HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/1986Tuesday, October 28, 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 Tuesday,
October 28, 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 Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; L. S.
"1"ommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney
Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested that a Resolution authorizing a
grant application for Golden Sands Beach Park be added to the
Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Lyons asked to have Item 15. B.1. under his
matters (Appointments to Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council) removed from the agenda. He then requested that an item
be added under his matters regarding an addition to the Library
Advisory Board as 15.B.3.; that discussion re use of a consultant
be added as 15.13.4., and that discussion of the Lowenstein
bequest for the library be added as 15.13.5.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- —
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added items
and deleted items from today's agenda as set out above.
OCT 2 8 1986 BOOK F,{ u-�
QCT- 2 BOOK 66 f"'E
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
ti-ons to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting -of September 30,
1986. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 30,
1986, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested the removal of Item B trom the
Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Wodtke requested
the removal of Item L.
A. Budget Amendment - Sebastian Library Grant Fund
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:
TO: Honorable Board of -County DATE: October 21, 1986
Commissioners
THROUGH: Tommy Thomas SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
Intergovernmental for Sebastian
Coordinator Library Grant
(�b Fund
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Sebastian Library will receive $14,900 in grant money in
1986/87 fiscal year which requires $4,976 in local matching
funds.
L.S.C.A. GRANT SUMMARY
Elderly Grant
L.S.C.A. Funds
Local Match
Literacy Grant
L.S.C.A. Funds
Local Match
Sub -Total
Sub -Total
2
3,000
1,000
4,000
1,400
476
-- 1,876
Youth Grant
L.S`.C.A. Funds
Local Match
10,500
3,500
Sub -Total
TOTAL
14,000
19,876
The following
budget amendment is necessary to facilitate
the grant revenues
f
and expenses:
ACCOUNT NUMBER
ACCOUNT TITLE INCREASE DECREASE
Revenues
001-000-334-711.00
State Library Aid/Youth
10,500
001-000-334-712.00
State Library Aid/Literacy
1,400
001-000-334-713.00
State Library Aid/Elderly
3,000
001-000-336-096.00
Contributions/Lib. Assoc.
4,976
Expenses
Youth Grant
001-112-571-011.12
Regular Salaries
7,000
001-112-571-012.11
Social Security
501 '
001-112-571-012.14
Workers Compensation
29
001-112-571-012.12
Retirement Contribution
927
001-112-571-038.11
Youth - Books
4,075
001-112-571-038.14
Youth - Audio Visual
1,000
001-112-571-038.12
Youth - Travel
303
001-112-571-038.13
Youth - Meetings
165
Elderly Grant
001-112-571-038.31
Elderly - Books
4,000
Literacy Grant
001-112-571-038.21
Literacy - Books
1,876
- — -ON MOTION -by
Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commis-
sioner Lyons,
the Board unanimously approved the
budget amendment for the Sebastian Library Grant
Fund .as set out above.
B. Budget Amendment - Sheriff's Dept. Salary Increase
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:
3
BOOK 66 F 19
u 2.8 1986 BOOK
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: October 21, 1986
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
for Sheriff's
Law Enforcement &
Corrections Dept.
411 Salary Increase
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
The Indian River County Sheriff's Department is request-
ing a 4% salary increase for the Law*Enforcement and Correct-
ions. The increase is allocated as follows:
Law Enforcement $117,523
Corrections 41,542
TOTAL INCREASE $159,065
Staff has reviewed the request and concurs with the fig-
ures as stated. Funds will be transferred from General Fund
Contingencies in the amount of $159,065. Below is the budget
amendment that will be necessary to accomodate the request.
ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT NAME INCREASE DECREASE
001-600-586-099.04 Sheriff - Operations 117,523
001-600-586-099.14 Sheriff - Detention Ctr. 41,542
001-199-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency 159,065
GENERAL FUND
CONTINGENCY BALANCE
Beginning Balance 10-01-86 950,000
Less: Purchase of Generator for Hobart (10,100)
Board of County Commissioners Salary Increase (150, 000 )Estimate
ESTIMATED BALANCE BEFORE BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUEST 789,900
Less: Sheriff's Department Salary Increase (159,065)
BALANCE IF AMENDMENT REQUEST IS APPROVED 630,835
Chairman Scurlock wished to indicate that during the budget
process we did carry in contingency the money for all of our
raises; so, this is not an unexpected item. He also wanted to be
sure that this tracks the same type raise the Board's employees
received, which added up to an overall pool of 40, and he would
like the OMB Director to check this.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas advised that
Director Baird is not present, but he will ask him to check on
this.
4
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
budget amendment for the Sheriff's Law Enforcement
and Corrections Department with the understanding
that it is consistent with the plans of the Commission
for the raise given their employees.
C. Budget Amendments for Supervisor of Elections
the Board reviewed memo from Supervisor Ann Robinson:
RiVER.��GON
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394
TELEPHONES: (305) 567-8187 or 567-8000
October 22, 1986
TO: Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
RE: Budget amendments for Supervisor of Election
for BCC meeting of 10-28-86-.
FROM: Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections
Through: Joe Baird, Budget Director
1. As agreed, I am transferring money from the elections
budget back to the BCC for reallocation to the Traffic
Engineering budget for Bernie Stecher as follows:
Salaries $2600 from 001 -700 -519 -011.12 -to 111-245-541-011.1:
FICA 186 from 001-700-519-012.11 to 111-245-541-012.1:
Retirement 319 from 001-700-519-012.12 to 111-245-541-012.1:
Life Insurance 521 from 001-700-519-012.13 to 111-245-541-012.1;
Workmans Comp 15 from 001-700-519-012.14 to 111-245-541-012.1
$3641
Fund Transfers Out $3641 001-199-581-099.21
Fund Transfers In $3641 111-000-381-020.00
2. Per attached salaries schedule for county officials, the
Executive Salaries and related benefit accounts need to
be increased as follows:
001-700-519-011.11 $2759
001-700-519-012.11 198
001-700-519-012.12 496
001-700-519-012.13 21
001-700-519-012.14 12
$3486
Transfer $3486 from General Fund Contingencies as follows:
001-199-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency $3486.
OCT 2 8 1986
5 BOOK F', r 194
ICT 2 S IS86 BOOK 66 F -,',U 1. 5 - —
3. I request 1% merit raise for elections employees in the
amount of $760 and related benefits as follows:
001-700-519-011.12 $760
001-700-519-012.11 55
_ 001-700-519-012.12 101
001-700-519-012.13 8�
001-700-519-012.14 4
Transfer $928 from General Fund Contingencies as follows:
001-199-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency $928.
Thank you.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the
budget amendments requested by the Supervisor of
Elections as set out above.
D. D.O.R. Amendment of Property Appraiser's 86/87 FY Budget
The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director, as follows:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: October 9, 1986
Commissioners
FROM: Joseph '?-Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
From Department
of Revenue for
Property Apprais-
er's Budget 1986-
87 Fiscal Year
The Department of Revenue amended the Property Appraiser's
budget $17,696 to reflect the change requested by the Board of
County Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously directed that the
Department of Revenue amendment of the Property
Appraiser's budget be made a part of the record, as
follows:
6
0RAW) 4 PROP PRAISER uest Number
tv.t/a6� BUDGET TRA RIAPIENDMENT 1
B/T
County Indian River OFFICIAL David C. Nolte DATE 9/26/46
Year ending September 30, 19
APPROPRIATION CATEGORY $ FROM $ TO JUSTIFICATION
NUMBER OF POSITIONS
10 PERSONAL SERVICES
1 I OFFICIAL'S SALARY
12 REGULAR SALARIES
14 OVERTIME
15 SPECIAL PAY
21 F.I.C.A.
22 RETIREMENT
23 LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE
24 WORKMAN'S COMP.
25 UNEMPLOYMENT COMP.
30 OPERATING EXPENSES
31 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3151 E.D.P.
3152 APPRAISAL
3153 MAPPING
3154 LEGAL
20000
16000
3155 OTHER
32 ACCOUNTING & AUDITING
33 COURT REPORTING
34 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERV,
40 TRAVEL & PER DIEM
_
41 COMMUNICATIONS
42 TRANSPORTATION
4251 POSTAGE
16000
12000
4252 FREIGHT
4253 OTHER
43 UTILITIES
44 RENTALS & LEASES
4451 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
4452 VEHICLES
45 INSURANCE
11380
9380
46 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
4651 OFFICE
4652 VEHICLES
47 PRINTING & BINDING
48 PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES
49 OTHER CURRENT CHARGES
RE G E 1V ED
- — 495T LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS
4952 AERIAL PHOTOS
oOff
I 198R
4953 OTHER
51 OFFICE SUPPLIES
5151 MAPS AND CHARTS
AB VALOREM fAX N
5152 OTHER
52 OPERATING SUPPLIES
54 BOOKS, PUBLICATIONS, ETC.
5451 BOOKS
5452 SUBSCRIPTIONS
5453 EDUCATION
5454 DUES/MEMBERSHIPS
60 CAPITAL OUTLAY
6451 E.D.P.
6452 OFFICE FURNITURE
6453 OFFICE EQUIPMENT
6454 VEHICLES
66 BOOKS
70 DEBTSERVICE
_ 90 NON-OPERATING (CONTINGENCY)
BUDGETINCREASE(DECREASE)
17696
T O_T A L_
$59380
$59380 .� ..
(Official)
Approval
Pursuant to Section I95.087(1)(a) and (2), F.S., the Division of Ad I T. as eviewed and hereby approves this request.
Date V }
OCT 2 8 1986
OCT 8
1986
BOOK
66
pmsL —197
E.
Release of Assessment Lien (SR60 Water)
- Old Sugar
Mill
Est.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved Partial
Release of Assessment Lien (SR60 Water) in the amount
of $926.07 for Lot #33, Old Sugar Mill Estates #3,
and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
STATE ROAD 60 WATER PRO7HJCr
PARTIAL REUSE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of $926.07 received from RALPH
WALDO SEXTON, CHARLES RANDOLPH SEXTON and JOHN R. TRIPSON, AS TRUSTEES OF TRUST
"B" UNDER THE WILL OF WALDO E. S..EXTON, in hand this day paid, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y, FLORIDA, (the "County")
hereby releases the property hereinafter described in that certain Certificate
of Water Reservation as recorded in Official Record Book 700, Page 1953, public
records of Indian River County, Florida, for payment of a special assessment,
plus accrued interest at the rate of ten (10%) percent, levied in accordance
with the provisions of Ordinance #83-46 of the County, as amended, and
Resolution No. 84-47 of the Board of County Commissioners of the County, as
recorded in Official Record Book 691, Page 74, public records of Indian River
County, Florida, and hereby declares that the following described real property
located in Indian River County, Florida, is released from the said lien:
Lot #33, OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES, UNIT #3, according to the plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 98, public records of Indian
River County, Florida.
EXT7C[ P -D by the Chairman of the Board of County Cc nissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, and attested and countersigned by the Clerk of such
Board, all as of this 28th day of October 1986.
Attested and
/Countersigned:
Freda Wr*,ght, _ ' ;�yrP,�l{ •0•�.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: C
U airman
8
F. Final Payment Traffic Impact Fee Project (Barton-Aschman)
The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director:
TO: The Honorable`Yxnters of the
Board of County Camii.ssioners
THROUGH:
Charles Balczun,
County Administrator _
DATE: October 21, 1986 FILE:
SUBJECT: Final Past to Barton-Aschman
Associates, Inc. Indian River
County Traffic Impact Fee
Project
FROM:James W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES: Debora L. Hudrlik, Office
Public Works Director Administrator, Barton
Asc-hman Asan!. Tnr i -n
Jim Davis dated Oct. 15, 1986
DESCRIPTION AMID CONDITIONS
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., is requesting Final Payment in the amount
of $11,900 for the subject project. - The original contract between
Barton-Aschman and the County contained a 10% retainage clause until all
work was accepted.
ALTERZATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Florida Dept. of Cor minity Affairs has approved the Transportation
Study for the Orchid Island mandated by the Hutchinson Island Resource
Commission. The Traffic Impact Fee Program is now ongoing and functional.
!m 411 all QLIJNk I0
It is recommended that the Board authorize release of the $11,900 retainage
to the consultant as final payment.
Funding to be by transfer from Impact Fee Contingency 101-214-581-099.91 to
Engineering Services 101-214-541-033.13.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized
release of the $11,900 retainage to consultant
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., as recommended
by staff.
G. Swivel Bucket for Caterpillar Excavator
The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: - --
9
BOOK 6 6 r'f s -L .98
BOOK 66
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: October 21, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Conmissioners
_ THROUGH:
Charles Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
SUBJECT: Request to Purchase Swival
Bucket for New Caterpillar
Excavator - Road & Bridge
Dept.
REFERENCES:
The Road and Bridge Dept. is in need of a swival bucket for the new
Caterpillar Excavator. The existing bucket does not swival horizontally
and this limits the operator's ability to grade roadside swales. The cost
of the bucket is approximately $6,500.
ALTERT ES AND ANALYSIS
This item was not approved during the FY86-87 budget session, however,
funds are available in the Road and Bridge Department account III -214 -
(Transportation Fund) due to reimbursements from the Golf Course and Jail
site work.
RECOMM�'DATION AND FUNDING
It is recomnended that the Road and Bridge Dept. be authorized to purchase
a swival bucket by formal bid. Funding to be from Account 111-214 (Road
and Bridge Dept. -Transportation Fund).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized the
Road & Bridge Department to purchase a swivel bucket
by formal bid.
H. Hobart Tower Lease - Sebastian Plumbing
The Board reviewed memo of General Services Director Dean:
10
TO: The Honorable Members of ®ATE: October 2, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: :Charles Balczun Hobart Tower Lease Agreement
County Administrator SUBJECT: Sebastian Plumbing, Inc.
H. T. "Sonny" an
Director
FROM: General Service REFERENCES:
Sebastian Plumbing, Inc. of Sebastian, Florida, has requested space
on the Hobart Tower at the 190' level. The space is available, and
according to our lease schedule the annual rental rate will be
$1500.00 or $125.00 monthly.
It is recommended by staff to enter into this agreement as approved
by our legal staff. _
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved Tower
Space Lease with Sebastian Plumbing, Inc., and
authorized the signature of the Chairman.
SAID LEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
- I . -Reports — -
Report of Tax Collector Gene Morris re Occupational License
Taxes collected during the month of September, 1986, is hereby
made a part of the record.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners -
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
DATE: October 10, 1986
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please
be informed that $102,585.17 was collected in occupational
license taxes during the month of September, 1986, representing
_ the issuance of 4,062 occupational licenses.
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
11JG�. U
ICT 2 b ® -
OCT 2 8 1986 BOOK 66 u,E 201
J. Resignation & Appointment to Mental Health Planning Council
The Board reviewed the following staff memo:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Li la veAi •
A i ra e
DATE: October 23, 1986
RE: Resignation of Dr. Harry Hurst from the Alcohol, Drug
Abuse, Mental Health Council and Appointment of Dr.
Eddie Hudson
Warren Winchester informed me that Dr. Hurst has resigned from
the above named Council and that the nominating committee has
recommended that Dr. Eddie Hudson be considered to fill the
vacancy.
The other members serving on this Council are:
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.
Stephen Derkash
John Ma -
Warren Winchester
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the
resignation of Dr. Harry Hurst from the District IX
Mental Health Planning Council and appointed Eddie Hudson
to fill the vacancy created.
K. Final Payment - Collee Mechanical
The Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utility Director:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS NERS DATE: October 20, 1986
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINGO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FINAL PAYMENT AND RELEASE OF RETAINAGE
BACKGROUND
Utilities entered into a contract with Collee Mechanical, Inc. f
to install Altitude Valves and Appurtenances for the 500,000 gallon
and 150,000 gallon elevated water storage tanks. The original
contract for $46,140.00 has been completed and request for final
payment of $472.00 plus release of retainage in the amount of
$4,566.80 has been made. Attached is a copy of the Engineer's
Certification and Contractors' Release of Lien.
RECOMMENDATION
Utility Staff recommends to the Board to accept the project and
approve final payment and release of retainage.
12
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner
Lyons, the Board unanimously approved final payment and
release of retainage to Collee Mechanical Inc., in the
total amount of $5,038.80 as recommended by staff.
L. Engineering Services - Country Club Bridge
The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis:
TO: The Honorable Menbers of the DATE: October 20, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Charles Balczun,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
.Engineering Services -
Country Club Bridge Over
Main Relief Canal
FROM:James W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES: Don Hicks, Kimley-xorn
Public Works Director Assoc., to Jim Davis
1DOX01141WIA• It •' D • 7
In July, 1986, the Board authorized engineering fees of $3,200 for a
Consultant to complement County staff in designing a new replacement bridge
over the Main Relief Canal serving the Vero Beach Country Club area. The
existing bridge needs replacement.
Staff has performed most of the design work "in house". However, some
additional structural analysis is necessary and can best be performed by
Kimley--Horn Assoc. using computer software not available to County staff.
For this reason, staff desires to expand the scope of work with Kimley-Horn
to complete the design. The additional work will cost $2,000.
ALTERMTIVES AMID ANALYSIS
Staff could perforin the work in house, however, it would take many man
hours and the Consultant, using computer, could expedite the work.
RE7CCM14MATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends an additional $2000 be appropriated to complete the
design:- Funding to be from fund 111-214-541 - Road and Bridge Dept.
account.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know whether the additional
$2,000 was over and above the original engineering fees _
authorized in the amount of $3,200, and Public Works Director
Davis confirmed that it was. He explained that after staff
designed the facility in-house, they sent the plans to the
13
OCT 2 b 19,86 Boor. 66 F. E 202
OCT 2 8 1986
BOOK
213
consultant for structural
analysis and then realized
there
were
some other items that needed to be looked at in order to meet
required standards.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the bridge will be wider and
possibly have some kind of a median to separate pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
Director Davis advised that it will. It also will be wider;
the spans will be longer; it will accommodate pedestrians better
than it does now and will be much safer.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Pn°.., �e the Board unanimously authorized
the appropriation of an additional $2,000 from the
Road and Bridge Dept. account 111-214-541 to complete
the design of the replacement bridge over the Main
Relief Canal at the Vero Beach Country Club.
M. Final Plat Approval - Wolff Road
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: October 17, 1986 FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, P SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT FOR WOLFF ROAD
Planning & Deveylopm nt Director
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling �. REFERENCES: Wolff
Staff Planner STAN4
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 28, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION:
At their regular meeting of September 11, 1986 the Planning and
Zoning Commission granted conditional site plan approval to
Advance Pool Designs. A condition of approval stipulated that a
final plat must be filed, prior to release of site plans, to
establish the required amount of dedicated road frontage for the
site. At their regular meeting of September 25, 1986, the
14
Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval
for Wolff road The approved site plan will control all
development within the road right-of-way; the final plat will
legally establish a road right-of-way for the Advance Pool Design
site and the adjacent site Association documents submitted along
with the plat, will establish ownership and maintenance of the
road. -
The Advance Pool Design developer, Gordon R. Wolff, Jr., is now
requesting final plat approval for Wolff Road, located on the east
side of Old Dixie Highway, north of 4th Place S.W. The submitted
final plat and property owners association documents are in
conformance with the approved preliminary plat.
nnTnr.vcrc
The proposed road right-of-way, to be owned and maintained by a
private association, will provide future access for the property
immediately north of the road and will also serve as a utility
easement. Because this is a private road plat and not related to
a "subdivision" as defined in the subdivision ordinance, normal
subdivision road improvements are not required as a part of final
plat approval. The site plan provides for a paved driveway to be
located within the right of way.
County staff have verified that the final plat is acceptable. All
applicable County regulations regarding final plat approval have
been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for Wolff Road.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
-sione-r Ly -ons, the Board unanimously granted final
plat approval for Wolff Road as recommended by staff.
N. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application (Ted Zito)
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
� 5 BOOK 66 F'tuC
CT 2 8 196 -
OCT 2 8 198 -7
BOOK UD i',�GE 205
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 20, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
'R1 BJ ECT:
Robert 1.1. Kea in_g CP
Planning & Developient Director
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
TIONS
FROM: Roland M. DeBloisRA
REFERENCES: Zito/TM#87-029
Environmental Planning Section DIS:ROLAND
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 28, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION
FILE NO. 31-126003-4
- Applicant: Ted Zito
c/o Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960 0 —
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River in "North Hole", Section 3, Township 31 South, Range 39
East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland property
associated with the project is north of and adjacent to
Hallmark Ocean Subdivision on State Road A -1-A, located in the
unincorporated portion of the County.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a private
single T-shaped dock extending 58' waterward, with a 53' x 4'
main access pier and 20' x 5' terminal platform (total square
footage: 3120. No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are
proposed. No dredging or filling will be performed.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Plannin & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
- Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code
Review of the County plat map for the proposed project location
indicates that the submerged bottomlands of the area are
privately owned. In that the project bottomlands are privately
owned, it is staff's interpretation that the project is exempt
from requirements of Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative
` Code, relating to the Indian River Aquatic Preserve. The
applicant is still required, however, to verify ownership of the
bottomlands with the Department of Natural Resources.
16
� r �
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances has speci-
fic standards and criteria related to the construction of an
accessory dock prior to the establishment of a principal
structure, part. of which requires site plan review and the
posting of a $5,000.00 bond to assure that the dock is not used
prior to construction of the principal use. Also, the County
has specific requirements related to the alteration of
mangroves. Before County approval of the project, the
referenced standards and criteria must be satisfied and permits
obtained.
The extent to which the submerged bottomlands of the proposed
project area will be impacted has not been determined; the
effect of Indian River development on ecologically valuable
seagrass beds should be considered.
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 Regu-
lation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should coordinate with the D.N.R., to
determine if the project as proposed is located in the
Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to
requirements of Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative
Code.
2) No dock construction shall be permitted by Indian River
County for the project until requirements of all local
ordinances related to dock facilities and mangrove pro-
tection have been addressed.
3) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumula-
tive impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee;
4) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of the marina project on ecologically significant sub-
merged bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian
River.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward comments to the DER as set
out above.
O. Golden Sands Beach Park Grant Application
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Lyons, .the Board unanimously adopted Resolu-
tion 86-93 authorizing application to the DNR for
a matching fund grant for Golden Sands Park.
OCT 2 8 1986 17 POCK 66 F'AGiE206
OCT 2 8 1996 BOOK 66 PnF 207 _
RESOLUTION N0. 86-93
WHEREAS, THE HOARD OF COUNTY OONAII,SSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
intends to apply to the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for a
two-for-one (State/Applicant) matching fund grant from the Florida Recreation
Development Assistance Program; and
WH]MU AS, the total project cost will be $235,540, to be comprised of
$157,027 to be contributed by the State and $78,513 to be contributed by Indian
River County to make sorely needed improvements to the Indian River County
Golden Sands Park; and
WHEREAS, said BOARD OF COUNTY 00NMSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, does retain ownership, jurisdictional control, and maintain said park
and facilities; and
WHEREAS' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY has officially adopted a local comprehensive
Plan including a recreation and open space element pursuant to local government
comprehensive planning act of 1975, Chapter 163.3161, and all segments of the
public were offered an opportunity to Participate in the planning process
leading to adoption of the document; and
WFIF.REAS, IRIDIAN RIVER COUNTY has a program of public participation which
encourages involvement by all segments of the population within its
jurisdiction, including minorities and disadvantaged citizens, and a plan for
the selection of recreational projects; and
WHEREAS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY has committed the required program matching
contribution from the County General Fund to the proposed project which win
remain available until needed; and
WHEREAS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY has a physically and legally responsible
position to satisfactorily develop or acquire and develop, operate and maintain
the project site in accordance with program required; and
WHEREAS, continued maintenance and Proposed improvements to this public
beach Park facility will be in the interest of all the citizens of Indian River
County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By THE BOARD OF COUNTY 0024 SSICNEFS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, which was duly established by Special Act of the
Florida Statutes adopted on the 30th day of June, 1925, that this official
do=rbent does hereby certify the Board of County Commissioners intent and
agreement to apply for the above mentioned grant, and additionally to strive to
implement the proposed improvements as delineated in the Grant Application to
which this Resolution will be attached;'
AND FLRTFER THAT, Mr. Janes W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director of the
Indian River County Public Works Division, 1840 25th Street, veno Beach,
Florida, 32960, Phone (305) 567-8000, is hereby authorized to be the County
Liaison Person charged with the responsibility to prepare, plan, and coordinate
said application and developu ent program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution was passed by a vote of 5
to o , of the Commissioners present.
This 28th day of October , 1986.
BOARD -OF COUNTY COmMSSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
�G
Oxman
Don C. Scurlock, J
COPY OF GRANT APPLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK
TO THE BOARD . (Ot A P
C
18
M
PROCLAMATION - ARTS FESTIVAL WEEK
Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclamation
designating November 8th through November 16th, 1986, as ARTS
FESTIVAL WEEK and presented it to Dr. Cecily Delafield, Chairman
of the Indian River Arts Council.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, the Indian River Arts Council will sponsor an
ARTS FESTIVAL; and
WHEREAS, the ARTS FES)TIVAL gives Indian. River County
recognition as a focal point of culture and art appreciation all
along the east coast of Florida;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
November 8 through November 16, 1986 be designated as
ARTS FESTIVAL WEEK
in Indian River County; and
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board, on behalf of
itself and the citizens of Indian River County, expresses
appreciation to the Indian River Arts Council for giving this
fine program to our community, and urges the citizens of Indian
River County to support the ARTS FESTIVAL both in spirit and
financially.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
19MY66 F4F2Q�
PROCLAMATION HONORING JOSEPH C. NORRIS
BOOK 66 PA,UF
9
Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclamation.
honoring Joseph Norris, congratulated Mr. Norris on his service
record, and presented him with the proclamation and a plaque.
F ROC LAM A T I O N
A PROCLAMATION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, HONORING JOSEPH C. NORRIS
WHEREAS, Joseph C. Norris began work with Indian
River County Road & Bridge Department on October 29, 1974,
as an Equipment Operator II, and has been a diligent and
capable employee of Indian River County since that time; and
WHEREAS, in 1979 Joseph C. Norris was promoted to
the Sign Shop and then Foreman for the Traffic Engineering
Department, a title which he held for the last four years,
for a total of 12 years of dedicated service to Indian River
R
County; and
WHEREAS, Joseph C. Norris was a very loyal and
conscientious employee who exhibited a very thorouqh
understanding of the work he performed for Indian River
County; and
WHEREAS, Joseph C. Norris has retired as Foreman
of the Traffic Engineering Department of Indian River
County, Florida, effective the 30th day of October 1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, by and through its Board of County Commissioners,
that Indian River County expresses its gratitude to
JOSEPH C . NORR I S
for his fine employment record and contribution to Indian
River County, Florida, and wishes him a long and happy
retirement.
Dated this 28th day of October, 1986, in Vero
Beach, Indian River County, Florida.
BOARD OF COUNTY COIN- I I SS I ONERS
INDIAN FIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
c.. Scuck, Jr
20
- irman v
DISCUSSION.RE JUVENILE WELFARE BUREAU
The Chairman noted that we have received a letter from staff
of the Indian River Memorial Hospital, as follows:
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC
September 16, 1986
Board of County Commissioners
Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Board Members,
Michael J. O'Grady, Jr.
President
The Indian River Council of the Governor's Constituency for
Children is interested in establishing a Juvenile Welfare Board in
Indian River County. The Juvenile Welfare Services Act will
become effective October 1, 1986.
w t
I would like to request time on Octoberi•l, to have Mr. James
Mills, Executive Director of the Juvenile Welfare Bureau of
Pinellas County, address the County Commision to familiarize the
members with this project. Mr. Mills! presentation would take
approximately 15 minutes. Due to scheduling, it would be most
helpful if Mr. Mills could be first on the agenda.
I can be reached at 567-4311, extension 1116 if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
�1-a L4�;c.4,2 *CC_
Madeleine Laplante
Social Service Department
1000 36th Street Vero Beach. Florida 32960 (305) 567-4311
Chairman Scurlock then introduced James Mills, Executive
Director of the Juvenile Welfare Bureau of Pinellas County, who
made the following presentation:
The Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County
The citizens of Pinellas County
recognize the importance of
children in our society. Children
have needs for special safeguards
and care because of their physical
and emotional vulnerability.
The Juvenile Welfare Board of
Pinellas County is a unique model
nationally, for implementing a broad
range of services to children. It is
the only independent special taxing
district in the country established
In 1985, over 148,000 children
and adults received services in
such areas as adaption, child and
spouse abuse, counseling, day
care, foster care, family life educa-
tion, financial counseling, home-
maker services, information and
referral, juvenile delinquency,
mental health, mental retardation,
residential treatment, runaway
shelter, substance abuse preven-
tion, truancy prevention, and volun-
teer recruitment.
21
BOOK 6 6 PDGF 210
C'-
BOOK 6 6 PDGF 210
for the sole purpose of providing
services to childreri. JWB does not Because of its successful devel-
BOOK 66 r'";E�
provide services to children
opment of services to children in
directly, but funds the delivery
Pinellas County, the Juvenile
of service through other com-
Welfare Board will be used as a
munity agencies. JWB plans, co-
model for other such planning and
-
ordinates, funds and evaluates
funding social service organizations
services; addresses public issues
as they are created around "the
related to children; and provides
country.
technical support to child -serving
agencies and to the community at
targe. JWB also offers training
courses to professionals who
directly serve children and main-
tains a specialized library which
supports community activities on
Total Children Served
behalf of families and children.
78,181- e
JWB was established by special
Total Adults Served
state statute in 1945 and over-
70,637
whelmingly approved by the voters
of Pinellas County in a special
Total Persons Served
referendum in 1946. To implement
148,818
its mandate, the Board is em-
powered to assess an ad valorum
Total Families Served
tax of up to one-half mill (S.50 per
20,$54
$1,000 non-exempt property eval-
uation). In 1984 this assessment
*includes the licensing and mons
was .455 mill. YNB is a olannin-
toring of 18,647 day care place
anc
ments
the J to
66 programs operated ay 39
agencies.
Mr. Mills emphasized that the Juvenile Welfare Board has
never levied the full 1/2 mill they are allowed; that every
service ottered is handled by contract arrived at after
competitive bidding; and that this Board is made up of local
people making local decisions about what their problems and needs
are and how to deal with them.
Chairman Scurlock wondered if there is any option as to a
-dependent district rather than an independent district.
Mr. Mills did not believe so and noted that the issue of
relationship with county government often comes up. He advised
that they are doing a joint project right now with the Community
Development Block Grant Agency, which is county government, where
they pool their money, and they have also worked out a role in
the area of emergency assistance.
Commissioner Wodtke realized that Pinellas County has been
involved in this program since the 40's, but he felt the makeup
of the Board as set up in House Bill No. 55 is considerably
different from that of the Pinellas County Board. The Bill
22
requires a nine member board including the superintendent of
schools, a local school board member, the district administrator
of the Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, and one
member of the Board of County Commissioners, the other five
members to be appointed by the Governor. He expressed concern
about overlapping with the DHRS and emphasized that the only
involvement the Board of County Commissioners ever has with the
Juvenile Welfare Board is to take a vote and say if we want to
have a referendum. Nowhere in the Bill is there a procedure to
set up how the monies would be used prior to going to the
referendum. Commissioner Wodtke wished to know how other
counties are approaching this issue, i.e., whether they just say
they will vote for the establishment of such a board or whether
they have a study committee to explain what services we have,
where the deficiency is, and where the monies might be used.
Mr. Mills commented on the change in Board set up, noting
that two of the positions on their Board are reserved for
juvenile court judges; however, they only have one such judge so
far. Also, the separation of powers issue arose; it was ques-
tinned whetfe-r ii was appropriate for a a judge to sit on a body
such as this; and that is how the district administrator of the
DHRS came to be substituted on that board. Mr. Mills continued
to discuss their relationship to HRS and the question of
allocation of resources and advised that they do fund some
programs in HRS, supplemental things which HRS does..not have the
money to do, but they make an effort to be sure that local tax
money does not replace HRS money and they focus the Board's
dollars on preventative type services. He further noted that
they are prohibited from allocating any dollars to programs under
the sole jurisdiction of schools, but they do work with the
schools under a joint contracting process on many programs.
Chairman Scurlock noted that Indian River County is very
strong on desire for local control. He doubted we could pass
this type of legislation in our community without a much more
23 91 rt
OCT 2 8 1986 BOOK 6 Fq
ICT 2 8 1986 BOOK 66 PAjr 213
specific proposal and felt if we were to pursue a taxing vehicle
for this purpose, there would be a more appropriate way to
accomplish it and retain control.
Commissioner Wodtke discussed the possibility of a severe
cutback in HRS funding for programs for kids, and stated that
while he did not have any concern about going to the public and
asking if they would like to have a Juvenile Welfare Board, he
did feel it would need some in-depth study. He asked if an
independent district would be under our 10 mill cap, and Attorney V_
Vitunac advised that it is outside that cap.
Mr. Mills agreed that House Bill No. 55 raises a very
serious policy issue, but there are different ways to accomplish
this, and now that there is this enabling legislation, he felt
this will be debated. He emphasized that our childr-an are-
tomorrow's
rm
tomorrow's taxpayers, and some way needs to be identified to deal
with their problems. He advised that in two of the counties who
are going to have a ballot for referendum, one did a mini needs
assessment, and the other county is looking at the period between
the time such a board would be created and the time they could
levy, and they plan to secure a loan from the County Commission
to start their planning process if the measure is passed and then
be ready when budgettime comes. -
Commissioner Bird noted that we are a very volunteer
oriented county, but in spite of our best efforts, he did believe
there are many needs of the young people that are wanting. He
a
did not want to create a vehicle, however, that would detract
from the United Way and the volunteer effort.
Mr. Mills stated that in Pinellas County they have not seen
that the Juvenile Welfare Board has any negative effect on the
fund raising ability of other agencies.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that we are still getting
funding at Kiwanis-Hobart Park even though the County is spending
money there, and he felt the Friends of the Library still be able
to raise a good deal of money. Although Pinellas County
24
obviously has had a great deal of success, what bothered him is
whether this isn't just another step by the state to walk out on
more of their responsibilities. He did agree we undoubtedly have
greater needs than have come to the Commission's attention and
was in favor of some type of situation to meet those needs, but
the way this is set up, the County Commission which has responsi-
bility on the taxing side, has almost no input.
Commissioner Wodtke's other concern was that the controlling
number of the Board in House Bill No. 55 consists of appointments
by the Governor.
Discussion continued at length about the Board's concerns,
and Chairman Scurlock did not believe we can reach any decisions
today and we have many items on today's agenda.
Mr. Mills felt it was not the intent of the local group to
present a proposal for any action today. He continued to
emphasize, however, that the future is important and children's
needs are a very important issue to be faced.
Commissioner Bowman believed before we move further we
should have a needs assessment, and wondered what agency would be
qualified.
Administrato.r Balzcun requested that the Board take no
action today and refer this back to staff. He stated that he has
considerable difficulty with House Bill No. 55 which would create
a district outside the control of those who create the district.
He further pointed out that the Bill states that "books of
account shall be kept by the board or its clerical assistants,
and the fiscal affairs of the board shall be exclusively audited
by state auditors.."
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner.Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman to refer the matter of creation —
of a Juvenile Welfare Board back to staff for a
recommendation.
- -6�'T 2 8 1986 25 BOOK 66 FAU214-
I_-
I CT 2 8 86 BOOK 6�J Pt1Ur.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Motion includes getting the
various groups involved with this activity in the county to work
on determing the needs, and Administrator Balczun preferred that
staff address this first and then get the views of the
constituency.
Commissioner Wodtke preferred we do some in-depth study. He
noted that we have a Welfare Director and knew that the School
Board has concerns also. He mentioned various agencies we could
include in a needs assessment, such as foster homes, group homes,
child abuse prevention centers, etc., but felt this would take a
lot of coordination.
Commissioner Lyons stated that his Motion was simply to
refer the matter hack to the County Administrator, have staff
bring back a recommendation, and address the details at that
time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLEU FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bird wished to clarity where we are going from
here in addition to staff studying this and noted that he sees
Jill Hardin of the Governor's Constituency in the audience and
wondered if that would be the proper agency to bring the various
-agencies involved together and keep this moving along.
Ms. Hardin indicated she would be glad to help coordinate
this activity.
AMENDING SUBDIVISION S PLATTING ORDINANCE
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the tollowing Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
_ 26
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
'
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
Published Weekly
County sha liRiver
Florida. l hold a public hearing at which parr-
ttes In Interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
Cris tars of the County County l
Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach.
Florida, on Thursday, October 28. 1988, at 915
a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING AP -
PENDIX B OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE SUB -
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
DIVISION AND PLATTING ORDINANCE;
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES FOR
SPLITTING PLATTED LOTS; REQUIR-
ING TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES FOR
CERTAIN PROJECTS; ENSURING IM-
PROVEMENT OF EXISTING ROADS
UTILIZED BY PROJECTS; ALLOWING
+ _
�'''tom
PERMITTED LAND CLEARING AGTIVI
R TO THEOF
the matter of '�vl
LANDPDEVELOP ENTSPERMT;
-
THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES
OF
DIVISIONS PRIOR TO COMPLETIUPANCYI ON OF
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; RE -ES- I
TABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY AND I
PAVEMENT WIDTHS BY ROAD TYPE;
in the Court, was pub-
EXEMPTING SIDEWALK REQUIRE-
MENTS ON STREET SEGMENTS PER-
CUL-
CLOSE -ENDED CUL-
S
DE-SACS; INCLUDING CURVES IN LOT
DE-SACS; I
/
lished in said newspaper in the issues of . �1 r ''
FRONTAGE CORD DISTANCE STAND-
ARDS AND ESTABLISHING A METHOD
OF DETERMINING FRONT YARD SET-
A, 56 �r,S�/S/y� Q / OrO
BACKS FOR LOTS FRONTING ON CUL -
DE -SACS OR CURVES; AND PROVID- 1
T
ING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION. SEVER -
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
ABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
A copy of the proposed Ordinance will be
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
available at the Planning Department office on
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
the second Boor of the County Administration,
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
Building.
Anyone whom may wish to appeal any deci-
tisen-ent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
sion which may be made at this meeting will
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing_ this adver-
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
caeding is made which includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal will be
� � y
bad
Sworn to and subscribed bef re me is - day of � A.D.-1771-/
'
In is n Riveru ouuCtommtssioners
Commissioners
,Bordof
C(
By: -s- Don C. Scurlock.mi
Business Manager)
' ' . .
Chairman
Oct. 8, 1968 -
1
ver Countv. Florida)
Staff Planner Stan Boling made the following presentation:
T®: The Honorable Members of PATE: October 16,
1986 FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
- AMENDMENTS TO THE SUB -
Robert M. Keati g, P SUBJECT: DIVISION ORDINANCE
Planning & Development Director
�/1
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller MKm
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling REFERENCES: Subdivision
Staff Planner STAN4
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 28, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In June of this year�the Board of County Commissioners directed
staff to amend the subdivision ordinance to require certain'
27
!DCT 2 8 1 BOOK 66
BOOK 66 PnF 217
platted subdivision lot split requests to be heard by the Planning
and Zoning Commission, as well as the Board of County Commis-
sioners. Staff has now drafted such an amendment, as well as
seven other minor amendment proposals that would codify dxisting
county policies and alleviate some existing and potential
problems.
At their regular meeting of September 25, 1986, the Planning and
Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the
subdivision ordinance amendments as attached to this report.
ANALYSIS
The following is a description and analysis of each amendment
section.
1. Section 1
This section would require public hearings before the
Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Board of County
Commissioners for proposals to split lots in existing
subdivisions where the split would result in lots smaller
than the surrounding lots in the subdivision. The Board
cited the need for such a requirement because of the
neighborhood and planning issues involved in a single lot
split and subsequent similar splits. The proposed amendment
also sets forth criteria that mint be satisfied prior to
final approval of a lot split.
2. Section 2
Traffic impact analyses are presently required for site plan
projects generating more than 1,000 average daily trips.
However, no such requirement exists for large subdivisions.
Although no large subdivisions have been proposed in recent
years, a large non -DRI subdivision could generate up to 5,000
trips per day and would not, under current regulations, be
required to provide a full-scale traffic impact analysis.
The amendment would require a full-scale traffic impact
analysis, as specified in the site plan ordinance, for all
subdivisions that would generate over 1,000 trips per day.
3. Section 3
It has been County policy to require subdivision developers
to provide improvements to existing roads where the proposed
subdivision would utilize existing unpaved roads. Such
provisions for improvements have usually been accomplished
through the petition paving process, as was the case with the
Oslo Ridge subdivision located on 11th Lane S.W. The pro-
posed amendment gives the County the authority to deny a
subdivision proposal that does not provide for adequate
connections to the existing street network, including up-
grading of existing deficient roads that are to be utilized.
4. Section 4
At the time the current subdivision ordinance was adopted
(July, 1983), no land clearing permit process existed.
Consequently, under the subdivision ordinance, no clearing of
property to be subdivided was permitted prior to receiving a
land development permit (approved engineering/construction
drawings). However, land clearing permits can now be issued
prior to receiving a land development permit, pursuant.to the
land -clearing and tree protection ordinance. This amendment
would allow land clearing upon issuance of a valid land
clearing permit, and would bring the subdivision ordinance in
line with the land clearing and tree removal protection
ordinance requirements.
28
M r M
5, Section 5
Under current regulations, iti is possible for a family to
move into a house in a newly platted subdivision before all
road and drainage improvements have been completed. This can
occur if a developer has "bonded -out" for final plat
approval, sold -off a lot, and quickly built a house prior to
completion of required subdivision improvements. County
policy has been not to ,issue certificates of occupancy in
such situations. This amendment would codify the policy. If
adopted, staff will inform subdivision developers of this
requirement during pre -application conferences.
6. Section 6
As more non-residential and multi -family subdivisions are
platted, the need to relate required subdivision road widths
with required site plan road widths has become apparent.
This amendment would re-establish the subdivision ordinance
right-of-way and pavement width table to conform with site
plan requirements, where both subdivision and site plan
requirements will be applied to the project.
7. Section 7
According to current subdivision regulations, sidewalks are
required on both sides of new subdivision streets where
the applicable zoning district requires sidewalks. The RS -6
zoning district, adopted in 1385, requires sidewalks in all
subdivisions. It has come to staff's attention, through
review of a recent subdivision project, that sidewalks are
not warranted for certain subdivisions or portions of
subdivisions within the RS -6 district. Where subdivisions
contain a permanently dead-end cul-de-sac that does not
function as a through -way for vehicles or pedestrians (see
attachment #2), sidewalks are unnecessary. Since the length
of cul-de-sac segments and the number of lots fronting on
cul-de-sacs are already limited by subdivision regulations,
it is staff's opinion that certain cul-de-sacs would not
generate enough pedestrian traffic to warrant sidewalks.
Certain cul-de-sac segments would be exempted from sidewalk
requirements if this amendment is adopted.
8. Section 8
Normal lot width requirements do not currently apply to lots
fronting on cul-de-sacs. The reasoning for this is that the
cul-de sac is designed to limit street pavement and thus
frontage. County policy has been to apply the cul-de-sac
frontage "waiver" to lots fronting on certain types of road
curves as well. It is standard planning practice (found in
many subdivision regulations and in the County's old
regulations) to utilize a special front yard setback deter-
mination on lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and curves. On such
lots the front yard setback is usually established at a depth
from the street (toward the rear of the lot) where either the
minimum required lot width is achieved or where the normal
front yard setback line would occur, whichever depth is
greater (see attachment #3). This procedure encourages good
design and ensures the design of lots that have adequately
sized building areas. The proposed amendment codifies this
procedure for lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and curves. It
should be noted that this amendment only applies to_ new
subdivision lots, not existing lots.
The County Attorney's office has verified that the proposed
ordinance is acceptable as to form and legal sufficiency.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed subdivision ordinance amendments.
2 ��6
29
BOOK 66
OCT 2 8 1986 BOOK 66 U'u,F 1�
Commissioner Wodtke asked if this applies only in platted
subdivisions and not those divided by metes and bounds, and he
also wished -to know who pays all the costs that would be involved
in the splitting of lots.
Planner Boling advised that metes and bounds properties
would not be included and the applicant would pay for the costs
involved, advertising, etc., according to our fee schedule.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the Board members had any
questions on the eight amendments.
Commissioner Wodkte wanted an example of the amendment pro-
posed in Section 3, and Planner Boling referred to Mr. Lawhon's
Oslo Ridge Subdivision which came before the Board a while back
where they utilized the petition paving process to pave 11th Lane
SW because some of their lots were fronting on it. That demon-
strates where it has been a policy of this Board to do this for
the last several years, and this would just include it in the
ordinance.
Commissioner Bird questioned how Section 5 changes our
current situation, and Planner Boling explained that it simply
will codify our policy and put developers on notice that certifi-
cates of occupancy will not be issued before the required
subdivision improvements are completed.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if staff is saying the entire
thing has to be done or is there some flexibility, and Planner
Boling advised that developers are able to do their project in
phases.
Commissioner Lyons had questions on Section 6 relating to
required road widths as he wondered how wide roads should be in
some developments, how wide we have to pave, and whether this is
narrow enough as some of these roads get hardly any use.
Planner Boling referred to the following table on page 8 of
the proposed ordinance and advised that staff did have a request
to add a footnote:
30
SECTION 6
Amend Section 10(c)(2) of Appendix B, Indian River
County Code of Laws and Ordinances as follows:
(2) Minimum street widths.
9
Marginal access roads 40 (ease- *20
ment or right
-of-way
*The minimum required pavement width is 22' for two-way
streets servicing, projects requiring site plan approval.
Two-way streets and access roads servicing heavy commercial or
industrial uses shall have a minimum pavement width of 24'.
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that we want to acquire enough
right -o -f -way -at -least, and Commissioner Lyons believed that
"Minimum Right -of -Way" applies to acquired R/W, not paving.
Planner Boling informed the Board that the proposed footnote
would state 12" for each lane for arterial and primary and
secondary collector roads; if you are pretty far out and you do
have a primary collector street, it may only need to be two lane
for quite some time. Minor residential streefs and marginal
access roads would be 201. Director Keating noted that under
ITE standards 20' is really at the bare minimum.
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the problem involved with
minimum R/W width when you have a situation with canal district
R/W, and asked if the possibility of reserving but not dedicating
R/W "in that situation would be allowable under these standards.
Director Keating advised it would not be, but noted that
staff has made some amendments recently to the site plan
OCT 2 8 1986 31 BOOK 66 O;r 2 0
Minimum
Minimum
Right -of -Way
Pavement
Width
Width
Street Types
(feet)
(feet)
Arterial
120
48
Primary collector streets
100
48
Secondary collector streets
80
36
Subdivision feeder roads
60
24
Minor or residential streets
60
_ *20
(with swale drainage)
Minor or residential streets
50
*20
(closed drainage, curb and
utter)
9
Marginal access roads 40 (ease- *20
ment or right
-of-way
*The minimum required pavement width is 22' for two-way
streets servicing, projects requiring site plan approval.
Two-way streets and access roads servicing heavy commercial or
industrial uses shall have a minimum pavement width of 24'.
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that we want to acquire enough
right -o -f -way -at -least, and Commissioner Lyons believed that
"Minimum Right -of -Way" applies to acquired R/W, not paving.
Planner Boling informed the Board that the proposed footnote
would state 12" for each lane for arterial and primary and
secondary collector roads; if you are pretty far out and you do
have a primary collector street, it may only need to be two lane
for quite some time. Minor residential streefs and marginal
access roads would be 201. Director Keating noted that under
ITE standards 20' is really at the bare minimum.
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the problem involved with
minimum R/W width when you have a situation with canal district
R/W, and asked if the possibility of reserving but not dedicating
R/W "in that situation would be allowable under these standards.
Director Keating advised it would not be, but noted that
staff has made some amendments recently to the site plan
OCT 2 8 1986 31 BOOK 66 O;r 2 0
BOOK F�;c. 291
ordinance where reservations are allowed under two circumstances
- one where you have a minor site plan, and the other where you
ha-ve some existing structures in the area that R/W would be
acquired. R/W dedication always has been a problem, and he
believed the R/W widths in this are minimums. In addition, in
the last year, methods have been developed which make it a lot
fairer, i.e., where you get credit on your impact fees if you
donate R/W and also being allowed to use the R/W in computing
overall density.
Commissioner Wodtke continued to express concern about
agricultural areas in which there is some residential and the
problems involved with the requirements of the drainage district
on R/W.
Chairman Scurlock felt it would be much simpler to pay
everyone for the R/W we take. It is too confusing now, and he
felt we are inconsistent - some are donating R/W and some are
being paid top dollar.
Public Works Director Davis believed that timing is an
important issue. If the county is ready to move in a certain
corridor, we get a mixture of different R/W acquisitions. It a
paving petition is submitted and we have a large majority
consenting, then we try to get as much R/W donated as is needed
for those improvements.
Director Keating advised that the Legislature passed a law
last year that allows for road reservations but there are a lot
of limitations; the reservation is only good for five years, and
people are allowed to challenge you in court and sue. He
believed that a lot of our needs are 40-50 years down the road.
Commissioner Lyons emphasized that this matter of reserving
R/W is of extreme importance to this county, and he felt we
should go to our legislative delegation about this.
Chairman Scurlock agreed there is no question we must
reserve the R/W, and the only question is who pays for it.
32
i1mi7-7
M M M
Director Davis pointed out that we have been mandated to
adopt a Land Use Plan and we also are mandated to have a
Thoroughfare Plan. If we allow people to build to encroach on
our Thoroughfare Plan, we are in violation of our Land Use Plan,
but because of legislation, it is difficult to implement this.
Chairman Scurlock believed the direction of the Commission
is to develop a game plan to present to our legislative
delegation.
Commissioner Lyons had trouble with the phrase "cul-de-sac
segments" in Section 7 and wished to know how "segment" is
defined.
After some discussion, Director Keating believed if we added
wording saying "it begins at the cross street and goes to the
termination of the cul-de-sac;" that would be specifying the
exact termination and beginning point.
Commissioner Lyons wished to know if a cul-de-sac is three
blocks long, for instance, whether the whole three blocks would
be exempted.
Planner Boling explained that cul-de-sac segments themselves
are- I imfited--by the Subdivision Ordinance.
Commissioner Lyons noted out that the word "cord" is
misspelled throughout the ordinance and should be corrected to
"chord." He continued that he also had trouble in Section 8 with
measuring perpendicular to the back lot line because that can be
on the bias too. He is trying to understand the midpoint in
these lots and how you find the two midpoints -to connect.
Director Keating agreed the term "midpoint" should be
further defined.
Commissioner Lyons felt if the front is going to be the
chord line, you can take the center of that and then the center
of the back lot line, even if it is on the bias, because if you
run it perpendicular, you could miss the front lot altogether.
Planner Boling agreed that would be correct because the line
OCT 2 8 1986 33
�00r. 66 F,�n 222
BOOK 66 FrvE 2?3
is supposed to run from the middle of the front to the middle of
the back yard.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that the proposed amendment
only applies to new subdivisions and asked if we cannot apply it
to old ones as well.
Planner Boling explained these requirements are in the sub-
division section for new subdivision applications, and if this
were to be applied to existing lots, we don't know all the
existing configurations and this could cause problems of which we
may not be aware.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Fred Mensing of Roseland wished some c ! a r i f i ca t i on . He
noted that the north end of the county Vas subdiyide-cL into 5 acre -
lots years ago, and does this mean people now cannot split these.
Planner Boling advised that the Subdivision Ordinance would
apply to creation of three or more lots for any piece of land in
the county.
Mr. Mensing understood that, but he wished to know in the
event someone has five acres of land and wants to split it and
deed half to his kids whether he has to come in to subdivide.
Planner Boling explained that if you are splitting off a
piece that has not been split off since July 20, 1983, you can do
a one-time split before you meet the definition of a subdivision.
Mr. Mensing asked if this will ban someone who has a tract
of land from clearing it if they don't want to subdivide and
develop it, and Planner Boling advised that the Land Clearing and
Tree Removal Ordinance would take care of that.
Mr. Mensing then noted that there are a number of singly
owned 5 acre tracts in Roseland where it appears the way to
subdivide would be "U" shaped loops and do them as a one-way
street rather than create deadend streets. There.is no provision
for that in the road widths, and he felt 20-22' wide streets
34
� r �
� r �
would seem excessively wide if they are going to be allowed to
create one-way streets.
Commissioner Lyons read from Sec. 6 of our existing
ordinance: "The R/W width for one-way private streets may be
reduced from the above standards as approved by the Public Works
Director and the Director of the Planning and Development Divi-
sion."
Mr. Mensing felt that would cover it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-70 amending the Subdivision and Platting
Ordinance including the changes set out in the
foregoing discussion.
UT 2 8 19986 35 BOOK U6 F,kuE 22
OCT 8 1986
BOOK
ORDINANCE NO. 86-70
AN ORDI. A2.= OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING APPENDIX B OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND'
ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE SUBDIVISION AND
PLATTI\G ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES
FOR SPLITT NG PLATTED LOTS; REQUIRING TRAFFIC
IMPACT A•1r�-'iSES FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS; ENSURING
IMPROVaMEXT OF EXISTING ROADS UTILIZED BY
PROJECTS; ALLOWING PERMITTED LAND CLEARING
ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A LAND
DEVELOP1ENT PERMIT; PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE
OF CERTIF_CATES OF OCCUPANCY WITHIN SUBDIVI-
SIONS PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF REQUIRED IM-
PROVE:•4ENTS; REESTABLISHING RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
PAVEMENT i'iIDTHS BY ROAD TYPE; EXEMPTING
SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS ON STREET SEGMENTS
PERMANENTLY CLOSE -ENDED BY CUL-DE-SACS;
INCLUDING CURVES IN LOT FRONTAGE CHORD
DISTANCE STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHING A METHOD
OF DETERIMINING FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR LOTS
FRONTING ON CUL-DE-SACS OR CURVES; AND PRO-
VIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
Section 6(y) of Appendix B, Indian River County Code
of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
(A) Unlawful activity. It shall be unlawful and
subject to the penal -ties provided herein for any person to:
(1) Create a
subdivision
without first
complying
with the
provisions of
this -ordinance
and filing
a plat approved by the Board of County Commis-
sioners unless exempt under section 6(b) or
6(c). The dividing of land into two (2) parcels
wit?:cut filing a plat under the provisions of
this ordinance, where the land divided was the
result of a previous division of land into two
(2) parcels which occurred after the date o
adcpzion of this ordinance, is prohibited.
CODING: Words in Orrt�¢l�fi� hA type are deletions from existing
law. vorca underlined are additions
")1-
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 70
(2) Divide property by any means for the purpose of
sale or transfer of title unless each of the
resulting parcels has at least the minimum area,
width and depth requirements prescribed by the
zoning regulations and land use plan of Indian
Riven County as applied to the lots created,
unless exempt under section 6(b).
(3) Divide property by any means where the resulting
lots have frontage on a dedicated public or
private right-of-way (street) less than the
minimum lot width of the zoning district appli-
cable to the lots created, unless exempted under
section 6(b) or the lot fronts upon a cul-de-sac
and meets the requirements of section
10 (g) (3) (e) .
(4) Commence the construction of any improvements
required under this ordinance or commence
land -clearing or grubbing, without first having
obtained a land development permit from Indian
River- County or fail to construct or maintain
improvements in accordance with the land devel-
opment permit, plat approvals or this ordinance.
(5) Create a public or private street without
platting in accordance with the applicable
provisions of this ordinance.
(6) Divide any lot in a platted subdivision, that
was approved by the Board of County Commissioners, in a manner
which results in construction sites smaller than the
CODING: Words in 4tttOXft4t7i type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
OCT 2 8 1986 -2- BOOK 66 rKE�'�6
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 70
BOOK 66 F"F -
surrounding lots i^ the subdivision unless approved by the
County Commission after: A 0kij6X4¢/A4At4At.
a. The planning and Zoning Commissi=on at •a public
hearing reviews the request and makes a recommendation to the
Board of County Conriissioners, and
b. The Board of County Commissioners at a public
hearing, approves, approves with conditions, or denies the
request.
Written notice of the public KOa4IA4 hearings shall be mailed
r
certified to the owner of each lot in the subdivision at least
fifteen (15) days in advance of each hearing. Prior to
approval of a lot split, the Board of County Commissioners
shall determine that:
no substantial negative neighborhood impacts are
anticipated as a result of the split or subsequent
similar neighborhood lot splits;
the resulting lots conform to the applicable county
zoning requirements and state regulations;
the resulting lots are buildable under current
regulaticns;
no substantial adverse impacts on existing infra-
structure are,anticipated, as the result of the split
or subsec-,!ent similar neighborhood lot splits, via
the resulting increase in density or intensity of
use; and.
the applicant has adequately demonstrated that no
recorded deed restrictions or covenants prohibit the
division or splitting of lots.
CV( MTnM 7
Section 7(d)(5) of Appendix B, Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
CODING: Words in stt�AOXf Uto type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 70
7(d)(5) Additional information required (preliminary
plat). In addition to the information required to appear on
the preliminary plat, the applicant shall supply the County
with the following:
a. An aerial photograph depicting the boundary lines of
the project shall be supplied together with a survey
of the existing site certified by a registered land
I
urveyor indicating that the survey meets the minimum
technical standards for land surveying in Florida
r
pursuant to Florida Statutes section 472.07 and
chapter 21HH-6.01, Florida Administrative Code, as
supplemented and amended from time to time, with
contour lines at one -foot intervals showing the
following information:
1.
Watercourses and
all free-flowing wells, if
any,
2.
All water bodies
showing the approximate
mean
high high waterline,
3. All environmentally sensitive land as defined by
the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan,
4. All trees identified as required by the Indian
River County Tree Protection Ordinance,
5. Coastal construction control line. (Ord. No.
85-62 S3, 7-17-85).
b. A description of existing site conditions including:
1. Soil conditions and analysis,
2. The groundwater table,
3. Drainage pattern on site and within two hundred
(200) feet of the site boundary,
CODING: Words intype are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
- OCT 2 8 1906 -4- BOOK PA-U���
BOOF Gr
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 70
4. Vegetation,
5. Floodplain data on site and within two hundred
(200) feet of the subject site.
C. A sketch showing:
1. Any existing water management or utility facil-
ities,
2. Proposed stormwater management plan and control
facilities and general grading plan,
W
3. Utility sources, distribution and collection
lines, if available, including but not limited
to water, sewer, electricity, cable television
and telephone,
4. The proposed locations of street lights, side-
walks and bike paths, if any,
5. The proposed finished grade elevations of all
lots.
d. A general description of the subdivision including:
1. Number of lots,
2. Approximate area of the lots,
3. Approximately building size and type,
4. Projected use of building(s),
5. Proposed phases of the subdivision,
® 6. Proposed open space, public and private,
7. Drafts of proposed deed restrictions, protective
covenants, intended dedications, proposed
property owner association documents, or a
written description of proposed content of such
documents if they are not available,
CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
- �5-
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 70
8. For, projects of more than forty (40) gross
acres, a review report considering the effect
the project will have on existing:
(a) Streets (traffic impact),
(b) Utilities,
(c) Schools,
(d) Hospital services,
(e) Recreation,
(f) Prime aquifer recharge areas,
(g) Area wide drainage
For purposes of calculating the gross acreage of a
project, all planned phases and areas of development
to be platted shall be included.
9. For projects generating/ attracting at build -out
one thousand (1,000) trips per day or more, a
traffic impact analysis, in accordance with
Section 23.3(d)(2) of the site plan review
standards, shall be submitted and approved. For
purposes of calculating trips, all planned
phases and areas of development shall be inclu-
ded. Trip generation rates (that are acceptable
to the Public Works director) shall be used .
SECTION 3
Section 7(d)(8)a. of Appendix B, Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
a.
No preliminary plat shall
be approved
if
it:
1)
Fails to comply with all
ordinances
of
Indian
River County, including but not limited to the comprehensive
CODING: Words intype are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
®NT BOOK 6 F�Jr 20�a
i66 -6-
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 70
BOOK 66 Ff{,F 231
plan, the zoning regulations, this ordinance, the storm water
management and flood protection ordinance and the Indian River
-- County Standard Design Specifications; - - -
2) Adversely affects the community or neighborhood
in which the project is located;
3) Fails to provide adequate street connectors with
the existing street network, which may include off-site im-
provements to and paving of the existing street network that
accesses and serves the project, to ensure free access and
circulation or creates a traffic impact that lowers the level
W
of service on any existing street below level,of service C (see
section 10(a);
4) Fails to comply with AtAfflXA010t regulations or
rules established by other governmental agencies with juris-
dictions over any aspect of the projeet.
SECTION 4
Section 7(d)(13) of Appendix B, Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
1.3) Land Development Prior to Approval Prohibited.
No construction, land clearing or grubbing, with the exception
of test facilities and minor underbrushing, and clearing
activities permitted pursuant to a valid land clearing permit,
may begin until a Land Development Permit has been issued by
Indian River County.
CODING: Words in 4ttUgi-t 4 type are deletions from existing.
law. Words underlined are additions
M -7- M
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 70
SECTION 5
Establish Section 8(a)(6) of Appendix B, Indian River
County Code of Laws and Ordinances as follows:
6) No certificates of occupancy for residential
occupancy for any structure within a subdivision shall be
issued until all required improvements of the subdivision or
appropriate phase have been accepted by the County or, where
required improvements are dedicated to a private association,
until all required improvements have been completed and
approved by the County.
CVOMTnTT L
Amend Section 10(c)(2) of Appendix B, Indian River
County Code of Laws and Ordinances as follows:
(2) Minimum street widths.
*The minimum width shall be 12 feet per lane
**The minimum required pavement width is 22' for two-way
streets servicing projects requiring site plan approval.
Two-way streets and access roads servicing heavy commercial or
industrial uses shall have a minimum pavement width of 241.—
CODING: Words in 4t"Okht4t[ type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
-8-
BOOK 6 F'.GF 232
UT 8 1986
Minimum
Minimum
Right -of -Way
Pavement
Width
Width
Street Types
(feet)
(feet)
Arterial
120
*24-48
Primark: collector streets
100
*24-48
Secondary collector streets
80
*24-36
Subdivision feeder roads
60
24
Minor or residential streets
60
**20
(with swale drainage)
Minor or residential streets
50
**20
o (closed drainage, curb and
gutter)
Marginal access roads
40 (ease-
**20
ment or right
-of-way
*The minimum width shall be 12 feet per lane
**The minimum required pavement width is 22' for two-way
streets servicing projects requiring site plan approval.
Two-way streets and access roads servicing heavy commercial or
industrial uses shall have a minimum pavement width of 241.—
CODING: Words in 4t"Okht4t[ type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
-8-
BOOK 6 F'.GF 232
UT 8 1986
OCT 1986
r
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - -0
The board may require the increase of right-of-way and
pavement widths if it finds that the me-dification in width is
consistent with the projected traffic reeds and good engineer-
ing practice. No variance will be Granted on minimum right-
of-way widths for public streets. Richt-of-way widths for.
one-way private streets may be reduced from the above standards
as approved by the public works directcr and the director of
the planning and development division.
SECTION 7
Amend Section 10(e)(1) of Appendix B, Indian River
County Code of Laws and Ordinances as follows:
1) Locations. Sidewalks shall be provided on one
side of all arterial and collector streets and school access
routes, and both sides of minor and marginal access streets
located within a subdivisions set forth in the zoning regu-
lation district applicable to the property, with the following
exception. Sidewalks are not required a1cnq street segments of
minor residential streets servicing single-family lots which:
a. terminate in a cul-de-sac whe=t future extension of
the street beyond the cul-de-sac is not needed as
determined by the county traffic engineer;
b. the public works director determines that the street
segment is not a pedestrian school access route; and
C. said segments shall run frcm the cul-de-sac to the
nearest cross -street.
CODING: Words in 4UIUXW4 type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 70
SECTION 8
Amend Section 10(g)(3)e of Appendix B, Indian River
County Code of Laws and Ordinances as follows:
The chord distance of lots that abut a cul-de-sac or
curves where lot lines are radial from the road right-of-way
shall be no less than thirty (30) feet. Said minimum chord
distance shall be deemed to satisfy lot frontage requirements
Where the lot frontage is less than the minimum lot width
required by the zoning code (for parcels fronting upon a
cul-de-sac or curve), the buildinq setback distance is the
minimum required by the zoning code, or the distance to the
point where the lot width equals the minimum width required by
the zoning code, whichever is greater. Lot widths shall be
measured at a right angle to the chord line. Required front
yard setbacks that exceed the minimum required by the zoning
code shall be shown on preliminary and final plats
SECTION 9
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING SECTIONS
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 unincor-
porated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with
the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the
extent of such conflict.
CODING: Words in 4U7A0X-At to type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
®UT 2 8 1966 -10- BOOK �b Pt,�C 234
r OCT, 2 8 M6
ORDINANCE NO. 86 — 70
SECTION 10
BOOK 66 Pb Gr 235
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporat
ed into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed
to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the
sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to
accomplish such intentions.
SECTION 11
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase
or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be uncon-
stitutional, 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 12
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effec-
tive upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of
official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with
the Department of State.
CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions
i�RI?I\_';:E NO. 86 - 70
Approved and adopted bn -:.he Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, on this28 day of October
1986. -
="RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Z?' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., C I N
Boa 66 P,�i-; . 236
OCT 2 8 1986
Acknowledgment by the Depar rent of
State of the
State of
Florida this 31st day of October
1986.
m
,
Effective Date: Acknowledc_--_nt from the Department
of State
received on this 5th iav of
November ,
1986 at 11:00
A.M./P.M. and filed in t',e office of
the Clerk of the Board of
=ounty Commissioners of India:. River
County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
APPROVED AS TO
PLANNING
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
MATTERS.
BRUCE BARKETT, ASSIST,;UNT-
ROBERT KEATI
D CTOR
COUNTY ATTORNEY
PLANNING AND D
VE PMENT
Boa 66 P,�i-; . 236
OCT 2 8 1986
OCT 2 8 1936 BOOK 6 6 P,1fF237
LAND_CLEARING/TREE REMOVAL VIOLATION - DAVID ELLER 8 JIM BOUDE.1
Chairman Scurlock noted that the Board has received the
fallowing letter requesting a delay of this item until a later
meeting.
P.O. Box 10268
1000 San Jose, Costa
(506) 23-37-80
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Gentlemen:
`c4+Z5Z6?�
James L. Boudet
•� c'�
President
OCT 1586
IRECEIVED
P.O. Box 2131
�OBIi7Y
t9 b4RI=);)-
Vero Beach, FL 32960
rr AAML%t r N=.- ----
(3057562-9105
October 24, 1986
This is to inform you that I have acted upon the request
of Relle Properties, Inc. of Deerfield Beach, Florida, to have
a piece of industrial property underbrushed on Oslo Road adja-
cent to the Oceanspray and Hercules plants.
I have been cited by the Enviromental Planning Section
of the Commission for the removal of certain endangered tree
species. We received notification of this action on September
12, 1986. A response was made to Mr. Roland DeBlois on Sep-
tember 12, 1986 by Mr. -David Eller. We have requested a hearing
on two different occasions, but due to the workload of the
commission, we were unable to schedule during the last six
weeks.
We have just received notice that we are on the agenda
for October 28, 1986. I informed Mr. DeBlois that there was
no possible way that Mr. Eller or I could attend this hearing.
I will be in Costa Rica for the next three weeks and Mr. Eller
has informed me that due to serious business conflicts he will
also be unable to attend this hearing.
Therefore, we respectfully request a hearing in the latter
part of November so that both of us can ,coordinate our schedules
to attend. Thank you for your consideration.
With best regards,
James L. Boudet
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to authorize staff to set a
date for a hearing to coincide with the time
requested by Mr. Boudet.
37
Chairman Scurlock commented that it seems a land owner hires
someone to do clearing for him and is embarrassed. He did not
think we are doing enough to the company who is doing this
clearing and wondered if we cannot take the position that the
people doing the clearing should be fined and possibly remove
their license.
Commissioner Wodtke believed we had recommended at an
earlier time that staff go to the Tax Collector and send a notice
to anyone with a License to do land clearing. He advised that he
had talked to Mr. Boudet who said the land clearer had been
recommended, but he did not know whether he had an occupational
license or not.
Planner DeBlois informed the Board that staff has not been
successful in Locating the land clearer involved.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT HICKORY LANE - ALLEN 8 ZEDEK
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:
OT 2 8 1986 38
eooK 66 F,�,F 238
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
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 weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
al/l.f ; TL
- t
in the matter of
in the ry Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper publishe=d at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed
(SEAL)
me
it -��'-%C1t�
(Clerk of the Circuit
Y'—A.D. l
1
(Business Manager)
Indian River County, Florida)
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
BOOK 66 u1iE 239
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETI-
TION FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT,
AND VACATION OF TWO SECTIONS OF RIGHT-
OF-WAY LYING WEST OF LOTS 8 AND 9 ATI
THE WEST END OF HICKORY SANDS SUBDIVI-!
SION. SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Parcel 1:
Legal description for right-of-way adja-
cent to lot S. Hickory Sands Subdivision
as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 64:
THE WEST 35.00 FEET OF HICKORY
SANDS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
5, PAGE 64, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SAID WEST 35.00 FEET LYING NORTH
OF THE WESTERLY PROJECTION OF
THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF HICKORY LANE AS SHOWN ON THE
AFOREMENTIONED PLAT OF HICKORY
SANDS.
AND
Parcel 2:
For right -of way adjacent to lot 9, Hick-
ory Sands Subdivision as recorded in
Plat Book 5, Page 64.
THE WEST 35.00 FEET OF HICKORY
SANDS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
5, PAGE 64, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
SAID WEST 35.00 FEET LYING SOUTH
OF THE WESTERLY PROJECTION OF
THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF HICKORY LANE AS SHOWN ON THE
AFOREMENTIONED PLAT OF HICKORY
SANDS.
A public hearing at which parties' in interest'
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
tration Building, located at -t840 25th- Street,
Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday. October 28,
1986. at 9:45 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 wai be
based. — -
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Oct. 8.1986
TO: The Honbrable Members of DATE: October 15, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
'�2LL7 RIGHT-OF-WAY
Robert M. Ke ing ' AICP SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY
Planning & Drel ment Director DONALD ALLEN
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller 140A
Chief, Current Development
FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES: Allen
Staff Planneruorew DAVE3
ABANDONMENT
MR. AND MRS.
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 28, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Mr. & Mrs. Donald Allen have submitted a right-of-way abandonment
petition on behalf of themselves and a neighboring property owner,
39
Paul & Carol Zedek. The Allens and Zedeks each own the eastern
most lots (Lots 8 & 9) in Hickory Sands Subdivision. The ROW in
question was platted as a part of Hickory Sands Subdivision and is
a half -street ROW that is 35 feet wide and runs the length of both
lots for a distance of 152 feet. The half -street ROW was
dedicated in anticipation that the future road alignment for 10th
Avenue would abut Lots 8 & 9. The petitioners are requesting that
the County abandon these two. parcels of. ROW since the subsequent
pattern of platting has rendered the two parcels of right-of-way
as non-functional. The petitioners would continue to maintain and
fill the two parcels to eliminate water stagnation and insect
breeding if the ROW is aba-ndoned.
The petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility
providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way, as per
guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners for
processing right-of-way abandonment applications. All reviewing
agencies,, which included the Public Works Division, the Utilities
Division, Florida Power and Light and Southern Bell, recommended
approval of the petition for abandonment. However, the County
Public Works and Utilities Departments as well as several other
utilities providers have requested that these portions of right-
of-way proposed for abandonment be granted to the County as a
drainage and utilities easement. The petitioners are in agreement
with the request.
ANALYSIS
These 35 foot wide unimproved parcels of right-of-way are not part
of the roadway system noted on the County Thoroughfare Plan, and
their need as such is not anticipated. As was previously men-
tionedithese parcels were originally dedicated for 10th Avenue
right-of-way. However, when the Pinecrest Subdivision Units 1 & 2
were platted to the west, 10th Avenue was developed 145 feet north
of these parcels, and Pinecrest Subdivision Unit 3 was platted
south of the Hickory Sands Subdivision, thus causing lots to be
platted around the two parcels in question and rendering them to
be land locked and totally useless without any connection to any
other street.
In a usual abandonment case, the right-of-way would be split
equally with 50% of the ROW going to each property abutting it.
However, in this case, because the right-of-way was dedicated
entirely from the Hickory Sands Plat, and the lots other than the
petitioners' lots were created by other subdivision activity, the
entire right-of-way should be deeded to the petitioners. Each
petitioner would receive that parcel which abuts his respective
property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County abandon its rights to the two 35
foot wide portions of right-of-way, with the exception of the
requested drainage and utilities easement, and authorize the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the
attached resolution (Attachment #3).
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
_ - 40
OCT 2 8 1986 Boor 240
BOOK 66 F -AG 241
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
Resol-ution 86-94 abandoning two parcels of right-of-
way north and south of Hickory Lane as requested by
Donald Allen.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-94
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN -
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, AND
VACATION OF TWO PARCELS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE PARCEL 1 LIES NORTH
OF THE HICKORY LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WHERE PARCEL 2 LIES SOUTH OF
THE HICKORY LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BOTH PARCELS BEING WITHIN THE
HICKORY SANDS SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 64 OF
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AND RESERVING UNTO
THE COUNTY AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, on June 5, 1986, the County received a duly executed
and documented petition from Mr., and Mrs. Donald Allen, 975 5th
Place, Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the County to close,
vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title, and interest of
the County and the public in and to all that portion of two
parcels of right-of-way where parcel 1 lies north of the Hickory
Lane right-of-way and where parcel 2 lies south of the Hickory
Lane right-of-way, both parcels being within the Hickory Sands
Subdivison as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 64 of the Official
records of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice
of a public hearing - to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said right-of-
way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any
municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of
the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any
given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the
public in and to those certain right-of-ways being known more
particularly described as:
Parcel 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO LOT 8,
HICKORY SANDS SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5,
PAGE 64.
The west 35.00 feet of Hickory Sands as recorded in
Plat Book 5, Page 64, of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida, said west 35.00 feet
lying North of the westerly projection of the
northerly right-of-way line of Hickory Lane as.
shown on the aforementioned Plat of Hickory Sands.
41
u
Parcel 2
AND
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO LOT 9,
HICKORY SANDS SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5,
PAGE 64.
The west 35.00 feet of Hickory Sands as recorded in
Plat Book 5, Page 64, of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida, said west 35.00 feet
lying South of the westerly projection of the
southerly right-of-way line of Hickory Lane as
shown on the aforementioned Plat of Hickory Sands.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, dis-
continued, remised and released with the exception that drainage
and utility easements, on and over the entire parcels described
above are hereby reserved in perpetuity unto the County and the
public and shall not be deemed to have been closed or abandoned in
any way by this resolution.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be
forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the -date of
adoption hereof; and
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke 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 Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 28thday of October , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDI N RIVER CO NTY RIDA
BY: i G
Don Scur ock, JI C
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT COBIE CIRCLE -VINCENT KOUSPOS
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:
BOOK PAU 242
42
CT 2 8 1986
L_
OCT 2.8 1986
Boos 66 Fn')r 243
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
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 weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of r fQ C 7 % i• C
in the Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of (- (• �7 '
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befcAe me
(SEAL)
of rte.
A.D.
`I,1 / `v 1 r ,)-= -[Business Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cour, 6ndian River County, Florida)
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
43
NOTICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETI_
TION FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT,
M -
AND VACATION OF 1ST PLACE. MORE CO
MONLY KNOWN AS COBIE CIRCLE, BETWEEN
14TH AVENUE AND 15TH AYENUE IN INDIAN
RIVER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION UNIT 4. SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY "
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Desction: ALOF
COME CIRC ELASHAT SHOWN ONNTHE
PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER HEIGHTS; UNIT
4, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6,
PAGE 86, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 14TH AVE-
NUE. BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE
EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 15TH AVE-
NUE. BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY
LOTS 5 AND 6. BLOCK H OF AFORE-
SAID SUBDIVISION: AND BOUNDED ON
THE SOUTH BY LOTS 1 AND 17,
BLOCK C. OF SAID SUBDIVISION.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be .
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River Coun, Florida, in the i
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
tration Building, located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach. Florida, on Tuesgaytobe
1986, at -9i45 a.m. , Ocr 28.
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 River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Oct 8, 1986
TO: TheHonorableMembers of DATE: October 15, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
Robert M. Kedt:rrig, AI SUBJECT: PETITION SUBMITTED BY
Planning & Devehlopme Director MR. & MRS. VINCENT KOUSPOS
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller MKM
Chief, Current Development
FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES: Kouspos
Staff Planner 0&.64 DAVE3
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 28, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Mr. & Mrs. Vincent Kouspos have submitted a right-of-way
abandonment petition requesting that the County ab --don a portion
of 1st Place, also known as Cobie Circle, which 1_es within the
Indian River Heights Subdivision Unit #4. Even though this
portion of right-of-way has been improved to marl road standards,
and is maintained by the County, it is the belief of the
petitioners that this right-of-way's infrequent use and the lack
of use for access onto any properties makes its existence
unnecessary.
The petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility
providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way, as per
guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners for
processing right-of-way abandonment applications. All reviewing
agencies, which included the Public Works Division, the Utilities
Division, Florida Power and Light and Southern Bell, recommended
approval of the petition. for abandonment. However, the County
Public Works Department and several other utility providers have
requested a 20 ft. wide easement across that portion described as
10 feet either side of the rear lot lines projected between Block
"C" to the south and Block "H" to the north. The petitioners are
in agreement with the request.
ANALYSIS
The 70 ft. wide partially improved right-of-way is not part of the
roadway system noted on the County Thoroughfare Plan, and its need
as such is not anticipated.
Upon examining this request, staff concluded that because of the
angle at which this portion of 1st place intersects with 14th.
Avenue to the east, any improvement of this road which might
increase traffic could cause a dangerous situation with conflicts
between southbound 14th Avenue traffic turning right to go west on
1st Place and eastbound 1st Place traffic turning left across the
westbound lane onto 14th Avenue to head north. Abandonment would
also relieve the County from further maintenance of this 280 foot
portion of right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County abandon its rights to the 70 ft.
wide portion of 1st Place known as Cobie Circle, with the
exception of the requested drainage and utility easement, and
authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute the attached Resolution (Attachment #3).
E s 44 BOOK 66 uu- 244
FF,_
OCT 2,$ 1986
eoo� 6 F4.F 245 - The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 86-95 abandoning a portion of 1st Place
in Coble Circle as requested by Vincent Kouspos.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-95
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, AND
VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF 1ST PLACE LYING BETWEEN 14TH AVENUE
AND 15TH AVENUE, ALSO KNOWN AS COBIE CIRCLE, WITHIN INDIAN RIVER
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION UNIT #4, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGE 8.6 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, AND RESERVING UNTO THE
COUNTY AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, on April 4, 1986, the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from Mr. and Mrs. Vincent
Kouspos, 145 14th Avenue, Vero 'Beach, Florida, requesting the
County to close, vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title,
and interest of the County and the public in and to all that
portion of 1st Place lying between 14th Avenue and 15th Avenue,
also known as Cobie Circle, within Indian River Heights Sub-
division Unit #4, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 86 of the
Public Records of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice
of- public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
M
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said right-of-
way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any
municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of
the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any
given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the
public in and to those certain right-of-way being known more
particularly described as:
ALL OF THAT PORTION OF COBIE CIRCLE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT
OF INDIAN RIVER HEIGHTS; UNIT #4, AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 6, PAGE 86, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE WEST
- 45
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 14TH AVENUE, BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY THE
EAST RIGHT-OF-WAYOF 15TH AVENUE, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH
BY LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK H OF AFORESAID SUBDIVISION AND
BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY LOTS .1 AND 17, BLOCK G, OF SAID
SUBDIVISION
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, dis-
continued, remised and released with the exception a 20 ft. wide
drainage and utility easement on and over 10 feet either side of
the rear lot lines projected between Blocks "C" and "H" of Indian
River Heights Subdivision Unit #4 of the parcel described above is
hereby reserved in perpetuity unto the County and the public and
shall not be deemed to have been closed or abandoned in any way by
this resolution.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be
forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption hereof; and
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes 5336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay. _
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke , 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 Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 28th day of October , 1986.
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDI RIVER OUNTY LORIDA
BY:IT
Don . Scurlock, J .
RIGHT -017 -WAY ABANDONMENT PORTION OF 21ST STREET - WM. FREEMAN
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:
�9�� 46 BOOK U PA,E46
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
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 weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of
in the f Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press ,-r o e + at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the _ _ etofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, ,j ana ,;as been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed b fore me this day of I- ` A.D. l�
n i /i I. (Business Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Couf Vndian River County, Florida)
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
47
BOOK 6 uU 247
NOTICE. OF PUBLIC HEARINQ
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETI-
TION FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT,
AND VACATION OF 21ST STREET LYING BE-
TWEEN 53RD AVENUE AND 54TH AVENUE IN
THE EL VERO VILLA SUBDIVISION. SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY.
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Description: ALL THAT PORTION OF A
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS
21ST STREET AS DESIGNATED ON
THE PLAT OF EL VERO VILLA SUB AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 97
ON THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY LYING EAST OF THE
EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 54TH AVE-
NUE AND WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF 53RD AVENUE, NORTH OF
LOTS 1 & 24 BLK 5 AND SOUTH OF
LOTS 11 & 12 BLK 2.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
tration Building, located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, October 28,
1986, at 9:45 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 River County !
—
Board -os -County -Commissioners
By: -s- Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Oct. 8, 1986
TO The Honorable Members of �Ai"E: October 15, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD'
CONCURRENCE:
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
Robert M. KeatinT.t AICP SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY MR. AND MRS.
Planning & Development Director WILLIAM FREEMAN
THROUGH: Michael K Miller M R M
Chief, Current Development-
FROM:
evelopment
FROM: David
C. Nearing
REFERENCES:
Freeman
Staff
Planner
DAVE3
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 28, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Mr. and Mrs. William Freeman have submitted a right-of-way aban-
donment petition requesting that the County abandon that portion
of 21st Street located between 53rd and 54th Avenues north of S.R.
60. That applicant is requesting this abandonment due to the fact
that this portion of right-of-way has not been improved in any
way.
The petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility
providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way, as per
guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners for
processing right-of-way abandonment *applications. All reviewing
agencies, which included the Public Works Division, the Utilities
Division, Florida Power and Light and Southern Bell, recommended
approval of the petition for abandonment. However, the County
Public Works and Utilities Departments as well as several other
utility providers have requested that the south 37.5 feet of this
parcel proposed for abandonment be granted to the County as a
drainage and utilities easement. The petitioners are in agreement
with the request.
ANALYSIS
The 50 ft. wide unimproved right-of-way is not part of the roadway
system noted on the County Thoroughfare Plan, and its need as such
is not anticipated. Because this area is already substantially
built -out and the need for this portion of 21st Street has not
arisen, it is staff's opinion that the County has no use for the
-property, and does not ever foresee its use.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County abandon its rights to the 50 foot
wide portion of 21st Street right-of-way, with the exception of
the requested drainage and utilities easement, and authorize the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the
attached resolution (Attachment #3).
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. -
There were none.
I
48eoo� �6 Fn -248
OCT 8
rgCT 2 8 1996
BOOK 66
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 86-96 abandoning that portion of 21st St.
lying east of 54th Avenue and west of 53rd Avenue
within the EI Vero Villa Subdivision as requested by
William Freeman.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-96 �, , � uCr1986
C111
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO S'.,• Off'' :.INDI
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, AB 0 -MINT,
VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF 21ST STREET LYING EAST 0'. �i V
AND WEST OF 53RD AVENUE WITHIN THE EL VERO VILLA SUB AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 97 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, AND RESERVING UNTO THE COUNTY AN EASEMENT FOR
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, on January 13, 1986, the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from Mr. and Mrs. William
Freeman, 2105 53rd Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the
County to close, vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title,
and interest of the County and the public in and to all that
portion of 21st Street lying east of 54th Avenue and west of 53rd
Avenue within the El Vero Villa Subdivision as recorded in Plat
Book 41 Page 97 of the Official Records of St. Lucie County, and
reserving unto the County an easement for drainage and utility
purposes; and •
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes 5336. 10, notice
of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and $
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said right-of-
way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any
municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of
the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any
given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the
public in and to that certain right-of-way being known more
particularly described as:
ALL THAT PORTION OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS 21ST
STREET AS DESIGNATED ON THE PLAT OF EL VERO VILLA SUB AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 97 ON THE OFFICIAL RECORDS
OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY LYING EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY
49
� � r
OF :54TH AVENUE AND WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 53RD
AVENUE, NORTH OF LOTS 1 & 24 BLK 5 AND SOUTH OF LOTS 11
& 12 BLK 2.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, dis-
continued, remised and released with the exception that a drainage
and utility easement on and over the south 37.5 feet of the parcel
described above is hereby reserved in perpetuity unto the County
and the public and shall not be deemed to have been closed or
abandoned in any way by this resolution.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be
forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption hereof; and
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner 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 Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman- thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 28th day of October , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER CO NTY F RIDA
BY: G
Don C. Scur ock, Jr 61
USE OF 16TH STREET RECREATION COMPLEX PARKING LOT - SCHOOL DIST.
Chairman Scurlock reviewed memo from Administrator Balczun:
1086
50 EOOK 66 P,,!,, -t250
OCT 2 8 1986
BOOK 6°� FA.r 251
October 16, 1986
TO: The Honorable Members of the Board
of County Commissioners _
FROM: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
SUBJECT: USE OF 16TH STREET RECREATION COMPLEX
PARKING LOT
The Indian River County School District has requested autho-
rity to utilize tITe County's parking lot at the 16th Street Recrea-
tion Complexe for student parking on a daily basis during the
hours of 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. This matter is scheduled for
consideration at your October 28, 1986 meeting.
The staff has reviewed the request and recommends that such
approval be granted based upon certain conditions:
.: Initial agreement for one year with renewals at one
year intervals.
.: Board of Education must indemnify the County -against
all actions arising directly or indirectly from use
of the property.
.: Board of Education to maintain and make any and all
repairs to property during period of lease.
.: Board of Education to make all necessary arrangements
for, and underwrite all costs of enforcement and/or
control as set forth in paragraph no. 1 of James Davis'
memorandum to me dated September 30, 1986 (copy Attached).
.: Board of Education must implement and underwrite all
costs of any changes in ingress and egress which may be
necessitated.
.: Agreement may be terminated by the County with ninety
days written notice.
Please note Mr. Keating's suggestion(s) in his October 8,
1986 memorandum to me (copy attached) with respect to obtaining
assurances from the Board of Education for compliance with zoning
regulations in unincorporated areas in return for execution of%
the proposed agreement.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to grant approval of the School's
use of the 16th Street Recreational Complex for student
parking based upon the conditions recommended by staff
as set out in the above memo.
Commissioner Bird suggested that we add in the opening
paragraph that we agree to the requested parking between 7:30
51
A.M. and 3:30 P.M. on normal school days. He believed the
parking area should be kept open for the public on weekends.
Commissioners Lyons and Bowman agreed to add that condition
to their Motion.
Harold "Butch" Winkler of the school system had no problem
with that, and Attorney Vitunac pointed out that this does not
prohibit the recreation use of those same parking Lots during
school hours if there should be a recreational function there
during the school day.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that Superintendent stated
that "it would be our intention to use this lot for supervised
and permitted student parking...", and Mr. Winkler assured him
that it will be supervised and the spaces will be assigned. He
pointed out that realistically if they do use those lots, they
will be full during the day. He believed the recreational use
comes in the late afternoon and evenings.
Chairman Scurlock asked if it would be fair to say this
still will not meet the school's total parking needs, and Mr.
Winkler confirmed.that it will not, but it will help.
Commissioner Bird suggested that we ask that a few spaces be
left unassigned in the event some maintenance work needed to be
done on the field or something of the sort.
The Chairman felt that was noted.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION AS AMENDED.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
_ BOOK 66 PSE 252
,OCT 2 8 1986 52
OCT 2 8 1986
BOOK 66 Pa.c253
Telephone (305) 567-8000
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS: . ., NERS
1840 25th .Street, Veru Beach. A471orida 32960
a
October 23, 1986
Dr. James A. Burns
Superintendent
School District of Indian River County
1990 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Dr. Burns:
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
This letter constitutes authorization by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County to the School District
of Indian River County to use the 16th Street Recreation
Complex Parking Lot (located north of 16th Street east of
20th Avenue) for student parking between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30
p.m., subject to the following conditions:
1. This authorization is valid for one year from this date
and may be renewed at the option of the County at one-year
intervals.
2. The School District of Indian River County agrees to
indemnify and hold the -County harmless from any damage,
injury, or action whatsoever arising directly or indirectly
from use of the property by the School District or its
students.
3. The School District will maintain and make any and all
repairs necessary to the property.
4. If it becomes necessary to employ enforcement personnel
to control pedestrian crossing as a result of the School
District's use of the subject parking lot, the School
District will make all necessary arrangements for and
underwrite all costs associated with such enforcement.
5. The School District will implement and bear the costs of
any changes in ingress and egress to the parking lot which
may be necessitated.
6. This authorization may be terminated by the County by
written notification to the School District with ninety
days' notice.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By: c
bon cur oc r.
Chairman
53
TO: Commissioner Richard N. Bird
DATE: October 30, 1.986
SUBJECT: High School Use of 16th Street Recreation
Facility Parking Lot (
FROM: Bruce Barkett
Assistant County Attorney
I have attached a copy of the letter authorizing the School
District to use the recreation parking lot subject to the
conditions contained in -the letter. At the October 28th
County Commissioners meeting you suggested amendments to the
conditions which would limit the use of the parking lot by
the School District to regular school days and which would
require that six spaces be leftunassigned by the School
District. I understand the High School Principal agreed to
comply with those conditions. .
This memorandum is to inquire as to whether you want the
County Attorney's Office to revise the letter of
authorization or are you satisfied with the verbal
representations by the High School? The original letter has
already been sent out and I will not draft a revision unless
and until I hear from you.
FRED MENSING REQUEST TO ADDRESS COMMISSION RE VARIOUS PLANNING
PROCEDURES AND PAVING OF 129TH STREET, ROSELAND
Fred Mensing came.before the Commission in regard to the
— mattersset--out -in the following letter:
54
BOOK 66
Attomey
'(e
g
Sonne e . - ca
�g%�
- r,r ;- - n, ,�..
Public Works .;ti '
w G ST i
mmunity Dev.
sem" n;' f�:; �.» _':•
Utilities
`t o-
:\��T., «-
iFInance
Ldrne a3�r'{l?o`
�e�
Other autt
i hi Vy_ a4=:S�r(- t�t� fireW�re.rHi,: )Min Xo a4a�
��
. ?�'�,
:i. _ =?y y�q. ' H. - �: t 4±.' - :3"'i,;�t+ . r.: ` ti -is-- r t i •.is. � �p
• .Q �
�
� .
oNo 2 f4�3�.0 vt !. t Al e. � -, I�-l.i
I"•-c�a`
{'�"` � � M;a. � ' > ''"
..
��.?
�r
.�,*may • ��."
'. '_ ,s . r
I
t A
�, , �,�,
"�';-`•r , }
tit : x ""�' a .;,K.4 •� .T t�3^;. r � . k-* -
.. .
' 4Ir_
Berk- 2 (- M_
l
54
BOOK 66
..
_ :1:,
'(e
-IKE
2 EA
...—A o q.T
—
i J
P u I rn a k e c t.0
2 M A,
Sb -�
v . z
�, , �,�,
v 2
54
BOOK 66
oci 28 1986
BOOK 66 F',Gr 255
i
1. SrZ ►'LAn� �ny�t=•u _ �e� �,r�rt_P�C �;<
IIN
t�T s hu,f-- !-I�
.�
iate,,,►..,
�.�4+ arta'..
•- = ' ,Y:'q „ - r .:;{ .v,.: tet: r{t'��: �+' -._'
n3 Ac 1.11 C-
f .,�
_.
.�
lot ,
�.�4+ arta'..
•- = ' ,Y:'q „ - r .:;{ .v,.: tet: r{t'��: �+' -._'
aup7 ''s.,r.�v�>�
a�
o .. � ,.
r« Lo
A rAJS
!'ri
~ �I &JTA T?:) e'AA��e. Vt�s Ery%± ���� mer-
,
55
.�
lot ,
'Ole ♦
�.._
a�
Ur) x
A rAJS
!'ri
_ -d 4,
tr 0_ �`ur�
n,c
-�1�� _ 1. a►�Nt�ts �� a=:: .�
~ �I &JTA T?:) e'AA��e. Vt�s Ery%± ���� mer-
,
55
'Ole ♦
w
A rAJS
!'ri
_ -d 4,
i
AK
A lei Tb
�d
eo
M,"C
I ITLAJO
D A.70r
i
�-�,
�-�
►,�
r .
�; ��;— of
~ �I &JTA T?:) e'AA��e. Vt�s Ery%± ���� mer-
,
55
< <
LTDI�I !QN
CID
13 3 to 23
a
O u
14 E 17 0 24
C3 u
(LEWIS TREI
w
f; 15 16 25
0
A . to
ON FROG LEG
41
RANCH
I IAVEN {EW
X i
x 291-- 23 rn 24
cn 00
129TH COURT i
i
Q SEE ENLARGED f/T SECTION
129THrTINIT
k NA
27 a 27 wa 28
w
128TH COURT
Y)
26 w
w
S/D
37
ROSE
HAVEN
Navv�N
29
SUB
4 5_ Q "A
VIEW ROSELAND
126TH!_ STREET C
LSU.?C)I'✓I^Ir)N ADD. NO. I LAKE N0.
�� -_.._ _ f - -
Cn
...�.- c i 1 'r L I M 1
T % 1 A 4 .�
w
z
Zi 30 ^
w w
w
U)
32
ROSELAND
p F LE 7—TE
14
y 130 ICO' IOa 100. loo, Ii0'
r ij n V
� r N
i 2 3 4 5 6,.
STREE
f� � ELUI H. s
;.
ARS S B. _.
SIE ENLARGE
12
4 I) le M
t �
110
0 19
1
9 20
I'
7 i 8 21
i
_LAKE N0.2 2 ®
•.• NOTEt LOTS ARE 5'30'X G60
22 -T9 CITY LIMITS
G C.' C{
a
1
GE AIS
1
8 9 13
7 36 10 12
2
35 11
3
6
TRACT
'I
SUB
4 5_ Q "A
VIEW ROSELAND
126TH!_ STREET C
LSU.?C)I'✓I^Ir)N ADD. NO. I LAKE N0.
�� -_.._ _ f - -
Cn
...�.- c i 1 'r L I M 1
T % 1 A 4 .�
w
z
Zi 30 ^
w w
w
U)
32
ROSELAND
p F LE 7—TE
14
y 130 ICO' IOa 100. loo, Ii0'
r ij n V
� r N
i 2 3 4 5 6,.
STREE
f� � ELUI H. s
;.
ARS S B. _.
SIE ENLARGE
12
4 I) le M
t �
110
0 19
1
9 20
I'
7 i 8 21
i
_LAKE N0.2 2 ®
•.• NOTEt LOTS ARE 5'30'X G60
22 -T9 CITY LIMITS
G C.' C{
a
1
OCT 2 8 1986 BOOK 66 rn,,L 257 -
Mr. Mensing stated Question #1 could be eliminated as he
felt this had been clarified in an earlier discussion. Re #2,
where site plan review is required for a mobile home but not a
single family structure, Mr. Mensing did not feel that is good
and asked that the Commission direct staff to look into this.
Chairman Scurlock noted that when he pulled a building
permit, he had to locate not only his house on the lot, but also
the septic tank and well, and Planner Boling confirmed that is
correct; it is not done through site plan approval, but through
the building permit processing for single family homes.
In discussion it was noted that the fee for the building
permit is $90 and for a minor site plan, it is $125. Mr. Mensing
stated that is the issue - it is $125 vs. $90 to furnish the same
information because of the way it is done, and he believed that
is discriminatory.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested that staff review this and
look at the time requirements, inspections required, etc., to see
if there are any inequities.and bring a report back.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the Commission accepted
the fee structure presented; so, if anyone is discriminating, it
is us. However, he agreed that we should direct staff to take a
look at this.
Mr. Mensing then addressed #3 re paving of 129th Street from
79th Ave. south to the proposed subdivision on Lot 2, Seca 30,
Fleming Grant.
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board, as far as procedure is
concerned, this is a site plan or zoning requirement which has to
go through the Planning & Zoning Comm -fission and there is an
appeal process. Actually, Mr. Mensing is jumping the gun.
Chairman Scurlock also felt that this is not the place for
discussion of Mr. Mensing's item #4 in regard to the behavior of
some of our employees. The County Administrator hires and
directs the staff, and unless his decision is appealed, We don't
just have a public forum every time someone likes or dislikes a
57
� � r
certain employee. He stressed that the Commission does not want
to get involved in the day to day operations of the county and
the question of whether we have good or bad employees.
Other Board members agreed, and Commissioner Lyons pointed
out that we hire staff to give us the best possible advice.
Sometimes they agree with the applicant and with the Board and
sometimes they don't, and he did not want to see this change.
Commissioner Bird felt that anyone who has a problem with
staff should go through the proper channels to the Administrator,
and he will do whatever investigation he feels is called for.
Administrator Balczun stated that perhaps he and Mr. Mensing
can communicate on this later this week and try to resolve it.
Mr. Mensing returned to discussion of the paving of 129th
St. and stressed that he does not want to be the one to cause
this street to be paved as everyone on that street from Elaine
Street down to where it deadends objects to any paving. He wants
to be able to develop the subject property, but does not want to
have the County sitting there with the bond up to pay for 750 of
the paving and then saying let's go ahead with the paving and
jus -t cram it-dowh people's throats.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if Mr. Mensing was asking for a
waiver of the bond that would have to be posted.
Mr. Mensing felt a waiver and stipulate through some means
that the property is exempt from voting on a petition paving. If
the County is going to impact it at some point, he would suggest
that they impact the entire five acres, assess it and collect it,
but do not have the money sitting there. If the county wants to
leave it on the grader route, that is fine.
Discussion continued at length, and Planner Boling clarified
that there is no formal application yet; this is just what Mr.
- Mensing is planning the future. His property is off an unpaved
road-, and he either has to have it paved, get a petition paving
together, or get an assessment from the Commission for the entire
OCT 2 1986
513 BOOK �6 F�1Gc 258
OCT 2 8 1986 66 u'u,259
area, and he is asking that the county either go the assessment
route or waive it altogether.
Board members felt this is a premature discussion. -
Mr. Mensing continued to emphasize that assuming the
application were in, he does not want to be the one to cause any
change in the status of this road out of courtesy to the
neighbors. He wants the ball in the Board's court if this is not
going to be a dirt road.
Commissioner Bird pointed out the Board is not telling Mr.
Mensing he has to subdivide, but if he does, that triggers the
paving of the road; this puts the burden on the Board; and if
that triggers a mandatory assessment, so be it.
Mr. Mensing agreed that he will talk to Mr. Balczun about
the last issue in his letter, but he did want the Board members _
to know that since it has become known that he has taken cause
with this, he has returned $3,200 worth of checks that builders
and developers in the county have sent him to engage an attorney
to proceed with this becauso they are tired of feeling that they
have an adversary in the Planning Department rather than an
informative agency.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Mensing has submitted a
formal complaint in writing in*terms of charging Mr. Keating and
the Planning staff, because -he felt if Mr. Mensing is really is
going to push this, it should be spelled out in black and white
and the Board will address the charges. He cautioned Mr. Mensing
that if it turns out that the charges he makes are frivolous then
Director Keating and staff have the legal ability to defend
themselves.
ANNUAL COOPERATIVE FORESTRY ASSISTANCE REPORT
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously accepted the
Annual Cooperative Forestry Assistance Report, City
59
of Vero Beach and Indian River County, dated Septem-
ber 30, 1986, as submitted by Urban Forester William
DeBraal.
Forester DeBraal came before the Board and highlighted a few
of his accomplishments during the year including the County Road
510 project - the Wabasso Causeway Park project - Donald
MacDonald nature trail - and the Indian River Boulevard southern
extension He informed the Board that he has assisted over 1300
people either in person or by phone and spoke to more than 5,000
residents, including school children and other groups during the
year.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that the people in the
westerly part of the county, residents at Village Green,
Countryside, etc., have asked if there is any possibility for
some beautification of the median strip on Route 60 from King's
Highway further west.
Chairman Scurlock felt we should use some of the Gas Tax
money for this and for U.S.I. He would like to get a program
that does not.rel.ieve the state of all responsibility.
Discussion ensued about making use of the First Offender
Program, and Forester DeBraal felt that is a viable possibility
for trimming, edging, etc.
Chairman Scurlock was concerned about the liability of pri-
vate citizens doing any maintenance along the highway and felt we
very probably could get some donations towards this purpose.
Forester DeBraal pointed out that since SR60 is a state
owned road, it would be necessary to go through the DOT and he
would be happy to assist.
The Chairman thanked him for doing a nice job. —
Said report is on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board.
OCT 6 0 BOOK 66 FSE 260
L
OCT -2 8 19K, BOOK 66 Pq F261
DISCUSSION - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT RE RYANWOOD SHOPPING CENTER
10 -
The Board reviewed letter received from Murray Enterprises:
r r r-+ r r, rM9 PM4 r P" r r--,
Murray Enterprises, Inc.
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE:
Dear Commissioners:
October 17, 1986
RYANWOOD SHOPPING CENTER
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
H� ,... _. .._ .
%L L -a. S
03v. o
U,ilities --
Finance
Other
We are hereby requesting to be placed on the agenda of the
County Board of Commissioners meeting on October 28, 1986.
The purpose of our request is to discuss the issue of
Paragraph Six (6) in the Developer's Agreement (copy
enclosed).
We believe that it was the County's concern for potential
traffic problems for imposing the 750 occupancy restriction.
Since the center has opened, the traffic has been monitored
by the Indian River County Sheriff's Department. Lt.
Attkission and Major Raymond have acknowledged that the
shopping center is not generating a noticeable increase in
traffic at this time and don't anticipate a problem in the
future.
Ryanwood Shopping Center is currently 650 leased and will
soon be 65% occupied. It has become public knowledge that we
have a 75% limitation and as a result, has delayed and, in
some instances, has prevented the execution of our pending
leases, as the prospective tenants fear they will be restricted
from opening on a timely basis. This restriction has not
only developed into a major handicap for us, but also for the
business people from Indian River County. With our concern,
as well as yours for public safety, we feel there should_ be
no problem in removing this restriction from the Developer's
Agreement; especially in view of the fact that we still
maintain a deposit and our commitment to provide traffic
patrol, as necessary, to insure the -safety of the patrons and
passers-by.
In anticipation of your cooperation "in this matter, we would
like to take this time to thank you and look forward to
discussing this with you at the meeting on October 28, 1986.
Sincerely,
MURRAY ENTERPRISES, INC.
imberly F. Binkley
Vice President
`
61
Chairman Scurlock confirmed that he had talked with Major
Roy Raymond of the Sheriff's Department, and he indicated that
they have not encountered a traffic problem because of the
center.
Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that the
County did acquire the St. John's River Water Management permit
last Friday and now can go to bid on the King's Highway
improvements.
Commissioner Wodtke asked about the time frame involved for
those improvements, and Public Works Director Davis discussed the
bidding process, etc., and felt it will be probably 4 or 5 months
before the road is completed.
Chairman Scurlock believed then it will be necessary to have
some sort of traffic control, and Commissioner Lyons agreed the
construction stage on King's Highway was what would trigger that
need. He asked about any work on Route 60.
Director Davis advised that the work on Route 60 would
mainly involve closing the highway median cut east of King's
Highway that serves the center. The main problem is what happens
when we get—King's Highway torn up.
Lengthy discussion ensued on how access to the center will
be gained from Route 60.
Director Davis pointed out that the DOT only granted the
median cut on a temporary basis until King's Highway improvements
can be completed, and Commissioner Lyons wondered if we could get
them to delay closing it since it is working.m After the inter-
section is improved, he felt it may change the situation, and he
did not want people making U-turns.
Discussion continued on the problem and danger of U-turns,
and the Chairman also asked if we can't explore the possibility
of leaving the cut.
- Director Davis noted that we don't know what kind of traffic
impact will be realized when the center is fully occupied. It is
just starting to get occupied, and the peak season is coming.
62 BOOK 6 F�vu� E262
BOOK 66 I r�U 26
Also, the reason they did not want the cut to be permanent is
that they wanted the ability to increase the westbound storage
lane, and that cut limits the storage capacity.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we can get a Motion to modify the
developer's agreement and to accept staff's recommendation, and
the Board wished to know what the staff's recommendation is.
Director Davis commented that when staff put this matter on
the agenda, they did not know that the St. John's permit would be
issued, and their recommendation was to deny the request until we
were sure we could proceed with the improvements on King's
Highway. Director Davis did not want to cancel the ability to
have traffic control there during construction so their
recommendation at this time is that if the Board wishes to grant*
100% occupancy, that we do so with the requirement that traffic
control still will be provided by the center if it is determined
that it is needed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to
allow 1000 occupancy of Ryanwood Shopping center
upon the condition that traffic control will be pro-
vided by the center if Ut is needed.
DISCUSSION OF IMPACT FEE CHARGES - VATLAND
Robert Vatland came before the Board in reference to the
following letter:
63
t 17 7818
OLDSMOBILE - PONTIAC - GMC, INC.
� o
CP
STRIBUTION LIST
October 14, 1986 CommissunersAdm',,^,iStratcr
Attc r; ,
Personnel
Board of County Commissioners Public Works All
1840 25th Street Community Dev.
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Utilities v
Dear Sirs: Finance r
�,.. '
As you know, Vatland Oldsmobile has entered into an agreement with 4cfoa
Indian River County, Florida, for Certain Utility Installations.
In this agreement, dated May 14, 1986, it was agreed that the
developer shall pay $8,500.00 for Contribution in Aid of Construction
and also $5,000.00 for all impact fees for a total of $13,500.00.
This was to be paid at the time of application for a building permit
and the developer SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBIE FOR ANY OTHER FEES.
This agreement was signed by Robert J. Vatland for Vatland Oldsmobile,
and by Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman, for Indian River County,
Florida. It was also signed and approved by Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney, and Terrance G. Pinto, Director.,Div. of Utility Services.
When I went to pick up my building permit, I was informed it would
be refused to be issued unless I paid $1,288.00 for Traffic Impact Fees.
This was not part of our contract with Indian River County. It was
an unexpected expense, which I feel should be reimbursed.
I have discussed this with Charles Vitunac and Terrance Pinto and they
have informed me that nothing can be done about my refund of $1,288.00
except thru the Indian River County Conmissioners.
This letter is my formal request for my refund of $1,288.00, which I
was forced to pay or No Building Permit would be issued. This was
above and beyond our fonnally signed agreement.
This refund should be made out to Vatland Oldsmobile -Pontiac -(SIC, Inc.
Thank you.
Sincerely and Respectfully yours,
Robert J. Vatland, President
Mr. Vatland confirmed that he has discussed this_ with Admin-
istrator Balczun, but the Administrator could not refund the
money and said that he would have to come to the Board.
64 BOOK 66 rnu-L 264
Boa 66 P,�,UE 265 _
Commissioner Bird felt the question is the interpretation of
the agreement as he would interpret it that the fees paid were
re-lated only to utilities.
Chairman Scurlock agreed there is a lack of communication;
he believed when a citizen pays this, he feels it covers
everything, and staff realizes we have various impact fees.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that the receipt indicates
that it is for sewer impact and contribution in aid of
constructions and makes no mention of anything but utility
matters.
Attorney Vitunac could see where the confusion arose, but
did not feel the applicant should get his money back. The
agreement right in its title states that it is "For Certain
Utility Installations." There are a multitude of fees to be
paid, including a building permit fee, and from the applicant's
point of view, he should not have had to pay that either because
of this language. Also, in the discussion he had with the
applicant or his professional nothing was ever mentioned about
traffic impact fees, building fees, etc.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the agreement estimates $8,500
for the improvements, and if it came in at a lesser amount, say
$5,500, would he receive those dollars back?
Utilities Director Pinto advised that when staff negotiates
that, the agreement is final, and that's why they say there won't
be any other fees. Also, if the amount comes in higher after it
is bid, they do not go back to the applicant and ask him for more
money. He felt it should be mentioned that in that agreement it
calls for a requirement to dedicate some property, which it now
has been determined they will not need.
Mr. Vatland emphasized that he made an agreement and shook
hands on it - the fees were negotiated, and they made a deal.
When the agreement was printed up, it was put on a utility
agreement; the check was made out to the county, and it was
65
applied to the Utilities Department. He felt he was unfairly
informed of the fees he would have to pay.
Director Pinto confirmed the truth of Mr. Vatland's.
statements and agreed that he is a man of integrity in the
community, but pointed out that Mr. Vatland's professional
architect was there and he certainly understood exactly what the
fees and negotiations represented. Mr. Pinto stressed that his
department cannot and does not ever talk about fees for other
functions in the county. He understood Mr. Vatland's misinter-
pretation, but believed that is why people hire professionals and
he felt his professional may have let him down.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we could say that if this project
comes in under the construction cost that it be revisited because
of the misunderstanding, and Director Pinto had no problem with
that so long as it does not set a precedent.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have any legal right to
waive the traffic impact fee, and Attorney Vitunac did not
believe so. When a project has any affect on our traffic system,
we don't waive the fees for anyone, not even ourselves.
Co—missione% Wodtke felt if there should be a change in the
.construction costs, possibly it could be a legitimate reason to
authorize a refund up to about $1,200.
Director Pinto advised that they are usually pretty close on
estimating costs, but there has been some change in the design so
there is some possibility the cost could change.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
to staff to refund Mr. Vatland up to the amount of
$1,200 in the event there is a lesser construction
cost than estimated.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION QUORUM REQUIREMENTS
Planning Director Keating made the staff presentation:
,::�.�1VdY 66 BOOK. F.r4Ut 266
OCT 2 8 1966 Bou 66 rnE 26
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 16, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
PLANNING & ZONING
SUBJECT: COMMISSION QUORUM
REQUIREMENTS
Robert M. Keating, AICP 40K
FROM: Director REFERENCES: P&Z Quorum
Planning & Development DIS:IBMIRD
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of October 28, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On July 16, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners approved -an
amendment to the County's zoning ordinance relating to the
composition and functioning of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Specifically, the amendment expanded tFie size of
the Commission by two members, increasing it from five to
seven. In addition, the amendment established a quorum for
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings as five members rather
than a simple majority of the Commission which would be four.
The principal reason for taking these actions was to address
the Board's concern that a significant number of Planning and
Zoning Commission items were decided by only three voting
members.
At the October 9, 1986 meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Commission voted unanimously, 7-0, to request
that the Board of County Commissioners reduce the Planning and
Zoning Commission's quorum requirements from five to four
members. The Commission took this action after discovering
that three members had conflicts with the October 23, 1986
meeting. The Commission also indicated that such a situation
could be expected to occur in the future since all members have
other interests which may occasionally conflict with Commission
meeting dates.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the only County advisory
group which has a quorum requirement exceeding a simple majori-
ty of its members. In addition, the manner in which the.
ordinance is structured requires that the quorum requirement
apply to each issue to be considered. Consequently, although a
quorum may be obtained for the meeting, a conflict of interest
by one member on a particular item may preclude action from
being taken on that item.
In analyzing the quorum requirement, the staff has identified
some potential problems. Because of public hearing notice
requirements, many Planning and Zoning Commission items are
advertised well in advance of scheduled meeting dates. If a
quorum is not obtained at the time of a Commission meeting, no
action can be taken, including action rescheduling advertised
public hearings. This would result in a need to readvertise
those public hearings, resulting in a four to five week delay
67
r
for the public. Besides affecting an applicant, this situation
could also affect members of the general ,public wishing to
attend the public hearing.
Although the staff feels that it is desirable to decide issues
by all or most of the members of a particular board or commit-
tee, the staff realizes that establishing super -quorum require-
ments can cause hardships and delays for the general public.
In addition, whether a quorum is four or five, it will require
three affirmative votes- to approve an item. For those reasons,
the staff feels that the zoning code should be amended to
reduce the Planning and Zoning Commission's quorum requirement
from five to four members.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff concurs with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation and recommends that the Board of Couaty
Commissioners direct the staff to advertise for an ordinance
amending the Planning and Zoning. Commission's quorum require-
ment from five to four members.
John Tippin, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission,
emphasized that they are concerned about having 100% attendance;
they do have good attendance, and he believed all the Commis-
sioners take their positions very seriously. He noted that this
quorum has posed a problem for the public and for the people who
come from a long distance to attend the meetings. They are
taking extra efforts to be sure they will have the attendance,
and they do not want to have too many restrictions on the Board
members.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to direct staff to advertise
for an ordinance amending the P&Z quorum require-
ments from five to four members.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know whether at the meeting
where three members had conflicts, they were conflicts of
attendance or of interests.
Mr. Tippin confirmed that it was attendance; one had -
business commitments in Canada, etc. He advised that they try to
determine a week or so in advance if the members can be present.
- A% 68
BOOK 66 Pr�GF 268
UT 2 8 1966 a
BOCK F'���E 21 6 9 -
Commissioner Wodtke noted that he had voted against in-
creasing the membership from 5 to 7 as he did not want the larger
number to cause the members to think they could stay home.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that we said we would try
this and see how it worked.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS RE STATE OF FLORIDA VS. CHANDLER
Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson reported that he is in
the process of trying to negotiate with Attorney Robert Udell of
Stuart on his fee of t14.666 for representing Jim Chandler, but
it does not appear so far that: he will be successful in reaching
an agreement. He is prepared to go to the hearing next Tuesday
on this matter and see what the Judge decides.
REPORT ON MEETING WITH STATE LIBRARIAN
Commissioner Lyons advised the Board that he and Intergov-
ernmental Relations Director Thomas went to Tallahassee and had a
fine meeting with State Librarian Virginia Grigg. They also met
with Dr. Summers who did a study for our library system and had
some discussion about siting. Commissioner Lyons wished to
-indicate his interest in the property at 17th Street and Indian
River Boulevard as a possible site.
Commissioner Lyons continued that while in Tallahassee, they
learned that the staff of the State Library Division have put in
two requests for grants for Indian River County, both in the
amount of $200,000 - one for the main library in Vero Beach and
one for the Sebastian Library. To -get these grants requires us
to start lobbying the legislative group to get it on the
appropriations bill for this year. There is also the possibility
of another $200,000 from federal funding for the Vero Beach
Library as the main library in a system. We would be in a
69
position to ask for the two state fundings as soon as we get
property tied up. On the federal monies, we would have to be
further along in the planning process, but still could have the
opportunity to make our application before the end of the next
fiscal year
Director Thomas informed the Board that he has turned what
information he has over to Representative Patchett and has an
appointment with him later this week.
Commissioner Lyons noted that another one of the things
discussed was the possibility of obtaining a consultant to
generate the program for construction of the library. He is
waiting to hear some possible names and will take this before the
Library Advisory Committee.
LOWENSTEIN BEQUEST TO LIBRARY
Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that Mr. Julian
Lowenstein left about $150,000 to the Vero Beach Library, but in
the meantime the ownership of the library has changed and there
was some possible question as to whether it would have any affect
on—the-beque-st. 'The Library Advisory Committee has recommended
to the County Commission that the bequest be put into a
specialized project, such as construction or material acquisi-
tions for a particular department for the Vero Beach Library,
possibly for a children's room or a genealogy room to be
dedicated in Mr. Lowenstein's honor. The Library Board further
requests that these monies for the construction or materials are
to be kept separate from any bond issue monies or county tax
dollars that are received. Furthermore, should the Indian River
Country Library Association receive the bequest, it will donate
it to Indian River County as beneficiary of this bequest.
Commissioner Lyons requested that the Commission adopt the
recommendation of the Advisory Board so there isn't any question
to Mrs. Lowenstein that this money is earmarked for a special
purpose.
70 BOOK 66 FA,- 270
®CT 2 8 1986
BOCK 6 D'-jE 2 7 1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted the recommendation of the Library
Advisory Committee as set out above.
ADDITION TO LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
Commissioner Lyons noted that he has been working with the
Library Advisory Board since it was set up, but at the moment, he
is not named on it. He realized that he is going out of office
shortly, but stated that he would hate to leave this until the
buildings are built and would like to ask that he -be placed on
the Board.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by -
Commissioner Wodtke, to appoint Commissioner Lyons
to the Library Advisory Board.
Commissioner Wodtke reported that he has been contacted by
two people who also would like to serve on this board, and he
wished to know if we can keep adding to the board and how many
can serve on it.
It was confirmed that additions can be made, and question
continued regarding the actual number on the Board. Commissioner
Lyons stated that he would like his appointment to be effective
on November 18th, and noted it may be that he would use up one of
the appointments. He pointed out that this really isn't the
final board in any event since the reappointments are in
December, but he wants it to keep on operating in the meantime.
Chairman Scurlock stated that Commissioner Lyons would be
his appointment.
Commissioner Wodtke understood there is a lot of work to be
done now and asked if we can't appoint others in the hiatus
between now and December.
71
Chairman Scurlock suggested that the Board vote on the
Motion on the fl.00r and consider more appointments at the next
meeting.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and "carried unanimously.
Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that the Friends of
the Library are getting very active in pursuing donations and
presented material which they hand out.
REPORT ON SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB
Commissioner Bird reported that construction of the course
is rapidly.coming to a conclusion. The irrigation system is
installed and functioning on all 18 holes, and planting should be
completed this week.
Commissioner Bird wished to bring to the Commission's atten-
tion a decision he had to make last Friday and explain why he
made the decision. He noted that we have had the architect over
here lately on a couple of occasions, and he has been spending a
lot of time with the architect, Golf Pro Komarinetz, Director
Thomas, and others on staff, walking the golf course and making
sure everything was completed to the county's satisfaction and
the architect's satisfaction so the contractor could be released
at some point and we could assume maintenance. In walking over
it a couple of weeks ago, it was determined by the head of the
company that does the grass planting that some of the holes up on
the sand ridge did not have a sufficient amount of grasses
planted originally or it didn't live as well as it should have;
so, the head of the grass planting company made the decision that
he would go in on his -own to replant holes 13 and 15. —
Commissioner Bird continued that last week on Friday, a
representative of the architect was here, and along with all the
staff, we again walked over the back nine. At that time, we
72 BOOK. 6 F4 2 a
OCT 2 8 1986BOOK 66 Fr,GE 273-
determined there were some rather thin areas on 16 and 18, which
are the sandiest, driest holes on the ridge. He informed the
B-.ard that after that meeting concluded about 5:30 in the
afternoon when basically everybody had gone, Tommy Guettler, the
contractor, came to him, along with the foreman for the grass
planting company, and said they felt two of the holes, 16 and 18,
had some areas that needed to be replanted; so, they got a price
on replanting them, and it came out at $400 an acre. We had
luckily had a good bit of rain last week and the sand ridge was
the wettest it had been since we started construction, and they
presented the request to him that if we were going to authorize
replanting a portion of those holes, they would like to do it
over the weekend while the moisture was still there from the
recent rain and would be beneficial i.n making the grass take
hold. Being that they were going to work all day Saturday and
Sunday and had the grass there from Georgia, he took it on
himself to tell them to proceed.
Commissioner Bird advised that this involved four acres at
$400 each, or.a total of $1,600. He believed it was an economic
decision because those holes on the ridge will probably grow in
the slowest; they will determine when the golf course is ready
for play; and he was confident the amount involved can be
recouped in half a day's receipts once the course is open. They
have replanted those areas, and a change order for $1,600 will be
processed through the proper channels. He informed the Board
that he will be asking that the change order be processed out of
the $175,000 that we have allocated in the budget for the grow -in
period since those holes are now our responsibility and the
replanting of them is our responsibility, and it won't be a
change order to the contractor's contract. Commissioner Bird
emphasized that he made the decision because it was 5:30 on a
Friday afternoon, and there wasn't anyone around to consult with
other than our greens superintendent, John Hayden, and he did
call Bob Komarinetz on the phone to discuss it with him.
_.
73
Commissioner Bird then invited the Commissioners, members of
staff, and workers who have been involved with the golf course,
to a barbecue at the unfinished golf course maintenance barn
tomorrow at 4:00 P.M. to celebrate the finishing of the planting.
He stated that he and Tommy Guettler are picking up the tab for
this as a thank -you, and advised that part of his input into it
has been a $100 contribution from the Golf Course Feasibility
Committee.
Commissioner Bird reported that the golf course is about to
become our responsibility; John Hayden is hiring people for the
maintenance crew; the brochures finally were completed; and we
will be moving along with the fund raising efforts. He further
advised that he got a $300 contribution from the Golf Course
Feasibility Committee of some money left in the treasury from the
fund raising effort about a year ago to pay for the feasibility
study and also received $300 from the AARP Golf League.
Chairman Scurlock had a questions about the yardages set out
in the brochure, and Commissioner Bird explained that those are
maximum yards from the. championship tees.
CtFirman Scurlock inquired about the status of the
management and staffing, and Commissioner Lyons asked who is
actually running it out there - is the Commission running it or
is the staff running it?
Director Thomas stated that it is whoever this Commission
directs to run it.
Commissioner Bird felt the answer is that Bob Komarinetz is
on board now as Golf Manager and John Hayden is working under
him, and he has had several meetings with staff.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas believed it was
_ determined by the Board that the golf course would be under the
- direction of the Parks & Recreation Division, of which he is the
head, and it is at times difficult, particularly as involved as
he is with the budgetary process, when the authorizations are
coming from a number of sources.
OCT 2 8 1986 14 BOOK 66 Fa,c 274
OCT 2 8 1986 BOOK 66 rnuv 275
5
Director Thomas expressed concern about the total budget
expenses on the construction because there are two primary items
that still remain to be dealt with, one of which was intention-
ally deleted in order to bring it within the bond issue amount,
i.e., the cart paths. He felt it has been determined by everyone
involved that the Sandridge course is beautiful, but you cannot
operate it without cart paths, and they are very expensive.
Also, the engineer -or the architect overlooked putting in two
bridges which are absolutely necessary to the operation of the
golf course. We had a temporary permit to carry our irrigation
lines over on poles, but they have to be mounted on the bridges,
and you just cannot have access for your equipment or your carts
without bridges. Mr. Thomas felt the whole financial picture
must be addressed in detail at this time to prevDnt -cost ver- _
runs, and if it.is obvious that we have to have cost overruns, we
must make some provisions to come up with the funds. He did not
see that we have any funds available for either bridges or cart
paths. He continued that we saved between $6,000 or $7,000 on
discounts on items which the county purchased, and we did reduce
the amount of pilings, which saved about $20,000; however, we had
change orders in the amount of $30,000 because, of what was, in
his opinion, inadequate engineering planning on the drainage and
irrigation.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we have enough in the kitty for
the clubhouse, and Director Thomas confirmed that we do; he is
only talking about the golf course construction. So far the
maintenance building has come in right on the budget, and the
bids are to be opened in the next few days on the clubhouse.
However, items of lesser priority, such as two rain shelters and
a building to house dispensing machines, were not included in the
original budget. He believed they can be deterred, but cart
paths and bridges must be addressed.
Chairman Scurlock inquired about the management structure,
` i.e., does Bob Komarinetz who is pro and manager have the greens
75
keeper, etc., report to him, but he reports to Director Thomas
and then Mr. Thomas reports to the Administrator.
Commissioner Lyons realized this project is very dear to
Commissioner Bird's heart, but -felt he may have put staff in sort
of an untenable position by dealing directly with the architect
to make a change, and stated that he would like to ask that he
not meet with the architect unless there is a member of the staff
present. He realized that it was 5:30 on Friday evening, but
staff can work then also if they are required to, and he felt we
should stop dealing with the architect.
Commissioner Bird noted that the project is 99% complete,
this involved dealing with the contractor, and the total amount
involved only amounted to 1/20th of 10 of the cost of the
project. He felt Commissioner Lyons was making a mountain out of
a molehill. Commissioner Bird emphasized that he believed this
was an economic decision that needed'to be made, and he made it.
He stated that he has tried to work with the staff and knew when
he made the decision, he could get criticized for second
guessing.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he just felt that Commis-
sioner Bird should not put himself in that position.
Chairman Scurlock felt all this is made pretty clear under
Section 1-37 "Non-interference Policy," which says: "The members
of the Commission and members of appointed boards and committees
of the Commission shall not interfere with the performance of the
duties of any employees of county government who is under the
direct or indirect supervision of county officers. The Board of
County Commissioners and appointed boards or committees or
members thereof shall deal with county affairs through the
. offices of the respective county officers. All employees shall
report any such interference through normal lines of-authority—to
the respective county officers."
Director Thomas advised that is the way he operates, and
while he does understand the personal interest of various
OCT 2 8 1986 76 BOOK 66 FKUE2 16
_
OCT 2 8 1936 BOOK 65. FADE 277
Commissioners in various projects, this was just turned over to
him last April after Mr. Wright had his differences with this
Baard; he is just now getting the paperwork straightened out; and
he does feel he is being put in a position of a no-win deal. If
everything goes well, it is fine, but if not, he will be blamed.
Mr. Thomas did feel, however, that he could guarantee that he
could have foreseen that we would need bridges to get over a 50'
canal.
Commissioner Bird noted that we deleted the cart paths at
the very beginning of the project when we saw we wouldn't have
enough money and delayed making that decision until we could
finish the project, see how much money was left, and determine
how critical they were. Now it is decision-making time. He did
agree the bridges were an oversight, but we thought we had taken
care of them. We went in and, to the tune of about $20,000,
deleted a lot of bulkheading that would have been very attractive
and felt we could take that savings to build the bridges that
were overlooked by the architect or engineer. That would have
worked fine, but we got hit with some expenses we didn't
anticipate, such as the traffic impact fee. When we get all the
final numbers and can study this to determine what is critical to
the opening of the golf course, we will have to come back to the
Board and ask for additional funding.
Commissioner Lyons commented that he is just asking who is
"we" doing this planning. Is it staff or is it Mr. Bird and the
architect or the engineer?
Commissioner Bird stated that "we" is the team that has
worked on this thing from the very be_ginning, which was himself
and the Commission and the architect and the contractor and the
staft.
Director Thomas emphasized that he has not been with this
since the beginning, and as a retired banker, he is uncomfortable
with following any procedure that he does not perceive to follow
guidelines as outlined.
77
Commissioner Lyons asked if the sand ridge can support the
cart paths, and Commissioner Bird believed when the turf is
established, it will be able to, but in some places, a hard
surface will be needed.
Chairman Scurlock felt the overall question is that
Director Thomas is saying that if he is running the show, it
should be run through him and the administration.
Commissioner Wodtke realized that Commissioner Bird will
have to stand by his decision, but someone has to make these
decisions, and while he did not want to put Director Thomas on
the spot, he asked what he would have done if he were Commis-
sioner Bird in that position at 5:30 on a Friday afternoon.
Director Thomas did feel that he is continually being put on
the spot, and noted that, as a matter of fact, he was there that
Friday with Bob Komarinetz until 5:00 P.M.
Commissioner Bird stated that Director Thomas was not there
when Tommy Guettler and the grass planting foreman came to him
about the planting, and the matter involved only amounted to
$1,600. Commissioner Bird emphasized that other than this one
it -em, h -e dizt not feel we have had a problem whatsoever with the
_coordination with staff since the beginning. He felt it has gone
very smoothly; that we probaby have stayed closer to our time
schedule and budget than any major project since he has been a
Commissioner; and he did not believe any major decisions have
been made that have not gone through channels.
Commissioner Lyons had a feeling that the contractor some-
where decided they would rather deal with Commissioner Bird than
with Mr. Thomas, and he felt they should be put on notice that
their dealings with the county and any action they take must be
through the county administration and approved by the county
administration.
Director Thomas stated that if it can't be that way, he did
not want to be involved in it.
OCT 2 81986 78 BOOK FA�r d
BOOK 66 pliU
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we can get an understanding
that on anything that has to be done on the golf course, the
architect or the contractor should go through Director Thomas and
the Administrator.
Administrator Balczun believed Mr. Wodtke has an excellent
solution. He noted that a few weeks ago we appointed a member of
staff to be the owner's authorized representative .on the jail
project, and perhaps we can do that for Mr. Thomas, and that way
the architect and the builder and everybody else will know the'
proper conduit through which all the paperwork, etc., must go.
Commissioner Bird had no problem with that whatsoever and
stated he would be delighted, now that we have someone on board
with some expertise in the golfing field, to be able to stop
spending 30 hours a week on this project and be able to spend
more time on his personal life and business affairs.
It was agreed the procedure would be established as
recommended by Administrator Balczun.
REPORT - BEACH PRESERVATION & RESTORATION COMMITI-EE
Commissioner Wodtke reported that at 2:00 on Thursday the
Committee will meet at City Hall with Dr. Robert Dean in
conjunction with the City and the Town of Indian River Shores,
and he will put on a lengthy explanation of what the state's
position is going to be on beach renourishment, their proposal,
and priorities. Also at 7:00 P.M. a public meeting is going to
be held by the DNR re the coastal construction setback line in
the Commission Chambers. Commissioner Wodtke noted that it had
been requested that they change the location of the meeting to
the Junior High because of the number of people who might be
attending, but because of the advertisements of the meeting,
there is no way to change this now.
79
DISCUSS STEPS TO SET UP TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX
Commissioner Wodtke informed the Board that the Tourist
Development Tax was amended to allow use of the monies generated
for beach restoration. The'Beach Preservation & Restoration
Committee unanimously recommended that the Commission start the
procedure to see if the voters of the county would agree to
establishing a tourist tax. The statute requires that 60 days
prior to the enactment of the establishing ordinance that the
county appoint mine people to a tourist development council, and
the ordinance must go to referendum. Time is of the essence as
it is desired to have this on the ballot in March.
Commissioner Wodtke continued that a water resource bill was
passed in Washington which has not yet been signed by the
President, but he believed it will be signed and will authorize
our projects in Indian River County. What the Committee is
asking the Commission to do is to set in motion the process for
the appointment of the Tourist Development Council, the makeup of
which is as follows:
(e) The governing board of each county which levies
and imposes a tourist development tax under this section shall
appoint an advisory council to be known as the "...(name of
county).. Tourist Development Council." The council shall be
established by ordinance and composed of nine members who
shall be appointed by the governing board. The chairman of
the governing board of the county or any other member of the
governing board as designated by the chairman shall serve on
shall be the ehelrman of the council. Two members of -the
council shall be elected municipal officials, one of whom
shall be from the most populous municipality in the county or
subcounty special taxing district in which the tax is levied.
Three members of the council shail be owneils-.or operators of
motels, hotels. recreational vehicle parks, or other tourist
accommodations in the county and subject to the tax. Three
members of the council shall be persons who are involved in
the touristN ndustry and who have demonstrated an interest in
tourist development, but who are not owners or operators of
motels, hotels, recreational vehicle parka or other tourist
accommodations in the county ect_t th tax. All
members of the council shall be electors of the county.
--
80
L: TBOOK. 66 FGF 280
OCT 2 8
1996
BOOK
66
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would
like to
get this
set up by November 18th.
Chairman Scurlock noted that we have consultants still
working on part of the Beach Management Program, and he had felt
we would come up with an overall approach not only in regard to
nourishment but beach management, of which a tourist tax possibly
would be one source of funding and possibly some sort of weighted
taxing district. He was hoping the Beach Preservation and
Restoration Committee would come up with a five year program for
beach management encompassing everything for coastal protection
and that based on that we would then go to the public and say we
have a mechanism to fund this, here is the budget, and this is
how we will approach it countywide.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed we need to investigate all
sources, and believed the deadline for the beach study is January
1st. The Committee is asking this step be taken because the
tourist tax is one possible source of revenue. The federal
formula has changed to 65% federal and 35% non-federal, and we
don't know if the state formula will be 75% of the 35% non-
federal; however, in order for this funding source to be
available, the procedure must be set in motion.
Assistant County Attorney Barkett informed the Board that,
at the absolute minimum, the Supervisor of Elections needs six
weeks before the referendum to get this on the ballot, which puts
us back to January 7th; then 60 days before the ordinance is
enacted to establish the Tourist Development Council puts us back
to November 25th. He believed the Council should be appointed by
November 18th at the latest.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with the steps necessary to go to
a referendum on a Tourist Development Tax and
81
bring this matter back before the Commission on
November 18th.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:45 o'clock P.M.
A (TEST :
Clerk Chairman
82 BOOK 66 Fr1�E 2�2