of the Board of County DATE: FILE:
Commissioners
THRU: Tommy Thomas
Acting County Admiin
'strator
SUBJECT: Equal Access Ballot
THRU: H. T. "Sonny" (Long Distance Service)
Director, Genera Services
yin Williams _
FROM: Superintendent REFERENCES:
Buildings & Grounds
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
All telephone service subscribers, residential and business, are
being given or will be given in the near future, an option of
choosing a company to provide Long Distance service by dial "1"
access. This service is presently provided to the County and many
others by AT&T Simply put this is the company whose lines you
access when you dial"1" for a direct dial long distance call
Due to the divestiture of the Bell System, all subscribers have the
option of choosing one long distance Company, by ballot, with no
charge for installation or hook-up. You may change companies at any
time after the ballot is submitted by paying a ten dollar ($10.00)
per line service.charge.
The Indian River County Administration and Courthouse Complexes are
for the most part served by one telephone system. A total of 20
outgoing lines allow access to long distance lines. In addition to
vendor provided long distance lines, the County has five outgoing
trunks for accessing the State provided Suncom network.
An average of 950 of all long distance calls placed through the
Administration telephone system are connected through the Suncom
System. Of the remaining 5% call volume, approximately 30% are
placed over long distance lines within the Southern Bell network
which serves the lower east coast and most of South Florida. The
remainder of the non-Suncom-long distance calls are presently
provided by AT&T. This is again divided by 60% Calling Card (Credit
Card) calls and 40% Direct dialed or operator assisted calls
Calls placed over the Suncom Network and Southern Bell lines are not
affected by the equal access ballot decision. The decision will
impact approximately 75 to 80 calls per month or $160 to $170 monthly
in long distance costs.
Eight of the Twelve companies listed on the ballot were contacted
concerning long distance service. Four companies responded with
written rate schedules and information explaining their offerings.
AT&T, Microtel, Teltec, and Western Union were compared by choosing
ten calls to various cities in proportion to our normal calling
pattern and applying the rates as provided by the Vendor.
In addition to the rate structures, staff requested specific
instructions regarding the placement of long distance calls using a
Calling Card (credit card).
66
As could be expected, rates varied, as did the directions for making
credit card calls. Listed below°are the total cost figures for 10
calls placed by the county totaling 57 minutes of long distance
service:
AT&T
$20.79*
Microtel
$18.29
Teltec
$19.74
Western Union
$19.69
*Based on June 1, 1986 rates.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Presently the 589 exchange is the only -exchange due for equal access.
Other exchanges within the County will be offered this option in the
coming months.
Based on the average usage of non-Suncom long distance calls, staff
projects a savings of $20.00 to $30.00 per month by choosing a long
distance company.based strictly on rates.
In order to place a long distance credit card call with companies
other than AT& T, callers will be required to dial an "800" number to
access their system, then a code number to identify yourself, and
finally the number you wish to reach including area code. This could
total as many as 34 digits required to place a long distance credit
card call.
ALTERNATE 1:
Authorize staff to notify Southern Bell, by Ballot, of'the
County's intent to use AT&T as its preferred long distance
Company.
ALTERNATE 2:
Authorize staff to notify Southern Bell, by Ballot, of the
County's intent to use Microtel as its preferred long distance
Company.
ALTERNATE 3:
Authorize staff to notify Southern Bell, by Ballot, of the
County's intent to use Teltec as its preferred long distance
Company.
ALTERNATE 4:
Authorize staff to notify Southern Bell, by Ballot, of the
County's intent to use Western Union as its preferred long
distance Company.
ALTERNATE 5:
Authorize staff to hold the Ballot for Equal Access allowing
Southern Bell to assign us a preferred long distance Company of
their choice.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Alternate 1. This recommendation is
based on the low overall long distance usage which would be affected
and the actual savings projected.
Staff suggests that the quality of service available through AT&T and
the familiarity of use of calling cards offsets the amount of
savings.
Staff recommends that all departments be reminded of the higher cost
of normal long distance calls as opposed to Suncom Network calls.
67
UL 16 1986 BOOK 0 f't1UF.114
J U L 16 1996BooK 65 Fk�r. 115
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, to indicate on the ballot that we
will use AT&T as our preferred long distance company.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about MCI, which he felt was
cheaper, and Supervisor Williams advised that they are not
providing that service in this area right now.
Chairman Scurlock commented that he has talked to some who
have gone to other networks, and they are not happy with the
level of service they receive.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It -was voted on and carried unanimously.
COMMUNICATION/911 CENTER - DESIGN CONSULTANT
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
Thru: Tommy Thomas W13JECT: Communication/911 Center
Acting County A ministra or
H. T. "Sonny" Dean
FROM: Director REFERENCES:
General Services Division
Mr. Charles Block, the Architect and consultant for the proposed
Sheriff's Administration building, is ready to design the
Communications/911 Center. This part of the project is under his
contract as an additional service, and he has recommended using the
consulting engineering firm of Braham, Debay and Associates of Palm
Beach. Mr. Block does not have the experience nor personnel in this
area of design. Braham, Debay and Associates has given an estimated
cost of around $5,000.00 to do the work.
Mr. Block plans to put the general contract for the entire building
project out for bids this month, and he needs the consultant as soon
as possible. .
The nonrecurring charges for any consultant.in connection with the
911 system can be paid out of the surcharge monies collected under
our Resolution No. 86-22 as allowed by the State Statute.
Staff recommends authorization by the Board to the proposal as
requested by the Architect.
68
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the expenditure of $5,000 for use of the consulting
engineering firm of Braham, Debay & Assoc, to design
the 911 Center as requested by Architect Charles
Block and recommended by staff.
CHANGE.COMMISSION MEETING DAY
The Board reviewed memo from Acting Administrator Thomas and
Attorney Vitunac requesting that the Board change its regular
meeting day to Tuesday:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Tommy Thomas, Acting Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: July 9, 1986
RE: Change in Board of County Commissioners'
Meeting Day
We would like to suggest that the Board of County
Commissioners consider changing its regular meeting day from
Wednesday to Tuesday for the following reasons:
(1) The -vast majority of other counties and cities in the
state of Florida meet on Tuesday with the result that
meetings with other counties and cities are generally
scheduled on Wednesday which creates a conflict with our
County.
(2) As a result of most other government bodies meeting on
Tuesday, official seminars, meetings, etc. are likewise
scheduled beginning on Wednesday (i.e., National Association
of Counties, State Association of County Commissioners, and
National Institute of Municipal Legal Officers all" begin
their meetings on Wednesday).
(3) If the agenda deadline were kept at Wednesday noon,
having the Board of County Commissioners' meeting on Tuesday
would allow a full 24 hours between the end of one County
Commission meeting and the agenda deadline for the next
meeting with the result that requests by the Board and
actions necessitated by Board action at one meeting can be
scheduled for the next agenda in a non -emergency fashion.
Presently these items are automatically late since Board
meetings customarily go on until after the deadline is over.
(4) We are now having a staff meeting every Tuesday morning
to discuss the agenda for the next day's meeting of the
Board of County Commissioners. We also discuss the agenda
for the following week's meeting (pre -agenda). As it is now
we discuss the pre -agenda on Tuesday morning, but the staff
69
BOOK 65 F' ,U-
Boa 65 P 117
has only until the next day at noon to turn in items for the
next week -'s meeting. With this change, the staff would have
two options if the pre -agenda meeting were held on Monday
morning; i.e., they could turn in items before noon on
Tuesday or they would turn them in before the next Tuesday
if they needed more time. After the first week's meeting we
believe that most departments would take advantage of the
longer period, which should reduce emergency items.
If the Board concurs with this change, we will pick a date
far enough in advance to effect the change so that
advertisements already set to run will not be affected.
This has been coordinated with all the division heads in the
County, and there appears to be unanimous concurrence that
the change would be in the public interest.
Tommy- Nomas -- -- Charles P. Vitunac—
Actin_ Administrator County Attorney
Chairman Scurlock was in favor of trying this out, and
discussion followed as to how this could be phased in because of
scheduled public hearings.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to
change the Commission's regular meeting day to
Tuesday commencing on August 26th.
RESOLUTION REVOKING RES. 86-34 RE 8.2 MILLION LIBRARY BONDS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 86-40 revoking and repealing Resolution
86-34 which authorized the issuance of 8.2 million
General Obligation Bonds to finance the Library
system.
70
7/86(R-2)LEG/Vk
RESOLUTION NO 86- 40
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, REVOKING AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 86-34 WHICH AUTHORIZED
THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,200,000
TO FINANCE THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
TO AND EXPANSION OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY
SYSTEM.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that
Resolution No. 86-34, authorizing the issuance of general
obligation bonds of Indian River County, Florida, in one or
more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$8,200,000, is hereby revoked and repealed.
This resolution was. offered by Commissioner
Lyons
who moved its adoption.
seconded by Commissioner Bowman
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
The motion was
, and, being
Chairman Don
C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B.
Lyons
Aye
Commissioner
Richard N.
Bird
Aye
Commissioner
William C.
Wodtke,
Jr. Aye
Commissioner
Margaret C.
Bowman
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No.
86- 40_ duly passed and adopted this —16th_— day of
Ju1y -- M , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
on Sc rlocI-Zk, J
Attest: Chairman
�' _ �� _
Freda righ �
Clerk .t?
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency: ,
Charles P. V7itunac
County Attorney
JUL 16 1936
71 BOOK 6b' F��u its
FF"-
JUL 16 196
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 5.9 MILLION LIBRARY BONDS
BOOK 65 F'.,E 119
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 86-41 authorizing the issuance of 5.9
million General Obligation Bonds to finance the
Library system.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-41
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN
ONE OR MORE SERIES, IN AN AGGREGATE PRIN-
CIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,900,000 TO
FINANCE THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS TO AND
EXPANSION OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM AND
SERVICES IN THE COUNTY; CALLING FOR AND PRO-
VIDING FOR A BOND REFERENDUM OF THE QUALIFIED
ELECTORS RESIDING IN THE COUNTY TO BE HELD
ON SEPT. 2, 19861 ON THE QUESTION OF THE
ISSUANCE OF SUCH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS;
AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN MATTERS WITH RESPECT
THERETO AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1.
AUTHORITY OF THIS RESOLUTION.
This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 125.01,
Florida Statutes, Chapter 100, Florida Statutes, and other
applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2.
AUTHORIZATION OF BONDS.
Subject and pursuant to the provisions hereof, general
obligation bonds of the County of Indian River, Florida (herein
called "County"), are authorized to be issued in one or more
series in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed FIVE
MILLION NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS to finance the cost of
improvements and expansion of the public library system and
services in the county; together with purposes necessary,
appurtenant or incidental hereto, including all costs of the
issuance of the bonds. Such general obligation bonds shall be
72
' payable from ad valorem taxes levied without limitation as to rate
or. amount on all taxable property in the County. None of such
bonds shall be issued for a longer term than thirty years from
their date of issuance and such bonds shall bear interest at the
rate or rates not exceeding the maximum rate permitted by
applicable law at the time of the sale of the bonds, to be
determined upon sale of the bonds.
SECTION 3.
BOND REFERENDUM,
A bond referendum of the qualified electors residing in
the County is hereby called to be held on Sept. 2, 1986, to
determine whether or not the issuance of general obligation bonds
in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed FIVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS shall be
approved by such qualified electors to finance the cost of
improvements to and expansion of the library system expansion
together with other purposes necessary, appurtenant or incidental
thereto, including all costs of the issuance of the bonds.
All qualified electors residing in the County shall be
entitled and permitted to vote in such bond referendum. The
places of voting and the inspectors and clerks for the hoed
referendum shall be the same as those places designated and those
persons appointed for the general election to be held in the
County on the same date. The polls will be open at the voting
places from 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. on the said day.
SECTION 4.
OFFICIAL BALLOT.
County election equipment shall be used at such bond
referendum and the ballot to be used shall be in substantially the
following form:
73
J U L 16 1986 BOOK 65 U'u 1?0
BOOR
OFFICIAL BALLOT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOND REFERENDUM - SEPT. 21 1986
65 1 ?1 1
Shall Indian River County, Florida, issue
general obligation bonds, in one or more
series, in an aggregate principal amount not
to exceed $5,900,000, bearing interest at the
rate or rates, not exceeding the maximum rate
permitted by applicable law at the time of the
sale of the bonds, to be determined upon sale
of the bonds, maturing not later than 30 years
from the date of issuance thereof, payable
from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable
property in the County without limit as to rate
or amount, for the purpose of financing the cost
of improvements to and expansion of the public
library system and services in the County.as
more specifically described and provided in the
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
adopted July 16 , 1986
The ballot pages and ballot cards shall be so
arranged that the qualified electors may vote "FOR BONDS" or
"AGAINST BONDS."
SECTION 5.
ABSENTEE VOTING.
The ballot pages and ballot cards shall be used at such
bond referendum for absentee voting. The form of ballot to be
used in the bond referendum for absentee voting shall be in
substantially the form provided in Section 4 above.
SECTION 6.
PRINTING OF BALLOTS.
The Supervisor of Elections of the County is authorized
and directed to have printed a sufficient number of the aforesaid
ballots for use of absentee qualified electors entitled to cast
such ballots in such bond referendum, and shall also have printed
sample ballots and deliver them to the Inspectors and Clerks on or
before the date and time for the opening of thepollsfor such
bond referendum; and
further is authorized
and
directed
to -have
printed and delivered
in accordance with law
the
official
ballots
for use in the voting machines and to make all appropriate
arrangements for the conducting of such bond referendum.
74
M
SECTION 7.
TJFF1?T?�l�Trlitw nnnnL+nrrnLT
The bond referendum shall be held and conducted in the
manner prescribed by general law for holding bond referenda. The
Canvassing Board shall canvass the vote and make due returns of
same without delay to the Board of County Commissioners. Such
returns shall show the number of qualified electors who voted at
such bond referendum and the number of votes cast respectively for
and against the issuance of such bonds. The returns shall as soon
as practicable be canvassed by the Board of County Commissioners,
which shall declare and certify the results of such bond
referendum. The certificate of declaration of results shall be
recorded in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners.
SECTION 9.
WT_L`rTTnm Dwartr me
If a majority of the votes cast at such bond referendum
shall be for the issance of such bonds, the issance of such bonds
shall be approved and then such bonds may be issued as hereafter
provided by the County.
SECTION 9.
MnTTPV nV nnX?T% DL.LTL nn'LYr%rTu
This resolution shall be published in full by the Clerk
of the Board of County Commissioners as part of the notice of such
bond referendum, together with an appropriate caption in such form
as she shall determine, in a newspaper published and of general
circulation in the County, at least twice, once in the fifth week
and once in the third week prior to the week in which the bond
referendum is to be held, the first publication to be not less
than thirty days prior to the (late of such bond referendum.
SECTION 10.
SEVERABILITY.
In the event that any word, phrase, clause, sentence or
paragraph hereof shall be held invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect any other word,
clause, phrase, sentence or paragraph hereof.
75
J U L 16 1986 BOOK 65 PgF 122
BOOK FAf F
SECTION 11.
REPEALING CLAUSE.
All resolutions in conflict or inconsistent therewith
hereby are repealed, insofar as there is conflict or
inconsistency.
SECTION 12.
RPVRrFPTVR nArr+
This resolution shall take effect immediately.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William Wodtke Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
86-41
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. duly passed and
adopted this 16th day of July , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
DON C. SCU OCR,
Chairman
GIFFORD MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION REQUESTS
Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that he has been in
correspondence with the Sheriff re some of the items the
Ministerial Association included in their request as he believed
they were the kind of things that could be addressed by the
Public Safety Advisory Committee. The Sheriff in the following
letter has indicated his agreement with this within certain
limitations.
76
J
P. O. BOX 608
PHONE 569-6700
July 8, 1986 Y
R.T."TIM' DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961
Honorable Pat Lyons, Vice Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Pat:
I am in receipt of your June 25, 1986 letter and have reviewed it. I
would make a request that the following items be forwarded to the
Indian River County Public Safety Advisory Committee and that the
committee be called to order to address the following items.
It is apparent that the committee was formed to make recommendations
and suggestions to the County Commissioners that deal directly with
the uniformity of law enforcement, efficiency of law enforcement and
crime prevention, each of which relate to the problems being exper-
ienced in the Gifford community. I would recommend that this commit-
tee review items 1 - 5 addressed, in the letter from the Ministerial
Alliance of Gifford, and to make recommendations through the County
Attorney on the feasibility of strengthening the development of
county ordinances that will resolve these problems.
With regard to item 6, titled "Professional Police Patrols", and in
text stating, "that if the Sheriff's Department conducts rigorous and
complete patrols in our community it would help stop some crime ...".
This is a manpower issue that the Sheriff's Department is faced with
the allocations of resources, that can only be resolved by the Commis-
sion through increase of manpower or the formation of a special tax-
ing district to allow the people of this community to support addi-
tional manpower specifically designated for the Community of Gifford.
Further, on item 6, I would be adamantly opposed to the establishment
of a county ad-hoc committee to oversee complaints of the Sheriff's
Department, and feel that the advisory committee has no standing in
this type of activity. During.the last seven (7) years the Indian
River County Sheriff's Department has formulated strict guidelines
with regard to demeanor of my officers that far exceeds any expecta-
tion this committee could oppose. We will continue to follow these
guidelines and will allow the State Attorney or the Grand Jury to
oversee any criminal complaint against members of my Department.
We are continuing to do everything humanly possible to assist this
community in controlling their problem. Perhaps the input of this
committee will assist in strenghtening our position.
I would also make a recommen''dation that the vacated space of the
Public Safety Committee be filled by Dallas Yates and hope that the
committee would appoint him to serve on this committee.
Respectfully Submitted,
R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff
Indian River County
77
L_ JUL 16 196
BOOK 5 Fr1 E V
"Fin 16.1986
BOOP( 6 PAGE 12�
Commissioner Lyons spoke in favor of the appointment of
Dallas Yates to fill the vacancy on the Public Safety Advisory
Committee, noting that Mr. Yates is experienced in law
enforcement and the Resolution setting up this committee
indicated this was an appointment under the Sheriff's purview.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke', the Board unanimously appointed
Dallas Yates to fill the vacancy on the Public
Safety Advisory Committee.
Attorney Vitunac reported that Assistant County Attorney
Wilson prepared the following memo which provides the information
requested by the Ministerial Alliance.
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
DATE: July 10, 1986
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinances Requested by the Ministerial
i nce of Gifford
FROM: P. Wilson
A i ant County Attorney,
On June 25, 1986, the Ministerial Alliance of Gifford
requested that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
ordinances addressing several issues of concern to the
Gifford community. I have performed extensive legal
research to determine whether the requested action is
possible or practical from a legal standpoint and have found
the following:
I. Brown Bag Law.
There is no law generally applicable prohibiting the public
consumption of alcohol within Indian River County. The only
'law presently in force which.may partially restrict the open
+consumption of alcoholic beverages is Section 562.453,
T, Florida Statutes 1985, which prohibits the consumption of
liquor, except malt beverages, at curb or drive-in stands,
unless within the building of the person holding a license
for the sale of such beverages. This section is applicable
only on the property of retail establishments selling
alcoholic beverages. Once a person leaves the premises they
may openly consume alcoholic beverages.
The Florida Attorney General has issued an opinion stating
that counties may pass local ordinances prohibiting the
consumption of alcoholic beverages on semi-public parking
lots, public streets or public right-of-ways, including the.
transportation of unsealed alcoholic beverages in
automobiles. Such an ordinance was recently enacted by the
City of Vero Beach. 78
Indian River County has the power to adopt such an ordinance
on a county -wide basis. However, such an ordinance will not
restrict the open consumption of alcoholic beverages on
private property.
II. PROHIBITING MINORS ACCESS TO NIGHTCLUBS.
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is
preempted by Florida law from enacting local ordinances
restricting the age of persons who may cons-ume alcoholic
beverages. However, the concerns addressed by the
Ministerial Alliance are fully covered by existing state
law. Florida Statutes clearly prohibit licensed dealers of
alcoholic beverages to serve such beverages to persons under
21 years of age. See Section 562.11, Florida Statutes 1985.
It is also unlawful for persons under 21 years of age to
possess alcoholic beverages within the State of Florida.
See Section 562.111, Florida Statutes 1985. Persons owning
dance halls at which alcoholic beverages are served shall
not allow minors under 18 years of age to enter such
establishments unless their parent or parents are present.
See Section 562.48, Florida Statutes 1985. Under no
circumstances, even when a parent is present, shall any
dance hall or night club serve alcoholic beverages to
persons under 21.
LOITERING AND VAGRANCY_ LAWS.
Section 856.021 of the Florida Statutes prohibits loitering
or prowling "in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual
for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that
warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate
concern for the safety of persons or property in the
vicinity." This statute is not a "catchall" for vaguely
undesirable conduct, but instead is a specific prohibition
against conduct which is deemed to threaten the public
safety. There are no laws prohibiting individuals from
a
gathering on private or public property unless the
individuals -become unruly to the point of violating statutes
3 prohibiting disorderly conduct, disorderly intoxication or
other similar statutes. The First Amendment poses severe
.limitations upon loitering laws. Such laws will be upheld
only if the conduct prohibited threatens public safety or
constitutes a breach of the peace.
1V. CURFEW LAW.
Section 870.045 of the Florida Statutes grants local
officials the power to impose a curfew whenever a state of
emergency is declared. However, absent a state of
emergency, local ordinances imposing a curfew upon minors
would probably be declared unconstitutional by the courts,
based upon the decision of W.J.W. vs. State, 356 So.2nd 48
(Florida Cases 1978). In that case, the court held that a
City. of Pensacola ordinance imposing a curfew upon minors
under the age of 16 was an unconstitutional invasion of
personal rights and liberties.
V. CLEAN TOWN ORDINANCE.
Indian River County presently has in effect numerous
ordinances which promote the health, safety and welfare of
the citizens by requiring businesses and residences alike to
maintain their property in a clean and orderly fashion.
Several appointed boards and departments within the county
actively enforce both state and local laws affecting these
matters. The boards and departments are as follows:
79
JUL 16 1986
BOOK F'r.c 1,6
r JUL 16 1986
BooK 65 uUC 12!
1. The Indian River County Code Enforcement Board
is the primary means of enforcing county ordinances,
especially ordinances regulating the accumulation of
junk, trash and debris upon commercial and residential
property. The Indian River County Code Enforcement
Department actually pursues violation of all county
codes in force and presents cases once a month before
the Code Enforcement Board. Any persons found in
violation of such codes are ordered to bring their
property into compliance with the code or face fines of
up to $250.00 for each day the violation continues to
exist.
The County employs several staff members who are
specifically assigned to deal with such code
violations. Code enforcement officers are required to
invest.igate each complaint reported to them and these
officers bring hundreds of cases a year before the Code
Enforcement Board. Several of these cases each year,
including several cases currently pending, involve
businesses in the Gifford community.
2. The Indian River County Building Department
has been very active in identifying unsafe structures
and ordering that such structures be destroyed or
brought into compliance with tfie Building Code pursuant
to the authority granted in Indian River County Code of
Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 4. In several instances,
unsafe structures in the Gifford area were demolished
by the Indian River County Road and Bridge Department
at the direction of the Building Department and the
Board of County Commissioners. Several other buildings
have been brought into compliance with the Code by
their owners when notified by the Building Department
that their structures were unsafe.
3. In .1985, the Florida Legislature created the
Indian River County Environmental Control Hearing
Board. Since this Board's inception, the local health
department has filed numerous violations against
businesses when the inspectors discovered potential
health hazards. The Environmental Control Hearing
.Board also has the authority to levy fines for each day
a violation exists and may also file liens and
foreclose upon the property of the violator.
VI. PROFESSIONAL POLICE PATROLS.
The Indian River County Sheriff is an independent constitutional
officer and the Board of County Commissioners has no authority to
influence the policies or operations of the Sheriff's Department.
Attorney Wilson advised that he has tried.to relay this
information to the Ministerial Alliance but has had trouble
contacting them.
Commissioner Lyons believed that this information should be
given to the Public Safety Advisory Board and let them handle it.
Commissioner Bird requested that the Ministerial Alliance be
notified of the meeting when this will be discussed, and Chairman
Scurlock wanted it to be made very clear that there are limits to
80
how we interact with Constitutional Officers; that we do not hire
or fire them. He believed many people do not understand this.
Commissioner Lyons noted that is why he has had numerous
discussions with the Sheriff to be sure we do not create a
problem with his department or give the impression that we have
powers that we do not have, and it, therefore, is his
recommendation that the agenda of that meeting be limited to
those items on the ministers' request that involve the possible
inadequacies of our ordinances.
GIFFORD COMMUNITY BUILDING
Chairman Scurlock advised that he has been receiving calls
about the Gifford Community Building, and he believed this
building basically has to be controlled by the school system.
He also has received a letter saying the $250,000 is inadequate
other than to build a shell, and-ask•ing about the level of the
County's participation in the construction, the on-going
maintenance, etc.
Commissioner Bird reviewed the history of how matters have
progressed over the years in trying to provide a Gifford
Community Building - the donation of the property and the
architect's services - the allocation of state funds depending on
the support of the School Board, etc. He advised that they are
starting to bring all the pieces together to when the Commission
can get involved, i.e., when the building is built we will have
to decide whose name it is in, who is responsible for mainte-
nance, upkeep, scheduling, etc. He did believe we will need a
meeting between the School Board, a representative of the
Commission, and the Civic Progressive League, but noted that as
far as he is concerned, the County's contribution toward this
building has been his efforts and the willingness of this
Commission to work with the community to acquire the land and
acquire the free service of the architect.
81
BOOK 65 F'� , L. �
JUL BOOK 65 Ff,Jt 1,N
6 1986
The Chairman stated that he would like to identify
Commissioner Bird as the lead person on this project in order to
keep the other Board members from being presented with questions
to which they do not have the answers or the background
information.
DISCUSS ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR NORTH COUNTY UTILITIES
Utilities Director Pinto reported that staff has been
working towards putting together a project for service of
utilities from the north boundary of the county, the.Roseland
area, down into Sebastian. They also looked closely at the area
just south of Sebastian starting at Reflections all the way down
to Pelican Point and found that we have in operation there some 8
wastewater treatment plans and some developments on septic tanks.
In that small area there are an existing 1;000 units that could
connect to a wastewater plant immediately, plus a potential 2,298
units in the developments approved in that area. In coordinating
the two projects, they found there is a good possibility of tying
the entire project area together to build a subregional plant.
Director Pinto informed the Board that they have located a
piece of ground they feel is adequate to serve this purpose, and
what they need now is authorization from the Commission to
negotiate with its owners, and get an appraisal and some minor
engineering tests, to get to the point where they have dollars
and cents figures to bring back to the Board and possibly get
some options on the ground. The ground in question consists of
151 acres on top of the sand ridge, and he did not believe there
is anywhere else on the sand ridge where you can find 150 acres
owned by one person in one piece of property.
Chairman Scurlock confirmed that we have had interest
identified in a North County utilities system and the overall
indication is that we could end up with one subregional system
upwards to 6 million gpd to service the entire county north of
Wabasso and Winter Beach.
82
M M M
Director Pinto showed the Board where the property in
question, the old Vicker's grove property owned by Henry Fischer,
is located adjacent to the Whispering Palm 8 Breezy Village
Mobile Home Parks. He noted that Mr. Fischer has put together a
site plan for a mobile home park there and wants it to be annexed
into the City, and we would not like to see that happen because
this is an area staff feels could be of great benefit. Twenty
acres.of this would be used for location of the treatment plant
and the rest of it for effluent disposal. He further noted that
Whispering Palms Mobile Park, which has 800 units or so, has
agreed they would connect their units.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
the Utility staff to negotiate for the property
described above and to obtain -an appraisal, the
funding for same to come from the Utilities account.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:20 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
83
_—�e
Chairman
BOOK c rvuF 130