HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/1986� � r
Tuesday, November 18, 1986
SWEARING-IN CEREMONY
At 8:45 o'clock A.M., Judge James Balsiger formally adminis-
tered the Oath of Office to newly elected Commissioners Carolyn
K. Eggert and Gary C. Wheeler.
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,
November 18, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Richard N. Bird;
Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were
Charles Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners;
Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy"Thomas,
Director of Intergovernmental Relations; and Virginia. Hargreaves,
Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Scurlock called the meeting to order.
Reverend Ronald Tovey, First Church of God, gave --the
invocation, and Chairman Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to -
the Flag.
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN
The Chairman asked for nominations for the post of Vice
Chairman, which was left vacant by retiring Commissioner Lyons..
Commissioner Wheeler placed the name of Commissioner Bowman
in nomination, which nomination was seconded by Commissioner
Eggert.
Chairman Scurlock asked for any further nominations, and
there being none, declared Commissioner Margaret Bowman elected
Vice Chairman by acclamation.
NOV 18 1986 Boo. 66 ri�,,i.357
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
BOOK 66 P,4,U 58 -7
Chairman Scurlock requested two items be added to the
Consent Agenda - (1) authorization for out -of -county travel for
Commissioners Eggert and Wheeler to attend a Local Government
Financing Seminar in Orlando, and (2) through OMB Director Baird,
Bid #320 - Air Conditioning Replacement of units at the
Courthouse Annex.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he would like to delete Item
9D. (Expansion of Franchise Territory & Change of Ownership -
Riverwalk Utilities) due to improper advertising and reschedule
same for December 9th.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously added and
deleted items as described above.
PRESENTATION OF FEDERAL PROCLAMATION RE VETERANS DAY
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that on Veterans Day he
had the honor of giving the welcoming address at the Veterans
ceremonies, and the Veterans presented to him a Proclamation
signed by President Reagan to pass on to the Commission. He
believed there are only two of these in the State of Florida, and
the other is in Tallahassee. He thanked the Veterans for their
efforts in acquiring this Proclamation, and on their behalf, read
the Proclamation aloud and presented it to the Commission:
6
2
j As
V v
Veterans Day, 1986
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
M
Veterans Day gives all Americans a special opportunity to pay tribute to all
those men and women who, throughout our history, have left their homes and
loved ones to serve their country.
Their willingness to give freely and unselfishly of themselves, even their lives,
in defense of our democratic principles has given our great country the
security we enjoy today. From Valley Forge to Vietnam, through war and
peace, valiant, patriotic Americans have answered the call, serving with honor
and fidelity.
On this special day, our hearts and thoughts turn to all the Nation's
veterans. Let us reflect on the great achievements of those whose sacrifices
preserved our freedom and our way of life. With a spirit of pride and
gratitude, let us recall their heroic accomplishments and thank them for their
unselfish devotion to duty. They are indeed worthy of the solemn tribute of a
grateful Nation. -- --
I invite all Americans to join me in observing Veterans Day—through appro-
priate ceremonies, activities, and commemorations on November 11.
In order that we may pay fitting homage to those men and women who have
proudly served in our Armed Forces, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103
(a)) that November 11 of each year shall be set aside as a legal public holiday
to honor America's veterans.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of
America, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, November 11, 1986, as Veterans Day. I
urge all Americans to recognize the valor and sacrifice of our veterans through
appropriate public ceremonies and private prayers. I also call upon Federal.
State. and local government officials to display the flag of the United States
and to encourage and participate in patriotic activities throughout the country.
I invite the business community, churches, schools, unions, civic and fraternal
organizations, and the media to support this national observance with suitable
commemorative expressions and programs.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day
of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-six, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and
.eleventh.
0 crv� Qt_�
BOOK 66 FACE 359
BOOK 66 PAGE 360
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the'
above Proclamation, expressed their thanks to the
- Veterans, and directed that the Proclamation be
displayed in a prominent place in the Administration
Building.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 20, 1986.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 20,
1986, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock requested that the Item E be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Renewal of Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 5, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permits - Renewals
FROM:Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following Persons have applied through the Clerk's Office
for renewal of their pistol permits:
Gary Lynn Beatty
Mary Kathryn Beatty
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
renewal applications to carry a concealed firearm
for Gary Lynn Beatty and Mary Kathryn Beatty.
B. Approval of New Application for Permit to Carry a Concealed
Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 5, 1986 FILE: _
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - New
REFERENCES:
The following person has applied through the Clerk's Office for
a new pistol permit:
Dale G. Abrahamson ~
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously ---approved
application to carry a concealed firearm for
Dale G. Abrahamson.
C. and D. Reports
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund
Month of October, 1986 -- $38,628.41
Report of Convictions - Month of October, 1986
E. Request NApproval _of Applications_ to Florida_ Boating
Improvement Fund
The Board reviewed Commissioner Bird's memo, as follows:
5
BOOK 66 PfvJE 361
r___ -7
NOV 18 1986 �
BOOK ucE•.�i<1�
TO: County Commissioners DATE: November 4, 1986 FILE:
- --- SUBJECT: Request approval of
applications to Florida
Boating Improvement Fund
FROM: Richard N. Bird REFERENCES:
Commissioner
The Parks and Recreation Committee made the following motions at their
October 16, 1986 meeting:
The Committee unanimously recommended authorization to proceed with
the restroom conceptual plan, and make application to the Florida
Boating Improvzme_nt Fund for an amount not to exceed $45-,000 to
complete the Joe Earman Park.
The Committee unanimously recommended a $20,000 contribution toward
the cost of paving the roadways to the launching ramps at Bob Summers
Park, the money to come from Florida Boating Improvement Fund.
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
applications to the Florida Boating Improvement Fund for the above
projects.
Chairman Scurlock had a question relating to the priority of
Joe Earman Park as he knew Blue Cypress Lake Park has had serious
problems with their restrooms, and he wondered which park has
more use.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas felt there is no
question that the boat ramp at Bob Summers Park is the most used
in the county; he felt Blue Cypress Park is mainly used on the
weekends. He noted that in any event we will have another appro-
priation of boating funds in January, probably around $25,000.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the status of the Blue
Cypress package sewer plant, and Director Thomas assumed the
plans were drawn but was not sure of the exact status.
In the ensuing discussion regarding restroom facilities,
0
Director Thomas advised that we will be using portalets on the
Joe Earman island. park and that the $45,000 will be used for
actual construction of the pavilions, boat ramps, docks, etc.
6
Chairman Scurlock noted that his confusion -had related to
the request for authorization to proceed with "the restroom
conceptual plan" for Joe Earman Park at an amount of $45,000, and
Director Thomas confirmed that this amount was for the entire
plan and the word "re.stroom" should have been left out.
Chairman Scurlock asked for an update on Blue Cypress Lake
Park, and Utilities Director Pinto reported that he has just
received word from both the EPA and DER that both Blue Cypress
Lake Park and Rockridge have been placed on a priority list to be
eligible for a grant, and he believed there is a good possibility
this could be funded in 1987.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
applications to the Florida Boating Improvement Fund
for $45,000 to complete Joe Earman Park and for
$20,000 to contribute toward the cost of paving the
roadways to the launching ramps at Bob Summers Park.
F. Report
Report of Tax Collector Gene Morris re Occupational License
Taxes collected during the month of October, 1986, is hereby made
a part of the record.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
DATE: November 10, 1986
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please -
be informed that $32,956.60 was collected in occupational
license taxes during the month of October, 1986, representing
the issuance of 1,293 occupational licenses.
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
NOV 18 1986
7 600K 66 FmuF 363
r7__
NOV 18 1986
BOOK 66 u,11-64
G. Rejection of IRC Bid #319_CCA=0_80_Pounds Assay -Land or Fresh
Water Timber Pilings and Lumber (Annual Bid)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/86:
T®; Board of County Commissioners DATE: Nov. 6, 1986 FILE:
1�R/
THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC #7319 -CCA -0.80 Pounds
Director, Budget Office Assay -Land or Fresh Water
Timber Pilings and Lumber
(Annual Bid)
FROM: REFERENCES:
Carolyn,'600drich, Manager
Purchas {g Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Thursday, October 23, 1986 at 11:00 A.M.
for IRC #319 -CCA -0.80 Pounds Assay -Land or Fresh Water Timber
Pilings and Lumber for the Road & Bridge Department.
6 Bids were sent out, of the 4 Bids received, 2 were "No Bids."
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The overall low bid was submitted by Langdale Forest Products
Co., Valdosta, Ga.
However, there are 2 additional vendors that could possibly bid
that we were not aware of when this Irid was mailed out.
3. Recommendation
Because only 2 bids were received and we could possibly get
additional bids, staff recommends IRC #319 be rejected and we
re -bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously rejected the
two bids received for IRC #319 and authorized staff
to rebid, as recommended by Purchasing Manager
Goodrich.
H._DER/Army Corps/DNR_Permit Applications - David H. Schwartz
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/7/86:
8
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
'^ SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keit ng,�ICP
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois R0 REFERENCES:
Environmental Planning Section
D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND,
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
TIONS
Schwartz
TM#87-057
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 November 18, 1986.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FILE NO. 86IPC - 20599
Applicant: Mr. David H. Schwartz
C/O Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
- 1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River, Section 25, Township 30 South, Range 38 East, Indian
River County, Florida. The upland property associated with the.
project is the Serenity Bay Multi -Family Residential Develo-
pment, located at 13425 Indian River Drive, in the unincor-
porated portion of the County.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a 6 -foot -
wide by 360 -foot -long pier- with a- 6 -foot -wide by 56 -foot -long
"T" at the outboard end and construct twelve 2 -foot -wide by 10
footlong finger piers to create 24 boat slips for multi -family
use -(Serenity Bay). No dredging or filling will be performed;
no fueling or sewage pumpout facilities are proposed.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
'1 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
- Costal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
- Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code
The proposed multi -family residential dockage facility was
reviewed by staff as part of site plan review for phase I of
the Serenity Bay multiple -family condominium project. The
condominium development was approved by the County Planning and
Zoning Commission on September 25, 1986, with the condition
BOOK 66 E:365
NOV 18
1986 BOOK 66 PAGE 366
that all permits for the dock (i.e.-A.C.O.E., D.E.R.) will have
to be obtained prior to release of the site plan. Staff review
of the proposed dockage facility indicates that the dock meets
criteria set forth in chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative
Code, related to the Iridian River Aquatic Preserve.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding..
this project to the Army Corps of Engineers:
1. The Army Corps of Engineers and other appropriate agencies
should coordinate with the D.N.R., in that 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 applicable agency permits
related to the dock facility have been acquired, and all
conditions stipulated for release of site plan have been
satisfied.
3. The Army Corps of Engineers and other appropriate agencies
should evaluate the potential impact of the marina project
on ecologically significant submerged bottomlands such as
seagrass beds in the Indian River.
4. The Army Corps of Engineers and other appropriate agencies
should consider the potential cumulative impacts of
dockage upon the Florida Manatee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward to the Army Corps of Engineers the
comments as set out in the above memo.
I. Final Plat Approval - Ryanwood Shopping Center
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/86:
10
T®: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 6, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
f FINAL PLAT FOR RYANWOOD
Robert M. Keatinct, A� SUBJECT:'
SHOPPING CENTER
Planning & Develll_opment Director
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development M
FROM: Stan Bolingr 6► REFERENCES: ryanwood
Staff PlanneSTAN4
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
Background and Description:
The entire Ryanwood Shopping Center project area, located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of King's Highway and S.R.
60, presently consists of two "tracts". One tract includes the
Barnett Bank site; the other tract includes the shopping center
site and two -planned out -parcels. Both the shopping center tract
and the Barnett Bank tract have been site planned and developed.
Pursuant to the subdivision ordinance, a formal commercial
subdivision must be platted in order to create the two planned
out -parcels, which are to be sold and developed independently.
At their regular meeting of November- 13, 1986, the Planning and
Zoning Commission considered and approved the preliminary plat.
The submitted final plat conforms to the approved preliminary
plat. The owner, King's Highway Plaza Partnership,_ is now
requesting final plat approval.
ANALYSIS
The existing shopping center tract, which excludes the Barnett
Bank site, consists of ±16.294 acres zoned CG (General Commercial)
which has a commercial node land use designation. The plat
establishes three separate tracts; one consisting of the existing
shopping center site and two other tracts to be sold and site -
planned separately.
'The plat references the limited access and utilities easements
already established across the site, as well as the necessary road
right-of-way dedications granted during the site plan process.
Also, the plat separates by covenant the tract I stormwater
management system from tracts II and III. Thus tracts II and III
will have to "stand alone" in regards to stormwater management for
future development on those sites.
Since all common infrastructure improvements (drives, entrances,
utility .lines) have already been constructed within tract I, no
further subdivision improvements are required. Thus, no land
development permit is required for the subdivision. Final plat
approval may be considered immediately after preliminary plat
approval is granted. The public works, utilities, and planning
departments have no objection to final plat approval. All
applicable County regulations for final plat approval have been
satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to the Ryanwood Shopping Center subdivision.
11
BooK 66 rmUE :367
i
Iii
BOOK 66 P'U'E.368
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval for Ryanwood Shopping Center.
J. Release of Easement -
Roseland Gardens Subdivision (W. Cook)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/7/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:November 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT
REQUEST BY WARREN B. COOK
SUBJECT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS
13, 14, 15, BLOCK 8,
ROSELAND GARDENS SUBDIVI
Robert M. Keating, MCP SION
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Betty Davis F S: Cook
Code Enforcement Officer DIS:REMS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Warren Cook, owner of the
subject property, for the release of the common side lot 5'
easement .of lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 8, Roseland Gardens
Subdivision, being the southeasterly 5' of lots 14 and 15,
Block 8, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, and the northwesterly 5'
of Lots 13 and 14,. Block 8, Roseland Gardens Subdivision as
recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 25 of the Public Records of
Indian River County Florida. It is the owner's intention to
consolidate the lots into 3 larger -building sites.
The current zoning classification is RS -6, Single Family
Residential District. The land use designation is_LD-2, Low
• Density Residential, up to six (6) units per acre. _
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power &
Light, Jones Intercable, and Indian River County Utility and
Right-of-way Departments. Based upon their review, there were
no objections to the release of the easements. The zoning
staff analysis, which included a site visit, indicated that
drainage would be adequately handled on-site.
IL
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board through adoption of a resolution
the release of the common side lot 5' easement of lots 13, 14
and 15, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, being the southeasterly
5' of lots 14 and 15, Block 8, Roseland Gardens Subdivision,
and the northwesterly 5' of Lots 13 and 14, Block 8, Roseland
Gardens Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 25 of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
12
� � r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-98, releasing the common side lot 5'
easement of Lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 8, Roseland
Gardens Subdivision, as requested by Warren B. Cook.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-98
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN
EASEMENTS IN THE ROSELAND GARDENS
SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as
described below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves
no public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian
River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Warren B. Cook & Alkone L.
Cook, his wife, whose mailing address is 3213 S.E. 25th
Street, Okeechobee, Florida 33472, Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following
described easements:
SEE EXHIBIT B1A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Bird , seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and adopted on the 18th day of
November 1986, by the following
vote:
Commissioner
Scurlock
Aye
Commissioner
Bowman
Aye
Commissioner
Bird
Aye
Commissioner
Eggert
Aye
Commissioner
Wheeler
Aye
13
BOOK 66 f't,GE 369
NOV 18 196 �%
BOOK 66 P�+'�c'..� 1
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 18th day of November , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By
Don C. Scurlock, Jr
Chairman
"EXHIBIT"
The.common side lot 5' easement of Lots 13, 14 and 15,
Block 8, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, being the
southeasterly 5' of Lots' 14 and 15, Block 8, Roseland
Gardens Subdivision, and the northwesterly 5' of Lots
13 and 14, Block 8, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, as
recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 25, of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
K. Release of Easement— Sunhaven Subdivision (R.Elliott)
The.0gard reviewed the following memo dated 10/30,86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATEPctober 30, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST
BY RICHARD & ELOISE ELLIOTT
SUBJECT: SUBJECT PROPERTY: SUNHAVEN
Obert M. Keain , AICP SUBDIVISION LOT 14 LESS
Planning & Detelol5ment Director SOUTH FIVE (5) FEET
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. Heath REFERENCES: R/E Elliott
Code Enforcement Officer DIS:REMS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Richard and Eloise Elliott,
owners of the subject property, for the release of the
southerly 11.07 feet of the northerly 20 foot drainage and
utility -easement of a parcel of property in_ Sunhaven
- Subdivision, that parcel being Lot 14 less the south five (5)
feet. The portion of the easement requested for release is
described as the southerly eleven point zero seven (11.07) feet
of the northerly twenty (20) feet of Lot 14, less the southerly
five (5) feet, of Sunhaven Subdivision located in Section 10,
Township 33, Range 39, as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 58, of
the Public Records of Indian River County Florida. It is Mr. &
Mrs. Elliott's intention to effect compliance with Indian River
14
County regulations by releasing that part of the utility and
drainage easement in which their residence has been encroaching
for the last eighteen (18) years:
The current zoning classification is RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District. The land use designation is LD -2, Low
Density Residential up to six (6) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone,
Florida Power and Light, Florida Cablevision Corporation, and
Indian River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments.
Based upon their review, there were no objections to the release
of that portion of the twenty foot utility and drainage
easement.. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site
visit, showed that the drainage would be adequately handled on
the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a
resolution, the release of the Southerly eleven point seven
(11.07) feet of the northerly twenty foot utility and drainage
easement of Lot 14,1ess the Southerly five (5) feet, Sunhaven
Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 7 Page 58, of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-99 releasing the southerly 11.07 feet
of the northerly 20 -ft. drainage and utility easement
on Lot 14, less the southerly 5 ft., Sunhaven
Subdivision, as requested by Richard and Eloise
Elliott.
15
BOOK 66 r,i 371
Nov 18 1986
B00r, 66 ufl,E 3 '12
RESOLUTION NO. 86-99
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN
EASEMENTS IN THE SUNHAVEN SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as
described below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves
no public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian
River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to Richard & Eloise Elliott,
whose mailing address is 970 28th Avenue, Vero Beach,
Florida 32962, Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following
described easements:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Bird , seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and adopted on the 18th day of
November , 1986, by the following vote: -
Commissioner Scurlock Aye
Commissioner Bowman Aye
Commissioner Bird Aye
Commissioner Eggert Aye
Commissioner Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 18th day of November , 1986.
16
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By G
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
EXHIBIT "A"
The southerly 11.07 feet of the northerly 20 foot
drainage and utility easement - of Lot 14, Sunhaven
Subdivision as recorded in PB 7, Pg. 58 of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
L. Release of Easement_- Shorelands_Subdivision (J. Tierney)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/30/86:
TO: The Honorable Members ®ATE: October 30, 1986 FILE:
} of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT
REQUEST BY J. DONALD
d// ,,,► SUBJECT: TIERNEY SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Robert M. Keating, A P SHORELANDS SUBDIVISION
Planning & Developme t Director LOT 21
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. Heath REFERENCES: R/E Tierney
Code Enforcement Officer DIS:REMS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by J. Donald Tierney and Barbara
C. Tierney, his wife, owners of the subject property, for the
release of the northerly two (2) feet of the southerly ten (10)
foot utility and drainage easement of Lot 21, Shorelands
Subdivision, being the northerly two (2) feet of the southerly
ten (10) feet of Lot 21, Section 16, Township 33, Range 40, as
recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 87, of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida. It is the intention of Mr. &
Mrs. Tierney to construct a swimming pool at the rear of their
single-family residence.
The current zoning classification is RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District. The land use designation is LD -1, Low
Density Residential, up to three (3) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: --
The request has been
Beach Power Company
Indian River County
NO
18 19816
reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone, Vero
Florida Cablevision Corporation, and
Utility and Right-of-way Departments.
17
BOOK 66 F,�,UE 373
Boa 66 F,�;F 37 4
Based upon their review, there were no objections to the
release of that portion of the ten (10) foot utility and
drainage easement. The Zoning staff analysis showed that the
drainage would be handled adequately on site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a
resolution, the release of the northerly two (2) feet of the
southerly ten (10) foot utility and drainage easement of Lot 21,
Shorelands Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 11 Page 87, of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-100, releasing the northerly 2 feet of
the southernly 10 ft. utility and drainage easement
-n-f--Lot 21, Shorelands Subdivision, as requested by
J. Donald Tierney.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-100
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN
EASEMENTS IN THE SHORELANDS
SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as
described below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves
no public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian
River County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to J. Donald Tierney &
Barbara C. Tierney, his wife, whose mailing address is P.O.
Box 3188, Vero Beach, Florida, 32964, Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following
described easements:
18
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Bird
Eggert , and adopted
seconded by Commissioner
on the 18th day of
November , 1986, by the following vote:
Commissioner Scurlock Aye
Commissioner Bowman Aye
P
Commissioner Bird Aye
Commissioner Eggert Aye
Commissioner Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 18th day of November , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By / G
Z4
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
EXHIBIT "A"
The northerly two (2) feet of the southerly ten (10)
foot utility and drainage easement of Lot 21,
Shorelands Subdivision, being the northerly two (2)
feet of the southerly ten (10) feet of Lot 21, Section
16, Township 33, Range 40, as recorded in Plat Book 11,
Page 87, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
M. Release of Assessment Lien - SR -60 Wastewater - Strazzulla
Bros. Co., Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Release of Assessment Lien in the amount of
$56,672.06 to Strazzulla Bros. Co., Inc. for 40
ERUs SR 60 Sewers.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT.LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
19
BOOK 66 urjE 375
NOV 18 1996 BOOK 66 F',� F ��' 6
N. Release of Assessment Line - SR -60 Water - Strazzulla Bros.
Co., Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Release of Assessment Lien in the amount of
$36,691.80 to Strazzulla Bros. Co., Inc., for
40 ERUs SR 60 Water.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
0. Partial Release of Assessment Lien - SR -60 water - Vista
Properties of Vero Beach, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
a partial assessment lien in the amount of $7,181.79
to Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc. for 7 ERUs on
SR -60 water project (Vista Plantation Plaza)
PARTIAL RELEASE OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT WATER RESERVATION
AND ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
4107i".'
P.rDER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application - Indian River Mosquito
Control District
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/11/86:
20
TO: The Honorable Members ®ATE: November 11, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS,
Robert M. Kea ing,/�AICP D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Planning & Development Director
Art Challacombe, Chiefcomp. DER
FROM: Environmental Planning REFERENCES: Disk. REMS
It is requested that the data provided herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting to be held on November 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
D.E.R. Application File Number: 31-126837-4
Applicant- Name & Address: Indian River Mosquito Control Dis-
trict, 5655 S. Gifford Rd., Vero Beach, FL. 32961-0670.
Waterwav & Location-: The proposed -project is located along the
Indian River within mosquito control impoundment #12. Mosquito
control impoundment #12 is located within the unincorporated
areas ,of Indian River County and St. Lucie County on the
barrier island in Section 34, Township 33, Range 40 East.
Project Description: The applicant proposes to install two 30
inch diameter by 50 feet long culverts with flap gates as part
of an existing salt marsh impoundment management research
project.
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 & Costal Zoning Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Costal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
The proposed culvert installation is an integral part of the
5th year of all salt marsh impoundment management research
project partially funded by the Floridaa Department of Environ-
mental Regulation/ Costal Zone Management Program.' This study
is administered locally by the applicant (Indian River Mosquito
Control District) and involves three principal investigators:
Dr. Jorge Rey of the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory/
University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, Mr. Grant Gilmore of the Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution, Inc. and Mr. Douglas Carlson of the Indian River
Mosquito Control District . This project intends to provide a
scientific comparison of the effectiveness of 30 inch vs. 18
inch culverts on several marsh ecosystem components.
21
BOOK 66 ul-)F.3 i 8
It should be noted that all three principal investigators are
r members of the Subcommittee on Managed Marshes. Mr. Carlson
currently is the Chairman. The investigators anticipate that
this study will provide significant information which can
influence and perhaps modify impoundment management practices
on the central -east coast of florida.
_ RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comment regarding this
project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation:
1) Indian River County recommends that the D.E.R. issue a
permit for the proposed project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward to the DER the County's recommendation
_that the DER issue the subject permit.
Q. Sheriff's_ Administration Building
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 5, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT: Sheriff's Administration
County Administrator Building
H. T. "SonnTe
FROM Director
General Servis
an - -
REFERENCES:
P.W.R. Corporation, the contractor on the subject project, located an
artesian well in the middle of where our Communications Center was
to be constructed. Mr. Jim Davis and I authorized Henry McLaughlin
Well Drilling of Vero Beach to permanently seal the well off at a
guaranteed cost of $3,500. McLaughlin -Well Drilling is a reputable
and reliable company that has performed this type of work for
Mr. Davis before.
This work had to be done, and Mr. McLaughlin was available Friday,
October 31st to complete it. It was authorized in order to guarantee
that the contractor would not be held up on the project.
This item is for your information.
comments.
22
Please advise me if you have any
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
retroactive approval for McLaughlin Well Drilling to
seal off an artesian well at a cost of $3,500, as
recommended by staff.
R. Extension of Lease Agreement__ Florida Highway Safety & Motor
Vehicles - Driver License Division
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 6, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT: Division of Drivers License
County Administrator Leased Space
H' T -
FROM:
- REFERENCES:
FRAM: Direc or -
General Services
In March of 1986, the Board of County Commissiorf�approved this
writer's recommendation not to renew the subject lease upon its
expiration on November 30, 1986. The lessee was notified of this
action in writing and requested to vacate the premises accordingly.
Mr. I. C. Zorn, Regional Supervisor, Division of Driver License,
advised me of problems involved with the moving and requested a two
month extension.
Staff recommends approval of the lease extension, and authorization
for the Chairman to execute the attached agreement.
Due to the time factor and need of Board approval, the agreement form
was not signed by the State prior to submittal. However, they need
this paperwork before they can issue a check.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
a 2 -month extension of the lease agreement with the
Division of Drivers Licenses for space in the County
Administration Building, lease to expire 1/31/87.
LEASE EXTENSION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
23
NOV 18 1986 66 Fv�LrM
S__ Approval _of_Out-of-County_Travel
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for Commissioners Eggert and
Wheeler to attend a seminar on Local Government
Financing in Orlando, Florida, on November 21, 1986.
T. IRC Bid _#320_- Air Conditioning_ Replacement
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/86:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Nov. 6, 1986
P
THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC Bid #320 -Air Conditioning
Director, Budget Office Replacement
FROM: ,C�� REFERENCES:
Caroly Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1• Description and Conditions
Bids were received Thursday, October 30, 1986 at 11:00 A.M.
for IRC #320 -Air Conditioning Replacement.
8 Bid Proposals were sent out, 5 Bids•were received.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Service Refrigeration, Vero Beach,
F1. in the amount of $9574.00 Total. Service Refrigeration -
replaced 2 air conditioners at the Courthouse last year.
3. Recommendation and Funding
Staff recommends that IRC #320 -be awarded to the low bidder
Service Refrigeration in the amount of $9574.00.
Funds are budgeted in Account #001-220-519-066.49.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
awarded IRC Bid #320 to the low bidder, Service
24
Refrigeration, in the amount of $9574 -for air
conditioning replacement per the following bid
tabulation.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida.32960
BID TABULATION
o�
a
0
�o
-' '`
y �� o)c
U +., U ?i
•� Acb� F 40fd
�� •.¢� •F
c°� �o �F�o io 01 J.0C' °J
BID NO.
IRC BID #320
DATE OF OPENING
Oct. 30, 1986
BID TITLE
ITEM DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNI
1. Air Conditioning Replacement
Trane
LennOK
York
Carri
r
Carri
r
IRC -Courthouse Annex
Total
2
Total
2
Tota1(2)
Total(
R)
Total
6625
00
11 460
00
12 360
00
9574
00
10,994
00
with
lnr--
supply
retu
n
ducts
for 10
w
add '1
`
eat
with
512
00
& return
fires
at
ducts
167
00
MOBILE HOME SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Michael Miller, Chief of Current Development, made the
following presentation:
25 BOOK 66 FAGE 381
Nov 18 1986
''NOV 18 1986
BOOK
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 7, 1986 FILE:
the County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
�. SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME SITE
Robert M. Keafing,� CP PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Planning & Developa%nt Director
FROM: Michael K. Miller tqj M REFERENCES: M/H S/P
Chief, Current Development MIKEII
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
INTRODUCTION:
The Board of County Commissioners at the October 28, 1986
regularly scheduled meeting directed the staff to review current
requirements -concerning mobile home site plan review. The primary
issue was whether or not minor site plan review for the location
of single mobile homes was necessary or just a needless dupli-
cation of tie -down permit r-eviews.---
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Minor site plan review is presently required whenever a mobile
home is located on any mobile home lot or tract. Prior to
adoption of the RMH-6 and RMH-8 mobile home districts in 1985,
mobile home projects were not developed into platted lots but into
a series of mobile home spaces. The resulting spaces were small
and. a distance between mobile homes, rather than traditional
setbacks from lot lines was required..- The separation requirement
between individual mobile homes required that a systematic
monitoring process be established to ensure that mobile homes were
located properly within the mobile home park and this monitoring
was established through the application of minor site plan review
criteria.
Since the adoption of RMH-6 and RMH-8 zoning districts, all new
mobile home developments must be platted into individual lots and
receive major site plan approval for the entire project. The
• platting of the mobile home development into individual lots, the
application of traditional minimum setbacks from property lines,
and the requirement that the development receive site plan
approval eliminates the need for minor site plan approval.
The Building Department reviews the placement of the mobile home
on individual lots through tie -down permit review. Since the tie -
down permit review process includes review of setback requirements
in the same way that building permit review examines setbacks for
single family homes, any further review through the application of
site plan procedures is not necessary.
A table is attached that summarizes current regulations concerning
mobile home development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the RMH-8 and
RMH-6 districts be amended to eliminate the minor site plan
approval requirement for the siting of individual mobile homes.
26
Applicant
Cost $1,150.+ $350.+ $125.00 $15.00
$8.00
*Staff proposes to eliminate this requirement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- -
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously directed
staff to proceed with the steps necessary for amending
the RMH-8 and RMH-6 districts as recommended by staff. j
27
NOV 18 1986 K05 66 FA "JE383
CURRENT REGULATIONS CONCERNING
MOBILE HOME
DEVELOPMENT
Major
Minor
Temporary
Bldg. Dept.
Site
Site
Use
Tie -Down
Subdivision
Plan
Plan
Permit
Permit
Establishment of
a New Mobile
Home Park X
X
Legal Mobile Home
Lot without a pre-
vious mobile home
P
(conforming and
legally noncon-
forming lot) -
X*
X
Legal Mobile Home
Lot with a mobile
home previously
on lot (conforming
and legally non-
conforming lot)
Xt
x
Agricultural -
accessory use
administrative
permit in the
A-1 Zoning District
X
X
Night watchmen's
quarters administra-
tive permit in the CH,
IL IG Zoning District
X
_&
X
Temporary Real Estate
sales office
X
X
X
Temporary construction
"
office, construction
storage, and.construc-
tion watchmen's
quarters
X
X
Applicant
Cost $1,150.+ $350.+ $125.00 $15.00
$8.00
*Staff proposes to eliminate this requirement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- -
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously directed
staff to proceed with the steps necessary for amending
the RMH-8 and RMH-6 districts as recommended by staff. j
27
NOV 18 1986 K05 66 FA "JE383
FIT
NOV 18 1986 BOOK 66 F=.�� 384
REQUEST TO REDUCE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR HOTEL & MOTEL ROOMS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
�fl
ir re matt ToS�G'
In the
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
a
Court, was pub-
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscri Xore m /is day of A.D. 19
(Bpyless Manager)
m-
i
ver County, Florida)
- NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE`.?',"':?.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
my Commissioners* Indian River County,
rida shall hold a public hearing at which par-
es in interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
nity to be heard, In the County Commission
Chambers of .the Courrtty Administration Build-
ing, located at 1840 25ttF St., Vero' Beach, Flor-
ida,'on Tuesday; November 18, 1988, at 9:05
a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER.
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING AP-
PENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZON-
ING CODE, ENACTING AN AMEND-
MENT TO THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL
AND GENERAL ZONING DISTRICTS;
PERTAINING TO REDUCING THE MINI-
MUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRE'
MENTS FOR HOTEL AND MOTEL
- ROOMS, FROM 300 SQUARE FEET TO
250 SQUARE FEET; PROVIDING FOR .
REPEAL OF* CONFLICTING PROVI-
SIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY,
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
A copy of the proposed Ordinance is available
at the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building. . .
Anyone who may wish to appeaLany decision
which may be made at. this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding
Is made which includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Oca. 28,1986.. ;; x
Chief Planner Shjearer made the staff presentation:
28
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 7, 1986 FILE:
r
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
62� '
SUBJECT: CARDINAL INDUSTRIES,
Robe"rt M. Keat qg, AYP INC., REQUEST TO REDUCE
Planning & Development Director MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR
HOTEL & MOTEL ROOMS
FROM: Rich�rd M. Shearer, REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Cardinal Industries, Inc., is requesting to amend the CL, Limited
Commercial District, and CG, General Commercial District, of the
Zoning Ordinance by reducing the minimum required floor area of
hotel and motel rooms from 300 square feet to 250 square feet.
Cardinal Industries is requesting this amendment because they
have plans to construct a -motel in the County in the future which
would have rooms containing less than 300 square feet.
The County established a 300 square -foot minimum requirement for
hotel and motel rooms in 1971. In July of 1985, the Board of
County Commissioners adopted new commercial zoning districts
which did not contain a minimum square footage requirement for
hotels and motels. However, on March 19, 1986, the Board amended
the CL and CG zoning districts to reestablish the 300 square foot
minimum floor area requirement. At that time, the Board
questioned whether or not the 300 square -footage requirement was
appropriate or whether a lesser square footage requirement would
be more appropriate. The staff did a survey of nearby local
governments based on this inquiry.
On October 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The survey of nearby local governments resulted in the following
data:
Jurisdiction
Brevard County
Indian River County
Sebastian
Vero Beach
Indian River Shores
St. Lucie County
Ft. Pierce
Martin County
West Palm Beach
Stuart: 1 occupant
2 occupants
3 occupants
4 occupants
5 occupants
6 occupants
Minimum Square
Footage For Motel Rooms
250
300
no minimum
300
hotels & motels not permitted
no minimum
no minimum
600
no minimum
150 sq. ft.
250 sq. ft.
350 sq. ft.
450 sq. ft.
525 sq. ft.
600 sq. ft. '
BOOK 66
-Jr , 6
In April when this information was presented to the Board, the
: Staff indicated that the survey indicated that the County's 300
square foot requirement was adequate and middle-of-the-road
compared to the requirements in neighboring jurisdictions. The
staff also indicated at that time that if the square footage
requirement was lowered that the staff would recommend it be
lowered to 250 square feet.
In further reviewing this request, staff notes that the Standard.
Building Code requires a minimum of 150 square feet for the first
person occupying a dwelling and 100 square feet of additional
space for each additional person. The staff feels that most
hotel and motel rooms are designed for at least two occupants
which would require 250 square feet based on the Standard
Building Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the CL and CG
zoning districts be amended by reducing the minimum square
footage requirements for hotel and motel rooms from 300 to 250
square feet.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Michael Slater came before the Board representing Cardinal
Industries, Inc. He informed the Board that they are a modular
developer and the reason 288 sq. ft. is a fixed number with them
is that they manufacture a non -variable unit which is then built
on site. They currently have 12 motels in the State of Florida
and are anticipating building another 13 in 1987 - one here out
near 1-95. This is a request that would allow them to do busi-
ness in this community based on the county's current ordinance.
They own and manage these motels themselves. They are known as
Knight's Inn or Arbor Gate Inns, and the one planned for this
area will have about 60 units.
Commissioner Bowman asked if their square footage is similar
to the rooms in an Econo Lodge, and Mr. Slater stated that it is
very similar - their room is 12 x 24 as opposed to the standard
13 x 24.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed.the
public hearing.
30
Commissioner Bowman inquired about state regulations and
whether smoke alarms are required, dead bolts, etc.
Mr. Slater assured her that they do provide all those items,
and all their units meet and exceed all state requirements.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-73 reducing the minimum floor area
for hotel and motel rooms as requested by Cardinal
Industries.
ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 73
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, ENACTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; PERTAINING TO
REDUCING THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR HOTEL AND MOTEL ROOMS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
SECTION 1
Paragraph M. of Section 19, CL: Limited Commercial District,
is hereby amended as follows:
M. Minimum Floor Area and Land Area Required.
For the following specified uses, every lot or parcel
shall provide a living quarters area and a land area
for each unit of at least the amount indicated:
Square feet of Square feet of
Use living area per unit land area per unit
Multiple -Family Dwelling 500 5,000
Hotel or Motel unit $00 250 1,200
SECTION 2
Paragraph M. of Section 20, CG: General Commercial District,
is hereby amended as follows:
31 BOOK
0V 18 1-986
BOOK 66 rn1388
M. Minimum Floor Area and Land Area Required.
For the following specified uses, every lot or parcel
shall provide a living quarters area and a land area
for each unit of at least the amount indicated.
Square feet of Square feet of
Use living area per unit land area per unit
Multiple -Family Dwelling 500 5,000
Hotel or Motel unit 300 250 1,200
SECTION 3
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
CODING: Words in OitAOX} Wid type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
SECTION 4
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated 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 5
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not
affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to
have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without
such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
32
SECTION 6
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 18th;•day of November 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By i G
Don C. Scur ock, Jr hairman
CREATION OF NEW ZONING DISTRICT - ROSELAND
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the /�'®� / Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of ey. -qz
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed b fore me thi day of A.D. 19
B iness Manager)
h .,
(Clerk of the Circuit rt, I nAj#River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
33
_ ` NOTICE –• PUBLIC NOTICE ` ; .
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board a
FloridarM
sh
all holds a public lic hearing at of Indian which Pat
ties In Interest and emtunity to be heardciinn the Caounty ll Commihave an �
Chambers -0f the. County Administration Builc
Ing Ida, loonnated at 1640 26th Tuesday. November 18,19888Cat 9:0
a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinanc
n MoT Z F—Department
Ordinance is available
at the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record. ofthe proceeding
Is made which includes the testimony and evl-,
dance upon which the appeal It be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS –
BY: -s -Don C. Scurlock. Jr.
Chairman
OCt. 28,188$
Bov 6 F�F 389
BOOK 66E'3
Chief Planner Shearer made the staff presentation as
follows, emphasizing that staff prefers Alternative 3:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
t/a SUBJECT: CREATION OF NEW ZONING
Robert til. Keatl.n , AIep DISTRICT ALLOWING SINGLE -
Director, Planning &-Development FAMILY RESIDENCES &
MOBILE HOMES IN ROSELAND
FRO^^�•� REFERENCES:
'chard Shearer
Chief, Long -Range Planning Mensing Memo TK2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
On May 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners discussed the
possibility of creating a new zoning district which would allow
both single-family residences and mobile homes. A request was
made to establish such a zoning district at the May 8th meeting of
the Planning and Zoning -Commission during a public hearing
concerning the Roseland Small Area Plan. Based on this request,
the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on the Roseland
plan and referred the matter of a new zoning district to the Board
for direction. On May 21st, the Board instructed the staff to
prepare. some alternatives for regulating mobile homes and
single-family dwellings in Roseland in the future.
On June 25, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the
staff to set up public hearings on a proposed new zoning district
for Roseland.
The County formerly had a district _(the R-lRM district) which
allowed both mobile homes and single-family units. In April of
1985,when the new residential districts were adopted,_ the R-1RM
district was repealed. Since a large part of_ Roseland was
zoned R-1RM until that district was repealed, the residential
conversion ordinance.. rezoned those areas to RMH-8, Mobile Home
Residential District.' The RMH-8 district allows mobile homes
up to 8 units per acre, but prohibits single-family units.
The area in Roseland that was zoned R-lRM contains approximate-
ly 110 mobile homes, vacant land, and about six single-family
dwellings. During the fall of 1985, the Roseland Property
Owners Association approached the Planning Department about
this situation and inquired if this area could be rezoned to
R-1RM or another zoning district that would allow mobile homes
and single-family dwellings. The Association also indicated
that they felt the existing RMH-8 zoning was inappropriate
because it allows up to 8 units per acre and they felt this
area should be limited to about 4 units per acre. Based on
this inquiry from the Association, the staff began work on the
Roseland Small Area Plan.
34
In December of 1985, the staff met with the Roseland Property
Owners Association's Board of Directors to discuss land use
issues in the area and to set boundaries for the Roseland Small
Area Plan. In January, the staff met with the Roseland Proper-
ty Owners Association to describe the process of preparing the
Roseland Small Area Plan and to discuss land use issues in the
area with the Association's general membership. One of the
main issues of concern to the Association was the RMH-8 zoning
of the area previously zoned R-1RM and the permitted density of
8 units/acre. Based on these concerns, the staff recommended,
and the Board of County Commissioners 'approved, down -zoning
this area to RMH-6 when the nonresidential zoning conversion
ordinance was adopted on January 29, 1986.
The staff felt that down -zoning this area to RMH-6 would lower
the permitted residential densities and would provide an
interim zoning until the staff could study the situation
further. In March, the staff completed a draft of the Roseland -
Small Area Plan. Several copies of this draft were sent to the
Roseland Property Owners Association for their review and
comment. The draft plan discusses the various issues in the
Roseland area including the mobile home zoning.
On September 25, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
7 -to -0 to recommend approval of alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Roseland Small Area Plan does not specifically address the
issue of mobile homes and single-family homes in one area.
While the plan recommends that density be limited in certain
areas, it also recommends that additional study be done on the
mobile home/single-family issues.
In further reviewing the area zoned RMH-6 which does contain
approximately six single-family residences, the staff has
considered several alternative zoning provisions for this area.
The following alternatives were reviewed:
1) No change in-the-current-RMH-6 zoning;
2) Create a new zoning district that allows both
single-family houses and mobile homes;
3) Rezone part of this area to -RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District.
Alternative 1, no change in the current RMH-6 zoning. This
alternative requires no rezoning action and would allow only
mobile homes to be located in this area in the future. Based
on the existing land uses in this area, including the existing
single-family residences which are- nonconforming uses, staff
does not see any advantages to this alternative. The disadvan-
tages to this alternative are the facts that the existing
houses -are nonconforming uses which cannot be_ replaced or
expanded and the fact that individuals living in mobile homes
could not replace them with single-family residences.
Alternative 2, create a new zoning district that allows both
single-family residences and mobile homes. The advantage of
this alternative is that all existing mobile homes and sin-
gle-family residences would be conforming uses and individuals
would have flexibility as to which type of dwelling unit they
could place on their lots. A disadvantage of this alternative
is that the staff does not feel that it is appropriate to allow
single-family residences and mobile homes in the same zoning
district. One of the purposes of zoning is to group similar land
35
BOOK 66 F-AGMI
e
,NOV 18 1986
BOOK 66 FAGE392
use activities together and separate conflicting land uses.
Another purpose of zoning is to protect property values. Allowing
mobile homes to locate next to single-family residences would not
protect the property values of the single-family residences and
would be undesirable to most owners of single-family house. The
staff did prepare a draft of a new zoning district (the ROSE -4
district which is attached) which could be utilized under this
alternative. In addition, two alternative zoning proposals were
prepared for rezoning the subject area utilizing the ROSE -4
district (these alternatives are attached).
The ROSE -4 zoning district was drafted based on the County's
existing mobile home zoning districts. Those districts require
site plan approval for mobile home parks and the ROSE -4 district
contains the same requirement. On October 28, 1986, the Board of
County Commissioners heard from a citizen from the Roseland area
who complained about the site plan requirement for mobile homes on
individual lots. The staff feels that the County should eliminate
the site plan requirement for mobile homes on individual lots and
that requirement is not included in the ROSE -4 district.
Alternative 3, rezone part of this area to RS -6. Under this
alternative, part of this area would be rezoned to RS -6. The
advantage of this alternative is that the existing sin-
gle-family residences could be rezoned to become conforming
uses. The disadvantage of this alternative is that it may be
necessary to rezone some existing mobile homes also to avoid
spot zoning. The staff prepared a rezoning proposal for this
alternative which would rezone the existing single-family
dwellings and many of the mobile homes in this area to RS -6.
It is the staff's position that mobile homes and single-family
units are not compatible and, therefore, should not be allowed
in the same zoning district. Since a principal objective of
zoning is to protect property values and because such a zoning
district would fail to protect the property values of sin-
gle-family home owners in areas zoned for both single-family and
mobile home uses, the staff feels that no such zoning district
should be established. For these reasons, the staff feels that
Alternative 3 is the most appropriate option.
RECOMMENDATION
When the Board of County Commissioners considered this issue in
June, they indicated that there may be a need for a new zoning
district for part of Roseland that would allow mobile homes and
single-family residences. The Board directed the staff to
delineate the specific boundaries of this area, prepare -a proposed.
zoning district and have the_ Planning and Zoning Commission make a
recommendation on the new zoning district and the specific area
where it should be- established. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended that the_ ROSE -4 zoning district be
adopted.
The planning staff still feels that the County should not estab-
lish a zoning district allowing both mobile homes and single-
family dwellings. Staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve alternative 3 which is rezoning part of the
area in question to RS -6.
36
Commissioner Eggert inquired exactly what area the ROSE -4
was intended to cover, and Planner Shearer advised there are no
specific limits other than the area advertised as the subject
area.
Commissioner Bird asked about another proposed ordinance,
apparently prepared by Attorney O'Haire which Fred Mensing has
handed out, and Planner Shearer confirmed that Mr. Mensing did
hand out something that would allow for a a number of home
occupation uses; however, that was not advertised, and he felt
that anything to do with home occupation districts would be a
considerable deviation from what is being considered today.
Chairman Scurlock noted that when this issue first came up,
he was absolutely opposed to mixed use and this is against what
we do countywide, but after six months of discussion and driving
the area, etc., he believed that he has been reluctantly
convinced that this does make some sense for this particular
unique area, but he felt we must very cautious about expanding
this mixed use to the rest of the county.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Michael O'Haire informed the Board that he is here
on behalf of a number of homeowners in Roseland and would like to
give the Board a package containing the ordinance ear -I -Ver
referred to.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he would like to address only
what is advertised for today. He believed the ordinance Mr.
O'Haire is proposing can be considered separately at another
time.
Margaret Herndon, of Power Line Road, Roseland, wished to
know if the zoning is changed, what happens if her house should
burn down.
Planner Shearer advised that under the current RMH-6, which
is zoned strictly for mobile homes, any house is a non-
conforming use and cannot be expanded or replaced if it is
37 EOOK 6 r,4!]-,393
Nov 18 1986
F 7—---
NOV 18 1986
BOOK 66 -c,klj194
destroyed more than 50%. Under the proposed ROSE -4, either a
permanent house or a mobile home would be allowed.
Mrs. Herndon asked if she will be notified as she wasn't
notified of the previous zoning change, and Planner Shearer
explained that was because that change affected over 50 of the
entire county area.
Attorney O'Haire urged that the Commission adopt the
advertised ordinance which would allow a mix of housing types.
He agreed these people have a legitimate concern about notice;
they feel they have been zoned and rezoned without knowing what
was happening to them, and they would like to be sure that ROSE -4
will not be --changed again without notice to them.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 86-74 creating the ROSE -4:
Roseland Residential District.
38
5/27/86
Rich3
LR -Planning �I
RS/h
ORDINANCE NO. 86-74
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING
APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS -
THE ZONING CODE, ENACTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND SEVERAL RELATED ZONING
REGULATIONS BY: 1) CREATING SECTION 15, "ROSE -4:
ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT"; 2) AMENDING SECTION
25.1, "REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES"; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AS WELL
AS INCORPORATION IN CODE, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE fT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida that:
SECTION 1
A new Section 15, entitled "Roseland Residential District",
is hereby adopted and shall read as follows:
SECTION 15 ROSE -4: ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
A. Purpose and Intent
The ROSE -4, Roseland Residential District, is designed to
accommodate single-family residences and mobile homes in the
Roseland area at a density of up to four units per acre.
The ROSE -4 district may be considered consistent with the
MD -1 land use designation of the County's Comprehensive
Plan.
B. PERMITTED USES
Outdoor storage shall be prohibited within the ROSE -4
district. Site plan review shall be required for all uses
except single-family dwellings and mobile homes erected on
individual lots, pursuant to the provisions of Section 23.1.
All new mobile home parks or subdivisions must be platted
and receive major site plan approval. In the ROSE -4
district, no building or structure shall be erected, altered
or used, except for one or more of the following.
1. Residential Uses
- Single -Family Dwellings
- Mobile Homes
2. Institutional Uses
- Foster Care Facilities
3. Community Service Uses
- Emergency Services
C. Uses Requiring Administrative Permits
The following uses shall be permitted within the ROSE -4
district subject to the specific use criteria established in
Section 25.1, regulations for specific land uses, and review
procedures established in Section 25.1, review of uses
requiring administrative permits.
1. Institutional Uses
- Child care or adult care facilities (Sec. 25.1 (f)) -
2. Recreational Uses (Sec. 25.1 (o))
Parks and playgrounds, open to the public
NOW 18 1986 BOOK 66 u-UE395
r - -
NOV 13 7936
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 74
BOOK 66 PAGE 396
D. Special Exception Uses
The following uses may be permitted within the ROSE -4 district
subject to the specific use criteria established in Section
25.1, regulations for specific land uses, and review..
procedures established in Section 25.3, regulation of
special exception uses.
1. Institutional Uses (Sec. 25.1 (f))
- Places of Worship
2. Community Service Uses (Sec. 25.1 (g))
- Educational Facilities, Excluding Business,
Secretarial
- and Vocational
- Government Administration Buildings
3. Recreation Uses (Sec. 25.1 (o))
- Golf Courses
4. Utility Uses (Sec. 25.1 (s))
- Public and Private Utilities (Limited)
E. ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
As provided in Section 25 (G), "Accessory Uses and
Structures".
F. DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS
As provided in Table 15, herein, and Section 3.1,
"Application of District Regulations".
G. PERMITTED SIGNAGE
As provided in Section 25 (0), "Signs".
H. WALLS AND FENCES
As provided in Section 25 (I), "Walls and Fences".
I. MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
As established in Section 24, "Off -Street Parking and
Loading Regulations".
J. ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS
1. Compliance with Subdivision Regulations. All -
developments within the ROSE -4 district shall be
subdivided and platted pursuant to the provisions of
the Indian River County Subdivision and Platting
Regulations.
2. Construction Standards. All mobile homes shall be
constructed in compliance with specifications set forth
by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
under the Associations' Code of Specifications for
Mobile Homes and Travel Trailers and applicable State
and Federal Regulations.
Each mobile home, trailer, or other portable living
unit shall be anchored in a manner prescribed by the
Building Code consistent with the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development standards. The minimum
first floor elevation shall be at least eighteen (18)
inches above the crown of the street.
t..
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 74
All awnings, carports, principal patios and accessories
to the building or accessory buildings shall be
constructed in compliance with the Building Code of
Indian River County.
3. Mobile Home Undercarriage Skirting. The frame, axles,
wheels, crawl space storage area and utility connection
of all mobile homes shall be concealed from view
through the use of durable all-weather materials
manufactured specifically for the purpose of covering
the undercarriage area. Such skirting shall be
fastened in accordance with manufacturer's instructions
and provide for adequate ventilation.
4. Common Vehicular Storage Areas. All mobile home
__subdivisions within the ROSE -4 zoning district created
after the effective date of this ordinance shall _
provide a common area for the storage of recreational
equipment including boats and recreational vehicles.
a. Screening. All storage areas shall be a minimum
of thirty (30) feet from any adjacent mobile home
lot line, enclosed by a security fence, and shall
be properly screened from neighboring residences.
b. Minimum Area. All storage areas shall provide a
minimum of one (1) space for every ten (10) mobile
homes. All stalls shall have a minimum width of
twelve (12) feet and a minimum depth of thirty
(30) feet, and all drives shall be a minimum of
twenty-five (25) feet wide.
5. Buffering Along Development Boundaries. The distance
from the line or corner of any mobile home lot to a
boundary line of the development shall be adequate to
protect the residential use in the development and in
any case shall not be less than the following:
a. Where the adjoining land use (existing or
permitted) is other, similar or higher density
residential use or is a local or collector street,
a distance of thirty (30) feet containing a 90%
visually solid year round landscape buffer six (6)
feet in height.
b. Where the adjoining land use is an arterial
street, a residential use of lower density or a
nonresidential use, protection shall be provided
by providing a distance of forty (40) feet
containing berms, walls, solid or louvered
fencing, open fencing with appropriate planting,
or visually solid year round landscape buffer, six
(6) feet in height.
C. The areas outlined in Subsections "a" and "b"
above may be included as parts of the respective
adjacent lots, but shall not be included as part
of the required minimum lot area.
K. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS.
All future subdivisions and site plans for developments
within the ROSE -4 zoning district shall provide the
following improvements, designed and constructed to the
no. 66 PDGF •�a��
F7,-- - -
NOV 10 1986
BOOK 66 F,mjE,98
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 74
requirements and specifications in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County and the State of
Florida:
1. Bikeways (as specified in the County Bikeway Plan,
as currently exists or may hereafter be adopted).
2. Sidewalks.
3. Street lights.
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 74
TABLE 15: SIZE AND DIMENSION CRITERIA
ROSE -4 DISTRICT
ZONING DISTRICT ROSE -4
REGULATION UNIT OF MEASURE
MAX. DENSITY 4.0 d.u-. per gross acre
MIN. LOT SIZE 10,000 square feet
MIN. LOT WIDTH 70 feet
MIN. YARD
- Front 20
- Side 10 feet
- Rear 20
* For new mobile home developments
BOOK
16
1986
66 PnF.399
FLOOR AREA
550
Sq. Ft. per dwelling unit
MIN
MAX.
BLDG. HEIGHT
35
feet
MAX.
LOT COVERAGE
30
% of lot
MIN
OPEN SPACE
35
% of gross area
MIN.
DISTRICT SIZE
20
gross acres
MIN
COMMUNITY
10
% of gross area
REC.
FACILITIES*
* For new mobile home developments
BOOK
16
1986
66 PnF.399
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 74
SECTION 2
BOOK 400
Section 25.1F, entitled "Regulation for Specific Land Uses,
Institutional Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.1F INSTITUTIONAL USES
1. Child Care or Adult Care Facilities. (Administrative
Permit, Special Exception)
a. Districts Requiring Administrative Permit:
Child care or adult facilities shall be allowed in
the A-1, RFD, RM -8, RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, RMH-8,
ROSE -,4, OCR and CN districts upon approval for an
administrative permit as provided in Section 25.2
and after meeting the requirements defined below.
2. Places of Worship. (Administrative Permit, Special
Exception)
b. Districts requiring special exception: Places of
worship may be allowed in the RS -1, RS -3, RS -6,
RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RMH-6, 444 RMH-8, and ROSE -4
districts upon approval as a special exception as
provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
SECTION 3
Section 25.1G, entitled "Regulations for Specific Land Uses,
Community Service Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.1G COMMUNITY SERVICE USES
3. Schools, Primary and Secondary. (Special Exception)
a. Districts Requiring Special Exception: Primary and
secondary schools may be allowed in the A-1, RFD,
RS -1, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8,
RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, RMH-8, ROSE -4, OCR, MED, CN, CL,
CG and CH zoning districts upon receiving approval
as a special exception as provided in Section 25.3
and after meeting the requirements defined below.
4. Governmental Administration Building. (Administrative
Permit and Special Exception)
b. Districts Requiring Special Exception: Governmental
administration building may be allowed in the A-1,
RFD, RS -1, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8,
RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, RMH-8, ROSE -4 and CRVP districts
upon receiving approval as a special exception as
provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
CODING: words in W140kh hA type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
M � M r
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 74
Section 25.10, entitled "Regulations for Specific Land Uses,
Recreation Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as follows:
25.10. RECREATION USES -
1. Golf Courses and Accessory Facilities. (Administrative
Permit and Special Exception)
a. Districts Requiring Special Exception: Golf courses
and accessory facilities may be allowed in the RFD,
RS -1, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8,
RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, 44d RMH-8 and ROSE -4 upon
receiving approval as a special exception as
provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
2. Parks and Playgrounds Open to the Public.
(Administrative Permit)
a. Districts Requiring Administrative Permit: Public
parks and playgrounds shall be allowed within the
RS -1, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RMH-6, 444 RMH-8 and ROSE -4
zoning districts upon receiving approval for an
administrative permit as provided in Section 25.2 and
after meeting the requirements defined below.
SECTION 5
Section 25.1S, entitled "Regulations for Specific Land Uses,
Utility Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as follows:
25.1S. UTILITY USES
3. Public and Private Utilities, Limited. (Administrative
Permit)
a. Districts Requiring Administrative Permit: Limited
public and private utilities may be allowed within
the RFD, RS -1, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6,
RM -8, RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, RMH-8, ROSE -4, CRVP, OCR,
MED, CN, CL, CG, and CH districts upon receiving
approval as a special exception as provided in
Section 25.2 and after meeting the requirements
defined below.
SECTION 6
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of -'
CODING: words in 4UiA¢jX- ttKtji type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
BOOK 66 u F 461
NV 180 1986
NOVFF- �. - -
18 196
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 74
the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of
Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict.
SECTION 7
INCORPORATION IN CODE
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated 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 8
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not
affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed
to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 9
SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 18th day of Novembel986.
4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: r„ G
zz�
DON C. SCURL CK, JR. ('571AIRMAN
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 74
Acknowledgment by the Department of State --of the State of
Florida this 21st day of November ,1986
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 26th day of November , 1986 at
10:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the
Board of=ounty Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
BRUCE BARKETT, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS.
Richard M. Shearer, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
Nov 18 1986 BOOK 66 F-r4Uc 403
NOV 18 1986 Boort 66 Fa,c404
Attorney O'Haire asked that the Board allow him to review
his proposed ordinance briefly.
Chairman Scurlock asked if it has gone through the Planning
'-` & Zoning Commission, and Planner Shearer advised that the subject
has been discussed, but the ordinance has not been reviewed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com -
Bird, the Board unanimously directed staff to process
the ordinance proposed by Attorney O'Haire through
the proper channels.
Chairman Scurlock allowed Attorney O'Haire a few minutes to
review his proposed ordinance, and Attorney O'Haire stressed that
this has been going on since last May, and the people feel they
are in limbo. They want this expedited to the fullest extent
possible.
Discussion followed re advertising requirements, review
period, etc., and Director Keating felt it could be heard at the
first meeting in January.
12TH ST. WATER MAIN PROJECT - OLD DIXIE TO 6TH AVE. & COMMERCE
AVE. FROM 12TH ST. TO 10TH ST.
The Board reviewed Utility staff memo. as follows:
39
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: November 12, 1986
THRU: CHARLES;P.--HALCZUN, ADMINISTRATOR
VIA: TERRA CEI PINTO, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE, ENGINEERING OP�TIONS MANAGER F$
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 12TH STREET WATER MAIN PROJECT FROM
OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY TO 6TH AVENUE AND
COMMERCE AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 10TH STREET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
PROJECT NO. UW86-11-DS
BACKGROUND
On June 25, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners authorizec the
Division of Utility Services to solicit bids for major water s --tem
improvements along 12th Street from Old Dixie Highway to 6th A- .nue
and on Commerce Avenue from 12th Street to 10th Street. The oric :gal
construction costs estimate was $180,000.00 and an engineering fc of
$15,000.00, totalling.$195,000.00--for the total project cost.
As outlined in the related agenda item dated November 12, 1986,
several revisions to the original design increased the original
construction cost estimate to $296,000.00, with a corresponding
engineering fee of $21,600.00, for an estimated total project cost of
$317,600.00.
ANALYSIS
Bids for the subject project based on the revised design by Masteller
and Moler Associates, Inc. were received on November 6, 1986.
Coastline Utilities, Inc. of Port St. Lucie, Florida were the low
bidders at $261,373.50. Other bids received included Boyce Company
of St. Petersburg, Florida at $299,699.75; Jobear, Inc. of Melbourne,
Florida at $392,645.50; and Collee Mechanical of Vero Beach, Florida
at $399,942.50.
RECOMMENDATION
The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners authorize awarding the bid for the subject project to
Coastline Utilities, Inc. in the amount of $261,373.50, contingent
upon the contractor submitting an approved surety consent form for
the subject contract.
Utilities Director Pinto advised the Board that this is
a project that was initiated because of the reconstruction taking
place on 12th Street all the way from Dixie Highway to 6th
Avenue. Because of the major reconstruction of the intersection
by the Public Works Department, we have been required to go in
and relocate some existing utility lines and at the same time
because our master plan dictates larger lines for future use, we
decided to go ahead and put them in. He advised that all of the
NOV 18 1986 40 BOOK 6F'r�UE 4�5
--
NOV
18 1996
Boos
66
Pa,E406
funding for
this comes from impact fees due to the fact
that
it
is a master plan system.
Commissioner Bird inquired who is doing the estimating as
the low bidder came in very much lower than the estimate, which
apparently was pretty far off.
Director Pinto advised that the engineering firm does the
estimating. He pointed out that the different bids ranged from
$261,000 up to $399,000. Staff felt the estimate was a good
estimate, but we got a much better bid. He felt one reason we
have a good bid is that the contractor is already working in that
area, and further, consideration must be given to the fact that
there are two major crossings involved which require a bore and
jack, i.e., the railroad crossing and the highway crossing.
Director Pinto felt what shows in a bid such as this is the
experience of the contractor and how much risk he is plugging
into his cost.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to award the bid for the
above project to Coastline Utilities, Inc., in the
amount of $261,373.50, contingent upon the contractor
submitting an approved surety consent form for the
subject contract.
Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that he
received a call yesterday from Dickerson, Inc., who is contractor
on the 12th Street project, and they are trying to accelerate the
work at the railroad that involves the bore and jack Director
Pinto mentioned. They want us to meet a deadline of January
- 12th, and Director Davis was not sure that we could. He felt
down the road we may receive some communication from the road
contractor that he is being delayed because of utility installa-
tions, and he also understood that Southern Bell wants to do a
41
major project that could delay this even further. Director
Davis was concerned that Dickerson may request an extension.
Chairman Scurlock suggested that we contact Southern Bell
and make them aware of our deadline, and Director Davis advised -
that this was done as long as two years ago, but it has been very
hard to motivate Southern Bell.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR 12TH ST. & COMMERCE AVE. FORCE MAIN
Director Pinto reviewed the following staff memo:
TO: BOARD LINTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: November 12, 1986
THRU: TE . PINTO, D2IRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR 12TH STREET
AND COMMERCE AVENUE FORCE MAIN
BACKGROUND
The Board of County Commissioners has authorized -the Division of
Utility Services to have our engineers, Masteller & Moler Associates,
Inc., to design the needed improvements to be integrated with the
road project of the County along 12th Street. Our engineers have
recommended the upgrading of our sewer force mains along 12th Street
from the F.E.C.R.R. tracks east including extensions along Commerce
Avenue as overall improvements to be done in conjunction with the
road project.
At the same time, it is necessary for the Division of Utility
Services to move forward with the greatest speed, but at the same
time, to obtain the best price possible to complete the project.
Staff and our engineers look to our latest contracts which contained
unit prices for the quantities and materials which would beonecessary
for our proposed project along 12th Street and Commerce Avenue. Our
contract with Coastline Utilities, Inc. for the force mains along
Route 60 -Sewer fit the bill with unit prices. our negotiations with _
Coastline ended with their agreement to use the quantity pricing fox----
our new project.
The following is a breakdown of materials and pricing negotiated with
Coastline Utilities for the Sewer Force Main Project at 12th Street
and Commerce Avenue:
42 BOOK. 66 uu- 407
NOV 18 19086
NOV 18
1966
BOOK 66 F,�cr 408
ITEM
# DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
TOTAL COST
1.
8" PVC C-900
2,780
L.F.
$14.45/FT
$40,171.00
2.
8" D.I.P.
160
L.F.
18.45/FT
2,952.00
3.
6x6 TAPPING SLEEVE
2
EACH
900.00 EA
1,800.00
_ 4.
6" D.I.P. CL51
20
L.F.
9.65/FT
193.00
5.
PAVEMENT RESTORATION
670
SQ.YDS.
17.00/YD
11,390.00
6.
SEED & MULCH
3,000
SQ.YDS.
.40/YD
1,200.00
7.
JACK & BORE (OS#1)
1
EA L.S.
12,916.00
8.
MOBILIZATION, INSURANCE,
MISCELLANEOUS COSTS OF
CONTRACTING-
2,500.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
$7.00
X73 �- -`oa
RECOMMENDATION 73, "QQ'00
Utility Staff recommends to the Boardf County Commissioners that
they waive the bidding procedures and and the contract to Coastline
Utilities, Inc. in the amount of for the sewer project at
12th Street and Commerce Avenue for the following reasons:
1) the time associated with the bid process to start this project;
2) the pricing is based on unit pricing of just -completed utility
projects by Indian River County;
3) the contractor is working on other water projects for the
Utilities Division within a two -block area and mobilization
costs are substantially reduced;
4) the overall costs negotiated by Staff are in the best interest
of the utility customer.
Chairman Scurlock's only question related to the bidding
procedure, and Director Pinto explained that one of the problems
they are running into is that we already have three contractors
working in this same area, and staff felt it would be a terrible
problem to add another contractor into this project. Also this
contractor was the contractor for Route 60, and he indicated he
would be willing to use his same unit costs out of the Route 60
project. Since those were for a much larger scale project„
Director Pinto felt these are very good prices.
Chairman Scurlock noted that, in other words, the prime
motivation is that staff feels we have good unit prices, and
secondly, we don'.t want to bring an additional contractor on this
job. Director Pinto said that was exactly it.
43
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded the
contract to Coastline Utilities, Inc., in the amount
of $73,122 for the sewer project at 12th Street and -
Commerce Avenue as recommended by staff.
12TH ST. WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS FROM OLD DIXIE TO 6TH
AVE. & COMMERCE AVE. FROM 12TH ST. TO 10TH ST.
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: November 4, 1986
THRU: CHARLES BALCZZ�ADMIINNIS O
VIA: TERRANCE G. Wofgi OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE, ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGER
.SUBJECT: 12TH STREET WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS
12TH STREET FROM OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY TO 6TH AVENUE and
COMMERCE AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 10TH STREET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES DIVISION PROJECT #UW86-16-DS-
On June 25, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners approved Work
Authorization No. 7, as submitted by Masteller & Moler Associates,
Inc., for the subject water distribution system improvements. The
original work authorization totalling $195,000.00 included a
construction -cost estimate of $180,000.00 and engineering costs of
$15,000.00 for the construction of a 12 -inch diameter water main
along 12th Street from Old Dixie Highway to 6th Avenue and a 16 -inch
diameter water main along Commerce Avenue from 12th Street to 10th
Street.
Due to re-evaluation of the Water System Master Plan, and to avoid
significant construction conflicts along the south side of 12th
Street, the 12 -inch water main along the south side of 12th Street
has been increased to a 16 -inch main and has been relocated to the
north side of 12th Street. Additionally, the 16 -inch water main
along Commerce Avenue has been reduced to a 12 -inch water main by
means of revised implementation of the Water System Master Plan.
ANALYSIS
- - -
Consistent with the revised
construction
cost estimate
which is
attached for your review, following is an
outline of the
additional__. _
costs of the project:
Original
Revised
Net
Design
Design
Increase
Estimated Construction Cost
$180,000
$296,000
$116,000
Engineering Fee
151000
21,600
6,600
Total Estimated Project Cost
$195,000
$317,600
$122,600
44
BOOK 66
rA"J 40UO
NOV 18 1986
BOOK 66 F'{ ,' 4 10
As with the original total project cost, the revised project cost
will be funded through the Utilities Division Impact Fee Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The Utilities Division recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the subject revisions to the project and
execute the accompanying Change Order as submitted by Masteller &
Moler Associates, Inc. for additional engineering fees in the amount
of $6,600.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
revisions to the project as set out above and author-
ized the Chairman to execute Change Order No. 1 as
submitted by Masteller 6 Moler for $6,600 in additional
engineering fees.
x • i� ,.. • i • •
DATE: 9/26/86
CONTRACT FOR: Work Authorization ill for Consulting Services/Potable Water
Main/12th Street & Commerce Avenue (UW86-16-DS)
OWNER: Indian River County Division of Utility Services
ORIG. CONT. PRICE: $15,000.00 REVISED CONT. PRICE: $21,600.00
I Decrease in (Increase in
Description of Changes I Cont. Price (Cont. Price
- I I
Expansion of Engineering Services I I $6,600.00
• I 1
I I
TOTALS: I —[zero] _ _ _ I _$61 00
6.00_ _ _
I I
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: I I $6,600.00
JUSTIFICATION:
Project modified from 12" diameter water main to 16" diameter water main to be
brought into conformance with County Master Plan for Water. lSee Attached)
Amount of the Contract will be 93S&WA )(Increased) by the sum of:
Six thousand six hundred and 00/100's ($6,600.00) ~
The Contract Total including this and previous Change Orders will be:
Twenty one thousand six hundred and 001100's_($21,600.00)
The Contract Period provided for completion will be
C%M& )W1) ( unchanged) : days.
This document will be come a supplement to the contract and all
provisions will apply hereto.
Requested: Masteller & Moler Assoc. Inc. Date: /r, 17���
(Sign)
Accepted: Date:
(Sign)
i
45
HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT, NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Board reviewed memo of Director Pinto and attached
letter:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1986
TERRANCE G. PINT-'
DIRECTOR OF UTILI4Y% SERVICES
HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT - NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
The Board of County Commissioners authorized the Utilities Department
to proceed with the evaluation of 150 plus or minus acres in the North
County for the purpose of locating a wastewater treatment plant.
To proceed it is necessary to have. a Hydrogeologic Assessment
preformed as described in the attached letter from Seaburn and
Robertson, Inc. The cost estimate is $12,500.00. If the study
indicates the property will be suitable for our needs and we purchase
the property, then the study will be used for permitting requirements
- with an additional cost ranging from $4,000.00 to $8,500.00.
ANALYSIS - - -
Staff finds this estimate to be in line. If the project is to proceed
the study must be preformed.
RECOMMENDATION
Under the continued contract with Masteller and Moler, Inc., staff
requests the Board of County -Commissioners authorize Masteller and
Moler, Inc., to issue a work authorization and to proceed as set forth
in the attached letter dated November 4, 1986, from Seaburn and
Robertson, Inc., to Masteller and-Moler,"Inc.
OV 18 1986
46 BOOK 66 Fr1'UE 411
L
NOV 18 1986
November 4. 1986
P-86181
Mr. Earl Masteller;
Masteller and Moler
P.O. Boa 1045
1623 N. U.S. Highway
Sebastian, FL 32958
P. E.
Associates, Inc.
1. Suite B1
BOOK 66 Pvu- V
SEABURN AND ROBERTSON, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
enwonmental & water resouree c0n8U tants
EXECUTIVE SQUARE a SUITE 118 a 5510 GRAY STREET
P.O. BOX 23184 a TAMPA, FLORIDA 33823
(813) 877-9182
Re: Preliminary Hydrogeologic Assessment
North County Subregional Sewer Feasibility
Study, Indian River County. Florida
Dear Mr. Masteller:
Seaburn and Robertson. Inc. is pleased to present this
proposal to undertake a preliminary hydrogeologic assessment of
the "Fisher Property" in Indian River County, Florida. The
purpose of this study will be to 1) evaluate the site's capacity
to dispose of six million gallons per day (mgd) of secondary
treated effluent by land application. and 2) to estimate the
volume of the existing soil that could be removed from the site
without reducing its capacity below that required to accomplish
#1.
It is understood that the information generated by the
preliminary study will also be used to help estimate the value of
the land. In accordance with your request, we have structured
this feasibility study to keep the costs at a minimum until we -
are authorized to make a more detailed analysis of the site
conditions. Please be aware, however. that the results will not
be detailed enough to be used as a definitive basis for purchase
negotiations. Attached. please find a recommended Scope of
Services outlining our approach to this feasibility study. It is
estimated that these investigations will cost about $12,500, plus
the cost of a backhoe to excavate the test pits. and the
surveying.
The backhoe work can probably be accomplished in two days.
provided it is not too difficult to travel around the site. We
plan to excavate about 20 test pits to at least 10 feet. A
backhoe with an "extenda—boom" which can reach to nearly 15 feet
will be helpful. A very large "Drott" type machine can reach
deeper. but may prove too awkard to move around the land.
For the final. detailed studies on the property. a*l" —
100'. 1 or 2 foot contour interval topographic map will probably
be needed. At this stage, however. just some surveys to
determine the elevations and locations of the wet areas bordering
the property, the test. -pits and soil tests, as well as a few
topographic sections across the land should be sufficient.
If you wish us to begin these studies. please complete. sign
and return the enclosed Proposal Acceptance Sheet. If you have
any questions, please contact us.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal.
Sincerely yours.
SEABURN AND ROBERTSON. INC.
Gerald E. Seaburn, Ph.D.. P.E.
Principal—In—Charge
Q� w�
David L. Tarbox. CPG 47
Proj Manager _
Chairman Scurlock wanted to make sure that -because we are
going through Masteller & Moler and not directly to this
particular consulting firm, that we are not putting another 10 or
15% on top, and Director Pinto assured him that it is a direct
pass through of the cost.
Director Pinto stressed that this study becomes more and
more important every day; we cannot proceed -without it, and it
also will provide us with valuable information as to what the
conditions are as far as the water table in relation to the
elevations on that sand ridge.
Chairman Scurlock believed that Planning & Zoning are
involved in researching and workshopping the coastal ridge, and
he felt this particular study will examine at least a portion of
that ridge and tell us how far we can cut down and still maintain
good effluent disposal capability.
Commissioner Bowman expressed her concern that they say the
results will not be definitive enough to use for purchase
negotiations.
Director Pinto explained that the study has two parts. They
have to do a certain amount of study to give us a fair indication
of what we are going to be able to perc on the property; however,
what their study shows as being what you can perc and what DER
ends up permitting are two different things. They are not
guaranteeing permitting at this stage; so, we have to move in a
two process situation where the first stage gives enough informa-
tion to allow us to negotiate with the property owner and reach
an agreement on price. The final purchase will be subject to us
being able to get DER permits to do what we have to do. There is
also the possibility that the study might stop us dead in our
tracks; the intent is to move step by step to see how far we go.
Commissioner Bowman noted that it also says that inasmuch as
this area already has been grossly disturbed, it may be necessary
to do more shots in the area; she assumed they will close the
test pits after inspection.
This was confirmed.
48
Nov 18 198 BOOK �� FAtiE 413
NOV 18 1986 BOOK 66 PAGE 414
Commissioner Bowman believed her main concern is that the
owner has probably taken hundreds of thousands of dollars of fill
from there and are we going to pay a premium price for what
should be there.
Director Pinto advised that actually the mining area is a
very minor part of the 150 acres, and Chairman Scurlock noted
that the owner is taking the opposite view and saying the reason
he wants $20,000 per acre is the potential of this land to be
mined, generate considerable revenue, and still be usable; so, it
is difficult to negotiate.
Attorney Vitunac noted that there should be one amendment to
require that this should be under the laws of the State of
Florida rather than of Georgia.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by,
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized Masteller and Moler, In.c, to issue a
work authorization and to proceed as set forth in
letter from Seaburn and Robertson, Inc., dated
November 4, 1986, with the amendment that this
will be under the laws of the State of Florida.
AMENDING ORDINANCE BANNING TRAIN HORNS DURING CERTAIN HOURS
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:
49
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach min) Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
J7�in the matter of__���i'st1�/
in the /� / Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of lJ��-®y 4-f
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befor%me this ,� �d day of A.D. 19
(SEAL)
(Clerk of
Manager)
Iver County, Florida)
`' :' ' PUBLIC NOTICE
'The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
RiverCounty. Florida, will conduct a Public
Hearing on Tuesday, November 18, 1988 at 9:46
am, in the Commission Chambers at 1840 26th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider the
AND
if any person decides to appeal any decision.
made on the above matter, he/she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses he/she may need to insure that a verba.
tim record of the ,proceedings is made, which
record includes the: testimony; in evidence on:
Which the appeal 16 based4
? INDIAN RIVER COUNTY'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEAS
DON C. SCURLOCK; JR. ;
Oct. 20. 19M ' � • -.
Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson referred the Board to
his memo previously presented at the October 21st meeting:
NOV 18 1986 50
BOOK 66 415
TO: The Board --of County Commissioners
DATE: October 15, 1986
SUBJECT:ain Whistle Ordinance
FROM: J P. Wilson
t County Attorney
BOOK 66 PAGE N
Paul Risner, attorney for the Florida East Coast Railway
Company, has contacted me regarding proposed changes to the
above -referenced ordinance. Mr. Risner believes the
following changes must be made to our ordinance because of
an amendment to the enabling legislation and a recent
Attorney General's Opinion. The changes are as follows:
1. The ordinance must prohibit audible signals at all
railway crossings, public or private; rather than public as
cited in our ordinance.
2. The ordinance must be effective on a county -wide basis
and municipalities which prefer not be affected by the
ordinance must pass a contrary ordinance. The existing
ordinance is effective only in the unincorporated areas.
3. Any prolL bition of audible warnings must be
unconditional. The Indian' River County ordinance
specifically permits railroad engineers to sound warnings in
emergency situations. Mr. Risner is concerned that due to
the mandatory nature of the enabling legislation, which
requires an unconditional prohibition, that any exceptions
to the ordinance may render the ordinance unenforceable. As
a practical matter, Mr. Risner advised me that the engineers
on Florida East Coast Railway trains have been instructed to
sound the horns in emergency situations. In the event that
criminal charges are brought under these circumstances, the
railroad will cite the emergency to the court as.a defense
to the charges.
The Indian River County ordinance is scheduled to go into
effect on November 1, 1986. 1 have advertised the proposed
amendments to this ordinance as suggested by the railroad
for November 18, 1986. Mr. Risner is wilting to appear
before the Board at the public hearing to explain the
Florida East Coast Railway's -position on this matter. At
that time Mr. Risner may also be able to answer any other
questions you may have regarding the affect of this
ordinance and the experience his company has had with such
ordinances in other jurisdictions.
Attorney Wilson stated his only concern was that the City
of Vero Beach and the City of Sebastian both indicated they
wanted to be excluded and the state has indicated that the
ordinance must be enacted on a countywide basis; he, therefore,
wondered if the Board wished to make the new ordinance effective
51
and put up signs only to have to remove them later when the
cities except themselves.
Commissioner Bird was concerned about deleting the paragraph
which would allow the railroad engineers to blow the horn in an
emergency situation as he was not sure about the liability
situation this would put the county in.
Attorney Wilson advised that he was convinced that if anyone
has any liability, it won't be the county; it will be the FEC.
From a legal standpoint, the statute that authorizes us to pass
this ordinance requires an unconditional prohibition, and after
discussing this with several other counties, it was his opinion
that the ordinance would be invalid if it did not include that
condition. Mr. Risner of the FEC is present and can advise what
FEC's policy will be. It has been indicated that in an
emergency, they will blow the horn.
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. R'isner was willing to put
that statement in writing.
Mr. Risner informed the Board that he is not authorized to
do that, but he believed Attorney Wilson's interpretation of the
statute is correct and he has been through the enactment of some
25 such ordinances.
Commissioner Bird found it hard to believe it was the
Legislature's intent that this would be absolutely prohibited in
an emergency situation, and Chairman Scurlock felt it was because
of the enforcement problem.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
George Koraly, Riverview Drive, Sebastian, believed the FEC
already has been cutting down on the indiscriminate horn blowing
that
previously had
taken
place and
expressed
his
thanks
for
that,
but also noted
that
the horns
sometimes
are
blown
just
after crossing the Sebastian River, and he would like the train
crews notified this is not necessary as there is no crossing
right there.
52 BOOK
ti3
x
BOOK 6 o 1, 418
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that as he understood it, the
ordinance is to be countywide and would apply to the cities until
they adopt their own ordinances.
Attorney Wilson advised that City Councilman Mike Wodtke has
indicated that the City at tonight's meeting will consider an
ordinance to allow the horns to be blown, and he believed
Sebastian is taking the same position.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if Attorney Wilson felt
completely comfortable with no liability for the county as long
as there is posting, and Attorney Wilson stated that based on
existing law, he did. Commissioner Wheeler wished to know what
counties have adopted an ordinance restricting the sounding of
train horns, and Attorney Wilson did not know of any counties,
but he did know of quite a few cities that have.
Mr. Risner informed the Board that Martin County has such an
ordinance as does Broward County, and Palm Beach County is
considering one now.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously -adopted
Ordinance 86-75 unconditionally prohibiting the
sounding of railroad train horns and whistles
between 10:00<P.M. and 6:00 A.M.
53
� i �
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 75
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86-45 BY
UNCONDITIONALLY PROHIBITING THE
SOUNDING OF RAILROAD TRAIN -HORNS AND
WHISTLES BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 6:00
A.M. IN THE INCORPORATED AND
UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION IN
CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
0
_ BE IT ORDAINED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY
ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that:
SECTION 1.
Section 1 of Indian River County Ordinance No.
86-45 is hereby amended to read as follows:
GENERAL PROVISIONS.
A: It shall be unlawful for any engineer, conductor,
fireman or other person in charge of or in control of any
locomotive or railroad train of any railroad company
operating wholly within this state to sound any railroad
train horn, whistle or other audible warning signal between
10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in advance of or at any rail
highway pab++e---a-t--gi-ade crossing located within t -19e
ars-'t�eerpe�°eed-aegis- o
Indian River County, providing that
the crossing is equipped with train activated automatic
traffic control devices, which shall include, flashing
lights, bells and crossing gates.
pr
rat+re8d-�ratR-Dern;-erobtstte-er-etWer-8adtf�te-warfltng-stgr+at
when- -i-t--appe-eir---r-e-asotra4EHY--meeessory--i-►t--oi%d-er---to--evetd
bed tty-4flfofy--a-r-+rr-o-t4 e-r--err�eer�y-grtitati-efts-,--t-meGaeli-frg-a
.. rrat€ar�etter�-e€-t(�e-aatema�te-tra€€te-ee�tre+-eledteeg- "'- -
CODING: Words underlined are additions; words s+raek-tbreagh
are deletions.
1
54
NOV 18 1986 BOOK 6 F'��c1
NOVF77' -_ -1
18 1986 BOOK 66 P, Gu 420
SECTION 2.
INCORPORATION IN CODE.
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code
of Ordinances of Indian River County 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 purposes.
C! cr-r 1 nkt 12
SEVERABILITY.
If any Section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall__not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative p_.
SECTION 4.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt
from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of
official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed
with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th
day of November , 1986,
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal commencing on the 20th day of October ,
1986, for a public hearing to be held on the 18th day of
November, 1986, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Wheeler seconded by
Commissioner Bowman , and adopted by the following
vote:
CODING: Words underlined are additions; words struek-through
are deletions.
55
Commissioner
Don C. Scurlock, Jr;-
Aye -
Commissioner
Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Commissioner
Richard N. Bird
Aye
Commissioner
Margaret C. Bowman
Aye
Commissioner
Gary C. Wheeler
Aye
BOARD OF -COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
BYDON i
G
SUCROC JR.
Chairman
AUTHORIZATION FOR FIREFIGHTERS TO OPERATE ANNUAL COUNTY FAIR
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney
Barkett:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
DATE: November 12, 1986
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Vero Beach Firefighters
Association, Inc. to Operate Annual Fair at
Indian River County Fairgrounds
FROM: Bruce Barkett-`�
Assistant County Attorney
On November 3, 1986 there was a meeting in the County
Administrator's Office which was attended by the County
Administrator; Bill Tripp from the Firefighters Association;
Steve Bloom, an attorney representing the firefighters; and
me. The firefighters requested a contract between the
Indian River County Fair Association, Inc, and the Vero
Beach Firefighters Association, Inc. to operate an annual
fair at Indian River County Fairgrounds for the next 15
years. With the Administrator's concurrence, I suggested
that since we are in the process of reorganizing and
revitalizing the Indian River County Fair Association, Inc.
at the Board's direction, a contract by that Association,
either long term or short term, would be inappropriate at
this time.
The firefighters indicated that the appropriate State
Officials would not allow them to run an annual County fair
in 1987 without such a contract. It was suggested that a
resolution adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County authorizing the firefighters to operate
a fair from March 20-28, 1987 at the Indian River County
Fairgrounds would probably satisfy the appropriate State
Officials without disrupting the reorganization process
which the Indian River County Fair Association, Inc. is
undergoing at this time.
56
NOV 18 19186
BOOK 66 r,qu- 4?1
r
BOOK 66 Pv E 4?2
In fact, on November 12, 1986, Wally Rich, Chief of the
Bureau of Fairs and Expositions, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, reviewed the attached
Resolution and indicated it would be sufficient to allow the
Vero Beach Firefighters Association, Inc. to operate the
annual Indian River County fair.
It is requested that the Board adopt the attached Resolution
authorizing the Vero Beach Firefighters Association, Inc. to
operate an annual fair at the Indian River County
Fairgrounds from March 20-28, 1987.
Commissioner Bird gave a short history of how the Fire-
fighters annually held a fair in the City limits but outgrew the
space, and this tied in with the development of the fairground at
Kiwanis-Hobart Park. An agreement was reached where the
Firefighters held their fair at the County fairgrounds, and some
of the monies they realize from the fair go to improvements at
the fairgrounds. Bill Tripp of the Firefighters then requested
that the fair be chartered by the state as a recognized county
fair, and accordingly, a fair corporation was set up by former
County Attorney Gary Brandenburg. Attorney Vitunac has
researched this and does not feel it was set up quite as it
should be according to state requirements, and he is now in the
process of setting up a new corporation.
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that the Firefighters
latest major project is to construct at the fairgrounds at their
expense an 18,000 sq. ft. exhibit building. They have gotten the
building designed, have obtained estimates, and a local
contractor has indicated he will build this for $120,000. They
are on a tight time schedule trying to build the building, and
since they don't have the cash up front, their thought was to
borrow from a local bank and pay the loan back with the fair
proceeds. That is in the works, but it is doubtful all this can
come together for this year so they probably will have to rent a
- tent again; however, in order to move ahead, the Firefighters
need some kind of written agreement with the county so they can
operate the fair this coming March as they have done in the past
and that is the reason for the proposed Resolution.
57
Attorney Vitunac advised that in the meantime the Fair
Corporation will be appointed by the Board under its new amended
charter, which is being prepared for submission to Circuit Court:
Once the Fair Corporation is constituted and officially meets,
the County Commission will negotiate with the Fair Corporation
for a lease; the Fair Corporation then will negotiate with the
Firefighters; and the County Commission wild., more or less,
withdraw from the daily operations of the fair. The control of
the County Commission will come through its annual appointment of
the membership of the Corporation.
Commissioner Eggert asked if there is now a master plan for
the fairgrounds that says this building is what we want and where
we want it to be.
Commissioner Bird confirmed that we do have a master plan
for the Fairgrounds that shows this building on the location they
are planning it, and we will be updating the master plan.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the Fairgrounds is a large
piece of land with equipment on it that needs to be taken care of
all year long, and he felt the site should be administered by the
County Administrator and an advisory board, and should have
recommendations for an annual budget, etc. The Chairman felt we
should have two distinct and separate entities - a c-o-Lmty-run and
administered fairground and then the relationship with the
Firefighters for the county fair. Right now we have got the
County, the Fair Corporation, the Firefighters, and the Union, or
about four entities who are not sure how all this interrelates,
and he would like to refer this back to staff to work on this
lease, get things structured in a proper way, and analyze whether
it is worth it to be a county fair or not. .
Commissioner Bird noted that it is frustrating to have a
corporation who wants to build a building of this size, which we
can use 50 weeks out of the year, and it seems there must be some
vehicle to work it out. He did agree with the Chairman on how the
structure for administering the fairgrounds should work.
58
Bou 66 pnv 493
NOV 1'8 1986
BOOK 66 ml -)E 424
Lieut.Bill Tripp, speaking for the Firefighters, believed we
all have the best interests of the public at heart. He did agree
the fairgrounds are the county's property and should be run by
the county throughout the year, even through the fair with a
contract with the Firefighters. In fact, the Firefighters, after
talking with their attorney, are going to form a South County
Firefighters Benevolent Association. Lieut. Tripp felt the
important thing is to have a structure where everyone can work
together. He noted that the Firefighters have put $10,000 of
pumps out there and hope they will serve the public and be
maintained, and when they construct the building, they want to be
sure it wi_I-l.__be properly maintained.
Lieut. Tripp described in detail the considerable work
involved with setting up the fair and being sure it is done
properly because of the liability factor. He stressed the
problems and very considerable expense involved in working with
temporary electric and also having to rent tents and pointed out
that the new building will eliminate those problems and be a very
large advantage in attracting exhibitors. Lieut. Tripp again
stressed the necessity for some kind of contract between the
Firefighters and the C'0runty for the fair, and emphasized that
they are going to build the building and will always work with
the county as they have in the past.
Commissioner Bird referred to the wording in the proposed
Resolution which agrees to lease the Fairgrounds to the
Firefighters for $10.00. He agreed that the improvements they
have made over the years have been very adequate, but stated he
would like to change the wording just for this year from $10.00
to $5,000 in improvements.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
Missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-101 authorizing a lease to the
Firefighters with the above amendment.
59
RESOLUTION NO. 86-101
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING LEASE OF THE INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS TO THE VERO
BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
FROM MARCH 2O-28, 1987, TO OPERATE A
FAIR.
WHEREAS, the Vero Beach Firefighters Association,
P
Inc. (Union) has been operating an annual fair at the Indian
River County Permanent Fairgrounds (County Fairgrounds)
since 1984, and prior to 1984 the Union has been operating
an annual fair in Indian River County (County) since 1979;
and
WHEREAS, the annual fair operated by the Union has
promoted goodwill among County residents and has provided
recreation to the citizens of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Union desires to run a fair at the
County Fairgrounds during the period from March 20-28, 1987;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida (Board) supports the.holding of
the fair by the Union at the County Fairgrounds;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida as
e
follows:
1. The Board hereby agrees to lease the County
Fairgrounds to the Union for the period from March 20-28,
1987 for Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) worth of
improvements to the property.
2. The Union at the Union's expense, shall
provide and carry, in addition to fire insurance, liability
insurance coverage in an amount of not less than Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) per individual injury, and
Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) per occurrence
during the term of the annual IRC Fair. The Board shall be
named co-insured and copies of said policy shall be mailed
60 Boa 66 FA,r. 41'?5
BOOK. 65 FA;F 426
to the Board at least thirty (30) days prior to March 20,
1987.
3. The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the
Board harmless from every and all claims that may arise from
the Union's use of the County Fairgrounds, including court
costs and attorney's fees, and including use by permitees of
the Union.
4. The Union shall not make any permanent
improvements to the County Fairgrounds without the express
written consent of the Board.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Bird and seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler and, being put to a voter the vote was as
follows -
Commissioner Cor, 1— Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 18th day of November ,
1986.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
By/ U
Uon C. Scuriock;-J
Chairman
ATTEST:
By
FreZIa Wright
Clerk V ��Cj
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
ruce ar ett
Assistant County Attorney
61
Discussion continued regarding the importance of long range
planning, and Attorney Vitunac advised that his office will
continue working with the Legal aspect and bring back a
recommendation.to the Board.
Commissioner Bird reported that he has been trying to get
the University of Florida to help us with our Master Plan, but
have not been able to; so, we are either going to have to do it
in-house or obtain a consultant. He reported that, in addition
to the building proposed by the Firefighters, agricultural
interests are indicating they are interested in spending about
$200,000 for another Large building for stock shows and
agricultural exhibits.
AMENDING ORDINANCE 86-21 RE COASTAL BUILDING ZONE BOUNDARIES
The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:.
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a _
��lillillillillillillill111.1!1111111111111111illillillilitillilI 11
In the ) Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of z
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. — a ,
Sworn to and subscribed before me thisday of .
(Susi
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian RiveriQ
(SEAL)
62
). 19
nty, Florida)
Pusuc NOTICE
The Board of County Commlasionere of Indian
River County, Florida will conduct a Public Hear-
ing on Tuesday, November 18, 1986 at 10;30
a.m. in the Commission Chambers at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 329W. to consider the
adoption of an ordinance entitled:
-ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
-,AN...— n ...ee,nueoa na mnlAN
ORDINANCE NO. 86.21, THE COASTAL
-CODE; AMENDING THE BOUNDARY
_ y' DESCRIPTION OF THE COASTAL-
,BUILDING
OASTAL-,BUILDING ZONE; AMENDING DEFINI-
TIONS SECTION; REQUIRING COMPLI-
'' iANCE WITH THE 1986 REVISIONS TO
'-,,,THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE;
`,;AMENDING SECTION 431, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
`ORDINANCES TO REQUIRE COMPLI-
ANCE WITH 1986 REVISIONS TO THE
STANDARD BUILDING CODE; PROVID-
ING FOR INCORPORATION IN CODE, '
,SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he/she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such Pur-
poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings Is made, which
record includes the testimony M evidence an
which the appeal Is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DON C. SCURLOCK. JR.
CHAIRMAN A
Oct. 27, 1986
BOOK 6 FkU
NOV 18 1986
600K 66 FA;E 428
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett gave a brief
history, noting that in 1985 the Legislature enacted the Coastal
Protection Act establishing a statewide coastal building zone in
which certain construction requirements were to be applied. We
adopted the Coastal Building Code, and then in 1986 the state
changed the requirements so that we now have to change our
ordinance. The changes in the new ordinance would include amend-
ing the coastal boundary description to reflect the new law and
the changes in the coastal construction control line which are
about to be adopted. If we adopt this, we will be basically in
conformance with Vero Beach; we will have clarified definitions
to agree with state law; and we will have amended the design
capacity for buildings to withstand 110 mph winds, not 140.
Commissioner Bird asked Building Director Rymer what adop-
tion of the amendment does to construction on the barrier island,
and Director Rymer advised that it will have practically the same
result as before. The 140 mph was for construction that was
seaward of the CCCL, and we didn't allow that anyway.
In discussion, it was believed that the adoption of the
proposed amendment will reduce building costs slightly, and
Director Rymer confirmed that we are back to the conventional
design for single family homes. For buildings over 60' there
would be a significant change, but our maximum height is 351.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance.86-76 amending the boundary description
of the coastal building zone, etc.
63
_ 11110/86(B4)L nm)
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 76
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 86-21, THE
COASTAL CODE; AMENDING THE BOUNDARY
DESCRIPTION OF THE COASTAL BUILDING ZONE;
AMENDING DEFINITIONS SECTION; REQUIRING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE 1986 REVISIONS TO THE
STANDARD BUILDING CODE; AMENDING SECTION
4-31, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH 1986
REVISIONS TO THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE;
PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION IN CODE,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County passed Ordinance No. 86-21 to comply
with the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985 [Sections
161.52-161.58, Florida Statutes (1985)]; and
WHEREAS the Florida Legislature amended the
requirements of that Act in Chapter 86-191, Laws of Florida;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it. ordained by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County that:
SECTION 1:
Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-21, Section 4
is hereby amended as follows:
Coastal Building Zone Boundary Description
The.boundary of the coastal building zone Sha++ -Ise
eleser+heel-as on the coastal barrier island shall be the land
area from the seasonal high-water line to a line 5,000 feet
landward from the coastal construction control line as
established and as may be amended from time to time pursuant
to Section_ 161.053, Florida Statutes, or the entire island,
whichever is less. If no coastal construction control line
is in place, the coastal building zone shall be the land
area seaward of the most landward velocity zone_ (V _zone)
boundary line fronting upon the Atlantic Ocean __Provided,
however, that in the _event the Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission_ reduces_ the size of the coastal building zone in
CODING:
Words underlined are additions; words strdek-1:hreugh
are deletions
NOV� 1 BOOK 66 PnE 4?9
-1
P" - -
NOV 1 1986
ORDINANCE NO. 86 -
BOOK 66 PAGE 4.30
accordance with Chapter 86-191, Laws of Florida, then the
Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission's decision shall
prevail only as to the area addressed by such decision.
[The remainder of Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-21,
Section 4, consisting of a long legal description, is hereby
repealed. See original Ordinance for text.]
c�r-r i n►.i �
Certain definitions in Indian River County
Ordinance No. 86-21, Section 9, are hereby amended as
follows, and a new definition of "substantial improvement"
is added:
(b) "BREAKAWAY Bd+LB+NG WALL" OR "FRANGIBLE
Bd+LB+NG WALL" means a partition independent of supporting
structural members that will withstand design wind forces,
but will fail under hydrostatic, wave, and run-up forces
associated with the design storm surge. Under such
conditions, the wall shall fail in a manner such that it
breaks up into components that will minimize the potential
for damage to life or adjacent property. It shall be a
characteristic of a breakaway or frangible wall that it
shall have a horizontal design loading resistance of no less
than 10 nor more than 20 pounds per square foot.
(e) "COASTAL BUILDING ZONE" - 9ha++-mean-tIge-+amel
area--es--�easared--6A9A--#eet--+endrroerd--#rero--the--eeeste+
eonst rue ++en--c-orrtro-l--++ne--e-s-t�b.—H sited--pursuant--t-o--See++erg
+6+.-8637-F+or+de-S.tatates- See Section 1 of this Ordinance.
(g) "CONSTRUCTION" means the earrq+ng-eti-t--0-f-arry
lea++d+ng;-e�ear-it�g;-�'-i-I-I-i-erg-,--Qty-a-t i-oto--crr�-Ohre•-r�al�tr�g-e#
t he - -e- -o-f- - Briy- -e the r - A+rat-v--c-o-as-t-a-I- - p r e + e e++de
strue +ares-erg-d-+be�-Fi--f-i-I-I /�wtrt�i-sf rjerrt .---A'Wteft-appreppi-ate-+e
the --- e•&rtt-ex-tr,---J'-ev�-rt t-i_011Ju---re-fe-"---to--- t4re----ee-t---e#
e am s t r a e t+ o n a -r- A+ -i -e- -re-s-tx-I-t--o-f--czorts+rttC+i-o t. b u i l d i n g of or
substantial improvement to_any structure or the clearina,
CODING: Words underlined are additions; words straek-through
are deletions.
2
M ® ORDINANCE NO
filling, or excavation of any land. It shall also mean any
alterations in the size or use of -any existing structure or
the appearance of any land. When appropriate to the
context, "construction" refers to the act of construction or
the result of construction.
(o) "SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT" means any repair,
reconstruction, or im2rovement of a structure, the cost of
which equals or exceeds a cumulative total of 50 percent of
the market value of the structure either:
(a) Before the repair or improvement is .
started; or
(b) If the structure has been damaged and is
being restored, before the damage occurred.
For the purposes of this definition, "SUBSTANTIAL
IMPROVEMENT" is considered to occur when the first
alteration of any wall, ceiling,.floor, or other structural
part of the building commences, whether or not that
alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure.
The term does not, however, include either any project for
improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or
local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which
are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions; or
ani alteration- of a structure listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or the State Inventor of
Historic Places.
SECTION 3
Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-21, Section
11(h)(2), is hereby amended as follows:
{ � � - - -�hl- - rt�a 7 e �° --�t-►�te-t�.t�es- - s-(��a-i -! - -!9e --c�e5-i - + e
wt+b 9 + a Rel+Mg- 4 4-0- ITti-1-e- -pe-n--ltottt - -w rn49-Reer#s-.- --Heim t ren t -a i- -w+n d
ve+ee+tq-p-ressu-res--54-EH--l--n-o-t--be-+es9--t+mig- t-he--v-alttes--g+ven
Fie+acro=
CODING:
Words underlined are additions; words straek-+breagh
are deletions.
3
NOV 1 1986 BOOK 6 rv)- 4 3 1
ORDINANCE NO. 86 -
BOOK 66 PAGE 32
Bas+e-W+md-Ve+ee++q-Des+gn-Pressure
fPounels-per-Square-Feet}
S+aMelard-Ba++el+rg-Eeele*
He+gh+ Pressure
f+t} fps -f+
_ - 0-30 4+
3+-50 54
5+-+00 65
*�'he-above-+ab+e-+s-Lased-aper-+he-�errea+a-
P-700256-x-V� x fH130}7/7
Where:----P-�-pressure-+n-pear�elsfsgaare-€eei
V---+40-amph
H---he+gh+-ebeve-grade-+n-feet
(2) All major structures shall be designed
in accordance_ with Section 1205 of the 1986 Revisions to the
Standard Building Code (SBC) 1985. Edition using a
fastest -mile wind velocity of 110 miles per hour.
SECTION 4
Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-21, Section
13 is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION 13 - STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR
STRUCTURES
Minor structures need not meet the specific
structural requirements of Section 11, Indian River County
Ordinance No. 86-21, 4+738; except that they shall be
designed to produce the minimum adverse impact on the beach
and dune system and shall comply with the applicable
standards of construction found elsewhere in this Code.
SECTION 5
Section 4-31, Indian River County Code of -Laws and
Ordinances is hereby amended as follows:
Sectiorf 4-31. Standard Building Code adopted.
The Standard Building Code, 1985 Edition,
including Appendix A, and the 1986 Revisions, as published
by the Southern Building Code Congress is hereby adopted by
reference as the Indian River County, Florida Building Code,
CODING: Words underlined are additions; words s+raek-threugh
are deletions.
4
i
- ® ORDINANCE NO=
subject to the limitations, exceptions and modifications set
forth herein.
SECTION 6
INCORPORATION IN CODE.
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code
of Ordinances of Indian River County 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 purposes.
SECTION 7 .
SEVERABILITY.
If any Section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 8.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt
from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of
official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed
with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th
day of November , 1986.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal commencing on the 27th_ day of October ,
1986, for a public hearing to be held on the 18th day of
November 1986, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert _, seconded by
CODING: Words underlined are additions; words strdek-tbredgb
are deletions.
NOV 18 1986 5 BOOK 66 F,q-UF 433
r- -I - I
I NOV 8 1986
Commissioner Bowman
vote:
ORDINANCE NO. 86-76
BOOK 66 PAi;E 434
and adopted by the following
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
A 'm__
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
BY z Z -V
60N C. SCTJRL CK, JR.
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of
Florida, this 21st day of November 1986.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on
this 26th day of November 1986, at 10:00 A.M./P.M. and
filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Bruce Barkett
Assistant County Attorney
-APPROVED r
CODING: Words underlined are additions; words straek-through
are deletions
_6
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX RESOLUTION & APPOINTMENTS TO TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
The Board reviewed memo of Assistant County Attorney
Barkett:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
DATE: November 7, 1986
SUBJECT: Tourist Development Tax Resolution
FROML Bruce Barkett
Assistant Count Attorney
On October 28, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners
approved Commissioner Wodtke's request for authorization to
begin the process of establishing a tourist development tax
in Indian River County. Section 125.0104, Florida Statutes,
describes the procedure for levyingg-a tourist development
tax. Generally, the steps are as follows:
1. - At least 60 days prior to enactment of the ordinance
levying the tax, a tourist development council must be
appointed by resolution. It shall consist of nine members:
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners or his
designee, who must also be a Commissioner; two elected
municipal officials at least one of which must be from the
most populous municipality in the County; three owners or
operators of motels, hotels, R.V. parks, or other tourist
accommodations; and three persons involved in the tourist
industry but not involved in tourist accommodations._
2. The tourist development council must_ prepare and submit
a plan for tourist development, which must include, among
other things, anticipated tourist tax revenue and a list in
order of priority of the proposed uses of the tax.
3. The Commission must adopt the tourist development plan
as part of the ordinance adopting the tax. In addition, the
Ordinance makes permanent the Tourist Development Council.
4. The ordinance must be approved in a referendum election
by a majority of the electors.
5. The ordinance shall be deemed to be in effect when
approved by the electors.
The attached resolution is offered for the Board's approval
to appoint the Tourist Development Council as the required
first step in establishing a tourist development tax in
Indian River County.
Chairman Scurlock believed the Board has received a number
of resumes from those interested in being on the Tourist
Development Council, but he did not believe they are all in the
right categories. He continued that based on the Bill, the
Chairman has the ability to serve or delegate, and he, therefore,
65
Boa 66 F' a 4e3
40V 18
�y
NOV 1g 1986 BOOK 4,16
would like to appoint Commissioner Wheeler to work on this
between now and next week. He felt we can adopt the Resolution
and defer the appointments until next week.
- Discussion ensued as to the required membership on the
Council, and Commissioner Wheeler believed it indicates three of
the members may be people interested in the tourist industry, not
necessarily owners, and he felt this leaves it quite open.
Commissioner Bird asked if one of the primary purposes of
establishing this tax was to generate funds for beach
restoration, and Chairman Scurlock clarified that it is more than
that; originally the Bill didn't even include beach renourish-
ment, and now it is even possible it would allow the funds
generated to be used for making up the shortfall to develop our
new beaches in the North County.
Commissioner*Wheeler believed we have until next Tuesday to
make appointments; the nine man Board will simply draw up what
they anticipate using the money for and establish the need for
the tax. Then if it is approved by the voters, those appointed
to the Council would continue to serve in that capacity and do an
annual budget to be approved by the Commission.
Commissioner Bowman noted that first among the specific
purposes listed for the Council to consider is a public
convention center, and she hoped we are not committed to that.
Chairman Scurlock confirmed that we are not, but believed we
will have to have a good program to set forth so that the
majority of the community will vote for it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-102, deferring naming the appointments
until next week's meeting.
(RESOLUTION..86-102 WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.)
(REFER TO MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25, 1986)
66
L.�
SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL (GUEST COTTAGE - R. THOMAS)
E---]
The hour of 11:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
I
• .1111reTUA m
Published Daily
Vero Reach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA 1
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
aN c_
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of �i%1• ��/i /��7C�
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and
(SEAL)
s
(Clerk of the Circuit
I
day of A.D. 19 0`�
G. •
Business Manager)
ndian River County, Florida)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING'
Notice of Public Hearing,to consider the
granting of .special exceptioapproval for a
guest cottage. The subject prapmty is presently
ownedbdyi Richard Thomas and is located
138551n an River Drive, Sebastian, Florida._,
The subject property is described as:: +
FROM THE SW CORNER OF GOV'T
LOT,2 SECTION 25, TWP. 30 SOUTH,
AGE,' 38 EAST; RUN NORTH ALONG
THE WEST UNE OF SAID GOVT LOT 2
ADISTANCE OF 617.80 FEET; THENCE
fiUN NORTH 35°10'00" EAST 'A DIS -
T ANCE OF 1295.37, FEET; THENCE RUN
+ ` -;SOUTH 3591700" EAST A -DISTANCE
-OF 754.45 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH
40627'45" EAST A DISTANCE OF 77.29
FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 38"2234"
EAST A DISTANCE OF 201.57 FEET,
..THENCE RUN SOUTH 40°24'57" WEST
A DISTANCE OF 88.59 FEET, THENCE
1UN SOUTH '42"5444" EAST A DIS-
7.`NCE OF 198.66 FEET; THENCE RUN ;
NC
3TH 41-4323- EAST A DISTANCE ';'.
OF 49.36 FEET MORE OR LESS TO
THE NESTERLY SHORE -OF THE 1N-
DIAN ?iVER AND POINT OF 'BEGIN- -.
NING; THENCE RETRACING LAST '
MENTIONED COURSE RUN SOUTH
41 °4323" WEST A DISTANCE OF
;.;'•.409.36 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE
RUN SOUTH 43°15'22" WEST A DIS-
TANCE OF 8246 FEET; THENCE RUN
SOUTH 31"31'23" WEST A DISTANCE
OF 57.98 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST- j
ERLY CORNER OF LOT 7; BLOCK "A" '
RIVER TREES S/D ACCORDING TO 1`
PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 24, INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE
RUN SOUTH 34°52 31" EAST A DIS-
..TANCE OF 212.12 FEET TO THE SE
CORNER OF RIVER TREES SUBDIVI-
SION; THENCE RUN NORTH 41134'4911
EAST A DISTANCE OF 559.7 FEET
MORE OR LESS TO THE WESTERLY
;SHORE- OF THE; 'INDIAN RIVER;
THENCE`' RUN ..NORTHWESTERLY
MEANDERING -'' SAID 'WESTERLY
SHORE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
LESS AND EXCEPTING THE 30 FEET
OF RIGHT OF WAY' FOR OLD U.S.
HIGHWAY NO. 1 (NOW RIVER ROAD)
ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY POR-
TION OF SAID PARCEL. SAID PARCEL
• 'CONTAINING 2.20 ACRES MORE " OR
LESS LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST
RIGHT OF WAY OF RIVER ROAD. -TO-
GETHER WITH ALL RIPARIAN RIGHTS
THEREUNTO APPERTAINING.
A public hearing at which parties in in
and citizens shall have 'an opportunity, to
heard, will be held by the Board of County Cc
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in th
Commission Chambers of the County Admini
tration Building; located at 1840 25th SL, Ver
Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, November 18, 1986
at 11:00 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to'
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings,
Is made which includes the testimony and evi-i
dance upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Oct 28.1986
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner John McCoy:
67
r� :ii e•11
BOOK �� pn, 4,3
9G
BOOK 65 PAGE 4 8
NOV 1 8 1986
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 12, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
RICHARD THOMAS'S REQUEST
Robert iii. Rea'tin , A SUBJECT: FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
Planning & Developme Director APPROVAL FOR A GUEST
COTTAGE
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller M M
Chief, Current Development 'r
FROM: John W. McCoy�t` REFERENCES: thomas
Staff Planner JOHN
It 'is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Richard Thomas has submitted a request to receive special excep-
tion approval to authorize the construction of a guest cottage
within the RS -6 zoning district. The special exception request
was accompanied by a request for minor site plan approval which
was granted -by the Technical Review Committee at the October 26,
1986 meeting, contingent upon approval of the special exception
use by the Board of County Commissioners.
Special exception uses are those types- of uses that would not
generally be appropriate throughout a particular zoning district.
However, when special exception uses- are carefully controlled as
to number, area, location, and/or relationship to the vicinity,
such uses would not adversely impact the public health, safety,
comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, and general welfare
and as such would be compatible with permitted uses within the
particular zoning district. Special exceptions require submittal
of an approvable site plan meeting all site plan criteria, zoning
district criteria and the criteria set forth in the regulations
for the specific use. It is then the responsibility of the
Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval or denial to
the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County
Commissioners then takes final action based on the Planning and
Zoning Commission and staff recommendations, and may attach any
additional conditions they feel necessary to assure compatibility
with the surrounding properties.
The site plan shows a 600 square foot existing structure with a
proposed 384 square foot addition. This entire 984 square foot
structure would then be used as a guest cottage. The property is
located at 13855 Indian River Drive.
On November 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant special
exception approval to the applicant.
ANALYSIS
1. Total Parcel Size: 2.2 acres
2. Area of Development: 2,896 sq. ft.
3. Zoning Classification: RS -6, Residential Single Family (6
units/acre)
4. Land Use Designation: MD -1, Medium Density Residential (8
units/acre)
5. Building Area: 984 sq. ft.
6. Traffic Circulation: The site will utilize an existing
two-way drive from Indian River Drive.
68
7. Reservations: The applicant has agreed to reserve 30' of
right-of-way along Indian River Drive for future acquisition
by the County for right-of-way needs. The 30' reservation
brings Indian River Drive up to current County R.O.W. stan-
dards. Dedication of R.O.W. is not required with minor site
plans however, minor site plan procedures do require the.,
applicant to reserve R.O.W. for future acquisition.
8. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan has
been approved by the Director of Public Works.
9. Landscape Plan: Existing landscaping will be used to satisfy
the requirements of Ordinance #84-47.
10. Utilities: The site will utilize on-site well and septic
systems. The septic system and well have received approval
from the Director of the State Environmental Services.
11. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
South: Residence/RS-6, Residential Single Family
East: Indian River
West: Vacant/RS-6, Residential Single Family
North: Residence/RS-6, Residential Single Family
12. Specific criteria for guest cottages: [Sec. 25.1(c)].
i. Shall be an accessory= structure or portion of a
principal single family dwelling.
ii. Shall not be located closer than fifteen (15) feet to
the principal dwelling on the lot.
iii. No guest cottage may be utilized for commercial purposes.
iv. The guest cottage shall only be used for the inter-
mittent or temporary occupancy by a non-paying guest.
Section 25.1 of the Zoning Code, Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, details specific criteria to be considered when reviewing a
guest cottage for approval as a speical exception use. All of the
criteria have been met. The special exception process allows the
Board of County Commissioners to impose any additional conditions
to ensure compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding
property, and the staff recommends the imposition of a requirement
that the applicant record a document in the public records that
prohibits the guest house from ever being rented.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Grant special exception approval of the guest cottage
conditioned upon the applicant recording a document in
the public records prohibiting the guest house from ever
being rented.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
69
BOOK 66 PnE439
d
Nov 18 1986 BOOK F: E 440
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted
special exception approval to Richard Thomas for a
- guest cottage upon the condition that he record a
document prohibiting the guest cottage from ever
being rented.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL (FLORIDA COMMUNICATIONS - RADIO TOWER)
The hour of 11:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
atVeroBeach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of_l(�/.
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subsc'Wed ore thi day of A.D. 19 AKII
/ B siness Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, dian River County, Florida)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING '_--
Notice of Public Hearing to consider the
granting of. special exception approval for a
radio communications tower. The subject prop-
erty is presently owned by Joy A. Miller d/b/a
All Florida Communications Company and is lo-
cated
)hhat 6490 85th Street (South Winter Beach
R�THE�W�STp 0 Ar REdescribed as:
S OF TRACT'S,
SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH
RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COM-
PANY FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT
BOOK 2, PAGE 25, NOW PART OF THE
RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,'.
FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE
SOUTH So FEET OFTHEABOVE DE
SCRIBED PROPERTY CONVEYED FOR
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES FOR
SOUTH WINTER.BEACH ROAD IN OF0I-
CIAL RECORD BOOK 32, PAGE 33,'
PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
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-
tratlon.auliding,-located-at.1840 25th St. -Vero
Beach, Fiorida,on Tuesday, November 18,1888;
M 11:00 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which.may be made* at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made which includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY.--s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
' Chairman �I
Oft. 28,1986
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner John McCoy:
70
r r� �
TO:The Honorable Members of DATE: November 12, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
.. ALL FLORIDA COMMUNICATIONS
Robert M. neat n AIW SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
Planning & Devel pmeri Director EXCEPTION APPROVAL TO
ERECT A 200' RADIO
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
Chief, Current Development MWA
FROM: \ REFERENCES:
John W. McCoy Joy Miller
Staff Planner • JOHN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
David Rever has submitted a request on behalf of All Florida
Communications to receive special exception approval for a pro-
posed 200' radio transmitter tower. The special exception request
was accompanied by a request for minor site plan approval which
was granted -by the Technical Review Committee at its October 7,
1986 meeting, contingent upon approval of the special exception by
the Board of County Commissioners.
Pursuant to Section 25.3 of the Zoning Code, Regulation of Special
Exception Uses, the Planning and Zoning Commission is to consider
the appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted
site plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The
Commission then concurrently makes a recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners regarding the special exception use and
acts on the submitted site plan. The County may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to assure compatibility of the
use with the surrounding area.
At their meeting of November 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered All Florida Communications request. The
Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend to the Board of
County Commissioners that special exception approval of the tower
be given.
The site plan shows a 200' radio transmission tower to be located
at the northeast corner of 65th Street (South Winter Beach Road)
and 66th Avenue. The tower will be located in an existing grove
and will be set back no less than 220' from the property lines.
ANALYSIS
1. Total Parcel Size: 19.24 acres
2. Area of Development: 3,354 sq. ft.
3. Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural -
4. Land Use Designation: LD -1, Low Density Residential
(allowing up to 3 units/acre) -
5. Building Area: None
6. Traffic Circulation: The site will utilize a two-way marl
drive from 65th Street (South Winter Beach Road). A marl
roadway surface is permitted since the road will be utilized
infrequently. The traffic circulation plan has received
approval by the County Traffic Engineer.
71
OV 1 1996 BOOK 66 F�,,u 441
Fr-- -7
Nov 18 1966 BOOK 66 PnE 442
7. Reservation: The applicant has agreed to reserve 30 feet of
right-of-way for 65th Street (South Winter Beach Road). The
additional 30 feet of right-of-way will bring 65th Street ROW
up to current standards when later acquired by the County.
Dedication of right-of-way is not required with minor site
plans; however, minor site plan procedures do require the.
applicant to reserve right-of-way for future acquisition.
8. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan has
been approved by the Director of Public Works.
9. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in accordance with
Ordinance #84-47.
10. Utilities: The site will have no well or septic facilities.
11. Off -Street Parking Required: 1 space
Provided: 1 space
12. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
South: Grove/A-1, Agricultural
East: Grove/A-1, Agricultural
West: Groves/RFD, Rural Fringe District
North: Grove/A-1, Agricultural
13. Special Criteria for Rad; --'r-ansmission Towers:
i• -re setbacks from all property lines
equal L_ _,lured ten (110%) percent of the height of
the proposed structure. This provision may be waived or
modified upon a recommendation by the Director of Public
Works.
ii. Distance of any guy anchorage or similar device shall be
at least ten (10) feet from any property line.
Suitable protective -anti-climb fencing and a landscape
planting screening shall be provided and maintained
around the structure and accessory attachments.
iv. All structures shall be subject to the height restric-
tions provided in Section 25(A), "Height Exceptions".
V. If more than two hundred twenty (220) voltage is
necessary for the operation of the facility and is
present in a ground grid or in the tower, signs located
every twenty (20) feet and attached to the fence or wall
shall display in large bold letters the following:
"HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER".
vi. No equipment, mobile or immobile, which is not -used in
direct support of the transmission or relay facility
shall be stored or parked on the site unless repairs to
the facility are being made.
vii. No tower shall be permitted to encroach into or through
any established public or private airport approach plan
as provided in the "Airport Height Limitations", of
Section 25(P).
Section 25.1 of the Zoning Code, Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, details specific criteria to be considered when reviewing a
communications tower for approval as a special exception use. All
criteria, have been met. Although the special exception process
allows the Board rf County Commissioners to impose any additional
conditions to F- ;ure compatibility of the proposed use with
surrounding prop :;y, the staff does not recommend the imposition
of any special conditions in this case.
72
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
special exception approval to construct the proposed radio tower.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted
special exception approval to All Florida Communica-
tions to construct the proposed radio tower.
RESIGNATION FROM MOBILE HOME ADVISORY BOARD
The Board reviewed the following letter of resignation and
note from Administrative Aide Alice White:
November 5, 1986
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Commissioners:
I hereby submit my resignation from the Mobile Home Advisory Board
as I have sold my home and moved to Ft. Pierce, Florida. My
resignation will be effective immediately.
Sincerely,
Earle Hall
2066 5th Ct. SE
Vero Beach, Fla. 32962
NOTE: There are now two "at -large" vacancies on the Mobile
Home Advisory Board.
Alice White
Admin, Aide I
73BOOK 66 r"�r V
14 0 V 18 1986
NOV 1 18-1 X9(16
BOOK 66 u,UE 444
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted
the resignation of Earle Hall from the Mobile Home
Advisory Board.
Commissioner Bird inquired whether the Mobile Home Advisory
Board is still active, and Chairman Scurlock advised that there
was some indication at one time they wanted to disband, but some
other complaints have arisen. The Mobile Home Advisory Board
feel it is a vehicle where you can voice your complaints locally,
and they want to keep it active a while longer.
Commissioner Bird expressed his hope that when we look at
our new committee assignments that we really try to streamline
them, eliminate those which are not active, and lessen the burden
on the secretarial staff.
Discussion ensued as to whether on certain committees it is
necessary to take detailed minutes or just have a brief synopsis.
It was generally agreed that some committees require more
detailed minutes than others and this should be left up to the
chairman of that particular committee. Overall it was indicated
the majority of the Commission felt the minutes could be cut
back.
LANDCLEARING/TREE REMOVAL VIOLATION (FUSTER - WARD)
Staff Planner Roland DeBlois made the following
presentation:
74
TO: The Honorable Members ®ATE: November 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: LANDCLEARING/TREE REMOVAL
VIOLATION: ALFONSO
S��JE�iT: FUSTER/RON WARD
,zg'o-bert M. Keati�tig, P CV -87-01-53
Planning & Developm Director
THROUGH: Art Challacombe `
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois Rtp REFERENCES: p Landclearing \
Staff Planner Disk. IBMIRD
Environmental Planning Section
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on November 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On October 16, 1986)County staff observed that parcel number
9-32-39-00001-0130-00001.0 had been cleared, including the
removal of sixteen (16) protected trees prior to the issuance
of tree removal and landclearing permits. The parcel is
approximately 10.00 acres in size, and is located on the south
side of North Winter Beach Road (69th Street), approximately
1000' east of King's Highway (58th Avenue). The property is
zoned RS -3, Single Family Residential District.
In addition, staff observed that the landclearing and tree
removal had occurred in association with the development of two
(2) ponds, and for the future establishment of a right-of-way;
each was performed without County approval.
The property is currently owned by Mr. Al Fuster; the land -
clearing was performed by -a Mr. Ron Ward of 3970 6th Street,
Vero beach, Florida.
In an on-site meeting with staff on October 16, 1986, Mr. Pete
Fuster, brother of the landowner, explained that the property
had been cleared for the construction of a single family house,
and for the establishment of two (2) ponds. He also indicated
that some of the clearing was related to the possible future
development of a right-of-way for a subdivision development.
Pete Fuster indicated that neither he nor his brother were
aware of the need for permits for the landclearing or tree
removal.
In addition, Mr. Fuster explained that the majority of pro-
tected trees removed were. -from the location of the single
family house and from the location of the two (2) ponds being
developed. According to Mr., Fuster, the ponds were being
established in areas where land elevation reflected natural
depressions. Staff was unable to determine specifically where
each of the sixteen protected trees existed prior to their -
removal. However, based upon staff's field inspection, staff
has been able to delineate the general areas on which the
illegal clearing took place (see attachment).
Mr. Fuster has acquired the services of Carter and Associates
to apply for after -the -fact permits for the proposed land
development.
75
®V � � a��6 BOOK 66 F',{�E 44
I� .
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Boob 66 �446
Section 23J-6 (a) & (b), Tree Protection, of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida prohibits the.
performance of any tree removal, landclearing or grubbing
- unless tree removal and landclearing permits have first been
issued by the County. This requirement includes single family
residential parcels having an area of greater than 1.0 acre.
The ordinance further specifies that a violation shall be
punishable upon conviction by a fine not to exceed five hundred
dollars ($500) per tree and landclearing activity or by im-
prisonment in the County jail for up to sixty (60) days, or
both.
Based on the illegal landclearing and number of protected trees
removed, staff requested on October 23, 1986, that Mr. Fuster
submit a voluntary payment of $8,500.00 and apply for after -
the -fact permits. Mr. Pete Fuster, representing Al Fuster,
indicated that he would prefer the matter be brought to the
County Commission for consideration rather than submit a
voluntary payment of the fine.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners con-
sider obtaining a voluntary payment of $8,500.00 dollars, in
addition to the requirement of application for after -the -fact
permits. In the event that any said agreement is not forth-
coming, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
grant staff the authorization to pursue available remedies in
County Court.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the land clearer had an occupa-
tional permit, and Planner DeBlois stated that in researching
this, he could not find that an occupational license had been
issued to Mr. Ward.
Planner DeBlois then reviewed the following chart showing
where the land clearing took place:
76
NOV 18 1986 RooK 66 PAGE 448
Chairman Scurlock asked if any permitting was required for
clearing of the house pad, and Director Keating confirmed that it
was because of the size of the residential property.
The Chairman did not think it is fair to take action only
against the property owner. He agreed when a property owner has
his land cleared, he has a certain responsibility, but pointed
out that he also relies on the professional he has hired to do
the clearing for him to know the regulations.
Commissioner Bowman believed it is a case of the buyer
beware, and if you hire a contractor, you should ask to see his
license. She wished to know if we require a penalty fee when
someone comes in for an after -the -fact permit.
Director Keating advised that the fee is tripled, and he
felt in this case staff's indication is that there is going to be
a request for a subdivision on the site; so, it isn't just a
question of a simple permit.
Ron Ward, who had just entered the Commission Chambers,
informed the Board that he does have an occupational license
issued under Ward Brothers, Inc.
The Chairman asked that Mr. Fuster present his case for
removing the trees.
Peter Fuster, representing his brother, Al Fuster, informed
the Board that he called the County Building Department and told
them of his intention to build a single family residence on his
brother's 10 acres. The secretary who answered the phone, upon
being advised that just he and his brother wished to build one
house, told him that -they needed a permit for building the house
and should submit a plan for review. He informed the secretary
that there were several natural but dried out ponds on the
property already, and she said if,they were going to dig them
out, a permit would be required for that also. He asked if that
was all they would need to get started, and the secretary
confirmed that it. was.
78
Mr. Fuster informed the Board that the property is extremely
densely covered with underbrush and trees; so, just to see where
the house would be placed,.they had to clear the area where they
thought the house pad would go. He advised that he next con-
tacted the Forestry Division for burning of the trees and
underbrush, and they told him that the dry lake beds would be an
excellent place to burn. They did not dig out the pond, but
cleared the area around it. Mr. Fuster stated that all they have
done so far is obtain permits for septic, and the permits for the
pond are under way. They have to have a survey to get the
permits, and they couldn't do a survey unless they cleared for
the ponds. In addition, there is a drainage ditch which is
required by the county for drainage off the property; so, they
also got a culvert permit. Mr. Fuster noted that there has been
an allegation that they are putting in a subdivision, but they
are not; all they are putting in is just one house.
Mr. Fuster believed there is a conflict in the county's
ordinances. He was told by the building permit office that if
you are building a single family residence, no permits are needed
because the "tree cops" are too busy to check out each individual
property, but apparently there is another ordinance that he was
not informed of which says if the property is larger than one
acre, they do get involved. He continued to emphasize that they
have not cleared other than for one house and less than one acre.
As to an allegation about a roadway, there is no roadway other
than the culvert area to this building site. Along the east
perimeter of the property where the drainage ditch is going to be
placed, there has been some clearing for the ditch, and that is
the extent of it.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Ward as a contractor whether he
was familiar with the county ordinance and why a permit was not
obtained.
Mr. Ward stated that basically underbrushing is all that was
done, no clearing.
Actually there was nothing on the property
79
BOOK 66 mu 449
�T
NOV
18 1
BOOK45
,,..
but pine trees and palmettos;
the only trees taken out were in
the house pad area; and he did not tell his operator to take out
the pine trees, just to underbrush. They did get permits for
-- burning. Mr. Ward stated that he did realize you have to get
permits to take out trees, but believed Indian River County is
about the only county requiring that. He mainly works in St.
Lucie County, and their company basically does large scale
clearing and very little lot clearing. Mr. Ward emphasized that
he is very familiar with land clearing; he does know what he is
authorized to do; and they did not go there to clear out a bunch
of trees.
Discussion ensued at length regarding the location map
submitted by staff, what locations were cleared, whether the 16
pine trees were all removed just from the building site, and
whether there was a requirement to do a drainage ditch.
Planner DeBlois advised that he saw groupings of trees
laying in various locations, but possibly they could have been
moved there in preparation for burning.
Director Keating noted that the only drainage requirement is
that you don't impact your neighbor's property with your
drainage.
Chairman Scurlock asked if trees were removed when they
cleared for the drainage ditch, and Mr. Fuster stated that some
were, but they stopped when they got the letter from staff.
The Chairman asked if the Fusters have a building permit
which sets out what they are going to do.
Mr. Fuster advisred that they do not have a building permit
yet; they are just clearing. They did not get the permit because
the property is so dense they didn't even know exactly where they
could put the house, and they had to clear in order to get a
survey.
Planner DeBlois advised that the Tree Protection ordinance
has an exemption.for clearing of a path for a survey; however,
80
s � s
the exemption is for land clearing only and does not refer to
removal of protected trees.
Director Keating noted that a tree survey must be submitted -
so we know where the protected trees are, and Chairman Scurlock
felt the drainage also requires a plan and should not be done
before review by staff.
Mr. Fuster stated that they have not done the drainage; they
have only cut the path.
Commissioner Wheeler felt part of the problem is obviously
lack of communication. He did believe that the clearing was done
quite innocently.
Mr. Fuster informed the Board that he is new in the county
and he was quite impressed when he initially called the County
Building & Zoning Department because the people were very
helpful. He had felt they were following the right steps, and
assured the Board they are not trying'to circumvent anything.
Commissioner Bird believed if the Fusters had gone through
the proper channels, they legally could have removed trees from
the house pad, and Director Keating agreed, but noted we would
have required a tree survey and if they had the survey, staff
possibly would have recommended shifting the building envelope
area. He also doubted staff would recommend the remov-al-of trees
for a drainage ditch all the way through the property.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Ward's operator if all 16 trees
that staff counted came from within the area of the house pad,
and he confirmed that they did. He again emphasized the property
contains many thousands of trees, and Mr. Fuster informed the
Board that they did move the site a couple of times because the
operator would not remove oak trees.
Mr. Ward stated that he has been involved in land clearing
most of his life; he is very conservative and does understand the
whole point of the issue. Possibly the trees were not taken out
through the proper channels, but they would have to be taken out
to build the house. '
81 BOOKb 451
NOV 18 1966
�:F
a n ��'0
BOOK 65 pmc. 4 520
Commissioner Bird suggested that before Mr. Ward removes any
trees in the future, he check with the owner to see if he has a
permit because we enforce this law very strictly. He continued
that due to the fact he believed there was some miscommunication
and that the trees apparently did come from the house pad area
and probably would have been allowed to be removed, there should
be some modification of the fine recommended by staff. He did
not feel we can entirely disregard the violation because we have
had many similar situation where we have had fines.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to levy a fine of $500 against
the property owner and have him pay triple for an
after -the -fact permit.
Mr. Fuster wished to recommend that when anyone calls and
says they are building a single house, that staff not say you
don't need us.
Commissioner Bird agreed we must be sure staff dispenses
accurate information, and Director Keating felt a lot depends on
how a question is phrased.
Chairman Scurlock believed that people should be encouraged
to come in rather than getting information over the telephone.
Commissioner Bowman wished to point out that you are not
only prohibited from cutting trees, but you are not permitted to
underbrush without a permit. This property is pine/pond land and
she sincerely doubted you could knock down 16 trees in the area
of a house pad. She emphasized that ignorance of the law is no
excuse.
Director Keating stated that staff did send letters to every
land clearer as directed by the Commission.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the Motion deals with the
property owner, but he did not feel it is fair to penalize only
the owner who hires professionals to do his clearing.
82
r ® r
Mr. Ward stressed that he did not authorize his operator to
remove trees, but Attorney Vitunac believed it has been admitted
r that they underbrushed without a permit.
Mr. Ward believed the property owner needs the permit, not
the land clearer, and apparently if it is a single family home,
it is exempt; he did not know there was a stipulation on the
acreage.
Attorney Vitunac advised that if the Board wants to pursue
finding a way to penalize the land clearer, they can submit to
the facts to the Occupational Licensing Board and go from there.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed part of the responsibility for
permitting should lie with the contractor as well as the owner,
and he felt there should be something the contractor should have
to sign off on before he gets his license, stating that he has
read the ordinance.
Mr. Fuster wished the Commission to know that he did meet
with Mr. Ward next door overlooking the subject property, at
which time he told Mr. Ward that he had contacted the county and
was informed that with a single house, you don't need permits.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition.
Commissioner Bowman felt the fine was inadequate.
Chairman Scurlock stated that, as Commissioner Wheeler
suggested, he would like to pursue some way when issuing an
occupational license to have some notice of the tree ordinance in
there so we have an ability to go after the contractor as well as
the owner.
Director Keating advised that he would coordinate with Tax
Collector Gene Morris on this as he issues the licenses.
Discussion continued about staff giving out information over
the phone, and Commissioner Wheeler felt on occasion the public
83
NOV 18 1906 aooKb FcF.4
� e ,c
NOV 18 1986 Bou 66 i,nF, 454
does need some simple answers and possibly those answering the
phone should have a check list of questions to ask.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK PROGRAM - GRANT APPLICATIONS
The Board reviewed memo of Planning Director Keating:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:November 4, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK
SUBJECT: PROGRAM; DCA GRANT
APPLICATION; SPECIAL
PROJECT GRANT APPLICATION
FROM• Robert M. Keating, AICP REFERENCES:
'Director Comp. Plan
Planning & Development Division Disk. IBMIRD
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of November 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At its 1985 session, the Florida Legislature passed the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regu-
lation Act of 1985. This law mandated that each local govern-
ment in the State prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan
meeting the criteria established in the legislation. This law
was further modified by the 1986 legislature through the
enactment of a glitch bill, legislation intended to correct
some of the minor oversights and problems with the 1985 law.
Besides the glitch bill, the 1986 legislature also appropriated
$8.8 million to assist local goverments in complying with the
new comprehensive planning requirements.
Since passage of the 1985 Planning Act, the State Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) has prepared several administrative
rules to implement the legislation. Adopted at various times
during the past year, Rule 9J-5 set minimum criteria for review
of local comprehensive plans; Rule 9J-12 established a schedule
for local comprehensive plan submittals; and Rule 9J-16 set the
procedures for the allocation, disbursement, and -administration
of the planning assistance funds appropriated by the legisla-
ture.
These administrative rules have more clearly identified the
County's planning responsibilities under the 1985 Act. Rule
9J-5, in particular, provides a detailed listing of all the
requirements which must be met by the County in the submission
of its required comprehensive plan. The staff has used this
rule as a basis for developing a work program to meet the new
comprehensive planning requirements. According to Rule 9J-12,
Indian River County must submit its completed comprehensive
plan to DCA for review by September 1, 1989. To assist the
84
County in meeting this mandate, DCA, through Rule 9J-16, has
allocated $51,902 to Indian River County, an amount which must
be used to meet the comprehensive plan requirements and which .
must be expended by September 30, 1987.
°Comprehensive Plan Work Program
As a first step in meeting the County's new comprehensive
planning requirements, the staff has developed a preliminary
work program, identifying activities to be undertaken to meet
the planning mandate. A flow chart depicting in a generalized
manner this planning program and the relationships among
planning activities has been appended to this agenda item. For
each required plan element, a detailed work program has been
prepared and is currently being revised by the staff.
ODCA Grant Scope of Services
Based upon the staff's assessment of work program priorities, a
proposed scope of services for activities to be undertaken with
the available DCA grant funds has been developed by the staff.
Attached to this agenda item, that scope of services identifies
the specific activities to be undertaken and the work products
to be produced with the available grant. As noted on the scope
of services, the staff proposes to use the grant funds to
collect the necessary information and data and to compile
inventories required for plan preparation.
It is the staff's intention to do the proposed work activities
in-house, rather than retaining a consultant. To accomplish
this, the staff proposes to employ one additional staff planner
for the duration of the grant period. In this way, the staff
anticipates that all required data and information can be
collected, compiled, stored on the computer, tabulated, and
mapped. In addition, the staff feels that data analysis and
projection activities can also be substantially completed with
the available funds.
*Special Project
In addition to the entitlement funds available to the County
through the Department of Community Affairs, _there is an
opportunity to obtain additional money for special projects
that address special local problems which must be addressed in
the comprehensive plan. Although- $400,000 has been reserved
for special projects and bonus funds statewide, special project
awards are discretionary. Whether a particular project will be
funded and the amount of any funding will be determined by DCA
pursuant to an evaluation of special project applications.
The staff has identified several activities which, if undertak-
en, would meet the special project criteria. Of these, the
staff feels that the best project for which application could
be made would be a detailed analysis of right-of-way preserva-
tionalternatives on roadways abutting drainage district
canals. Not only is this a issue recently. raised by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commis-
sioners, it is also an issue involving several required plan
elements, including future land use, traffic circulation,
drainage, and intergovernmental coordination.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Because of the requirements of the 1985 and 1986 planning
legislation, the County must do a considerable amount of
planning work in the next two and a half years. While the
existing plan and recent activities undertaken by the County
85
BODK 6 FAGS��
Nov -1 1936
BOOK- '�j � � 5
provide a basis to meet the new requirements, extensive addi-
tional work will be necessary to meet the State's mandate. As
with any planning project, the first activity which must be
undertaken is data collection and analysis. For that reason,
the staff has identified those activities as the work activi-
ties to be undertaken with the available DC.A grant funds.
The principal alternatives involving use of the DCA money are
whether to do the work in-house or to hire a consultant. It is
the staff's opinion that employing an additional staff person
on a temporary basis will be more productive than retaining a
consulting firm. The staff feels that the Planning Department
with the addition of a temporary staff person has the ability
to adequately undertake the referenced data collection and
analysis activities.
Besides the DCA entitlement funds, there is the possibility of
securing additional funding for an acceptable special project.
In terms of special projects, there are a number of alternative
activities which could probably qualify for special project
funding. Because of its controversial nature and its relation
ship to several required plan elements, the canal/right-of-way
issue was chosen by the staff as the activity with the best
chance for special project funding. To reflect the uncertainty
of funding -level and project approval, the staff has structured
the proposed special project into two components, each capable
of being done separately and each having a proposed project
budget of $15,000.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve both the application for DCA grant funds and the
application for DCA special project funds and give the chairman
the authority to execute the grant application and the subse-
quent DCA/Indian River County Contract relating to the subject
grant applications.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
applications for DCA grant funds and DCA special
project funds and authorized the Chairman to execute
the grant application and subsequent contract with
the DCA relating to the subject grant applications.
• (CONTRACT WILL BE PUT ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEN FULLY
EXECUTED AND RECEIVED)
DRAINAGE PROBLEMS - SO. OF WABASSO RD. BET. OLD DIXIE & U.S.I.
Public Works Director Davis reviewed his memo:
86
TO: The Honorable Members of the ®ATE: November 10, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
Charles Balczun SUBJECT: County Administrator Drainage Problems South of
Wabasso Road Between Old Dixie
Highway and US 1
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES: .
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the November 4, 1986 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners
staff was directed to research the drainage problems in the subject area--
On
rea-On November 5, a field inspection of the area revealed that 84th Stree-.
83rd Place, and Tropical Avenue are existing unpaved, shell roads with
definitive swales to adequately drain the area.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Adequate right-of-way and excellent
topographic relief exist on
all
thre--
streets. Swale drainage is needed
in the area. Swales did exist
son:
years ago, however, the road material has washed into the swales
and filled
them completely. If new swales are
constructed without paving
the
roads,
they will continue,, to be filled.
Approximately 1150 L.F. of
road
with
swales on each side is affected.
To solve the problem, paved roads with swale drainage is the long term
solution. Approximate cost to pave the 1150 L.F. of road and -construct
swale drainage is $28,750. This cost could be assessed on a front footage
basis. There are approximately 2,525.37 front feet on the three roads
involved. Under the County's Special Assessment Program, the cost to the
property owners would be approximately $8.60 per front foot.
The material on the unpaved roads has been washing into the US 1 curbing
and drainage system, thereby obstructing the flow. This problem enforces
the need to pave the roads.
There may be some residents fronting the roads who do not support paving.
RECOMMENDATION AMID FUNDING
It is recommended that the Roads and swales be constructed under the
Special Assessment Program. Funding to be from Fund 703- Petition Paving
Fund.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the process involves a public
hearing. He believed it would cost the lot owners about $600
apiece, and felt a per parcel assessment might be more
appropriate than front footage because of the irregular shapes.
Director Davis advised that actually there are not too many
property owners involved as _quite a few own three or four lots.
Novi 8 1906 87 BOOK 66 FAUE457
Nov 18 1966
Boa 66 PnUE458
He felt many are in favor of the project, and it would help his
department tremendously as far as grading is concerned.
Chairman Scurlock asked about the lots on the other side of
U.S.I, and Director Davis advised that they would like to pave
all the roads in this area as they did in Ercildoune; it is a
high use area.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously directed staff
to draw up a special assessment roll for this area as
enlarged.
Discussion ensued regarding expediting the petition paving
program, the possibility of using some gas tax monies to add
additional crews, and doing some analysis to see how the program
can be expedited.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Chairman Scurlock referred to the following staff memo and
noted that it is not often we have had two Commissioners leave
office at the same time.
88
TO County Commissioners ®ATE: November 5, 1986 FILE:
SUBJECT: Commissioner's Committee
Assignments
r
FROM: Alice E. White REFERENCES:
Administrative Aide I
The following committees will need Commissioners assigned;
Beach Preservation and Restoration Committee
Economic Development Council --
Transportation Planning Committee (Vice Chairman of Commission)
Public Library Advisory Board
Jail Committee
Gifford Housing Improvement Committee
Marine Island Advisory Committee (Inactive)
Occupational License Committee (Inactive)
South County Fire Advisory Committee (Vice Chairman of Commission)
Vice Chairman of North County Fire District Board
Law Library Board of Trustees
Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee
Indian River County Indigent Primary Care Task Force
Alcohol,°Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Planning Council
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
(Present: Margaret C. Bowman - William C. Wodtke, Jr., Alternate)
Patrick B. Lyons - Richard N. Bird, Alternate
(These appointments are usually made in December, so the terms
should run until December, 1987)
Tourist Tax Board
The Chairman advised that the new Commissioners have
expressed an interest in the various committees, and if there
were no objections, he suggested the committees be assigned as
follows:
®V 18 19 89
BOOK 66 fi,{G 459
L—
OV 18 1986
BOOK
Active Committees:
66 our, 460
Beach Preservation & Restoration Committee - Commissioner
Wheeler
Tourist Tax Board
-
Economic Development Council
- Commissioner
Eggert
Transportation Planning Committee
- Vice Chrmn.
Bowman
Public Library Advisory Board
- Commissioner
Eggert
Jail Committee
- Commissioner
Wheeler
Gifford Housing Improvement Committee
- Commissioner
Eggert
South County Fire Advisory Committee
- Vice Chrmn.
Bowman
Vice Chrmn. North County Fire Dist. Board
- Commissioner
Wheeler
Law Library Board of Trustees
- Commissioner
Eggert
C
_ n n
Community Dev. Block Grant Adv. ommittee
I.R.Co. Indigent Primary Care Task Force -
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Mental Health Council -
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council -
(Margaret C. Bowman - Gary C. Wheeler, Alternate)
(Carolyn K. Eggert - Richard N. Bird, Alternate)
Inactive Committees:
Marine Island Advisory Committee - Commissioner Bowman expressed
her interest in reactivating this committee, and this was
agreed on.
• Occupational License Committee - It was agreed this should be
disbanded.
GOLF COURSE REPORT
Commissioner Bird noted that in the future he would prefer
that Administrator Balczun have appropriate staff make reports on
the golf course as he sees necessary. He continued that, if the
Administrator agrees, he would like to schedule twenty to thirty
minutes at the next meeting for Golf Manager Komarinetz and
90
M
whatever staff is involved to make a fairly detailed presentation
as to the status of the golf course as there are some decisions
that need to be made.
Chairman Scurlock advised that he has been in the process of
trying to get a donation of a modular building which has poten-
tial to be used.possibly at the Fairgrounds, the Golf Course, or
some other county site, and Commissioner Bi.rd agreed we need to
pursue that as an alternate.
PARKS REPORT
Commissioner Bird noted that, as authorized by the
Commission, he has been working on acquiring a site for a South
County park, also for a possible wellfield site and library site.
There is a potential area which we are very interested in that
has been offered for sale by the owner. Commissioner Bird
believed the first step should be a conceptual plan to determine
how much acreage we need and the configuration of that acreage.
He advised that Public Works Director Davis has suggested that to
do the conceptual plan, we expand the scope of services _for the
architectural engineering firm that did the plan for Golden Sands
Park, and he believed we also should proceed to get some
appraisals at the same time.
Director Davis agreed that we already have a.very good park
architect who did an excellent job with the Golden Sands grant
application at the very reasonable price of $6,000, and that
contract was written so that it is expandable and flexible.
Chairman Scurlock suggested that the funding approved by the
voters be considered as one potential source of revenue for such
a study, plus funds from the Utilities Department for whatever
portion they might need, and he hoped the Library Committee would -
give the site serious consideration and let us know if they want
to be included.
Commissioner Bird believed Director Davis feels we have
91
'NOV 18 1 BOOK F.Gc 461
NOV 18 1986 BOOK 66 on 462
existing funding budgeted to do a conceptual plan, and he would
like to see us proceed with that.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas noted that the
- Board authorized up to $50,000 out of the special trust fund to
commence engineering and conceptual planning for the entire park
system. So far we have spent around $6,000, and he believed that
such a conceptual plan could be used at any site the County ended
up buying. This account, which is the fund set up on monies from
lands that are sold, currently has $130,000 in it less $6,500.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the fact that this particular
site will encompass wellfields will affect the conceptual plan.
Director Davis advised that the welifields will be 700-900'
down so they should not interfere with any plans.
Commissioner Bird continued that the third step in the
process after we determine what we need and what it will cost, is
to determine where the money will come from; so, the Committee
will be coming up with some options such as sale of surplus land
or contributions from the library and utilities. He felt we will
have to pool several sources of funds together, and advised that
Director Davis would like to have us include a study of the
feasability of user fees for some of our park facilities.
Director Davis informed the Board that the firm who did the
Golden Sands plan is May, Southard & Etheridge, a multi -
disciplined firm with considerable experience. They have done
work for the state at Sebastian Inlet Park and designed Spessard
Holland Park in Brevard County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert. the Board unanimously authorized staff to
negotiate a supplemental agreement to the Golden Sands
Professional Service Agreement to include a master plan
design for the 20th Avenue Oslo Road property, a master
plan for the Fairgrounds, and also a user fee study.
92
Commissioner Wheeler brought up the SR -60 corridor and
stressed that if the Commission was willing, he would like to see
something positive happen to take care of that corridor, possibly
planting some trees, etc.
Director Davis asked if the Board wished them to accelerate
that beautification, and the Chairman confirmed that they did.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:25 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
on A
Clerk
wL A
Chairman
93 Boa 66 F'a J� 463
i