Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1/19/1988
Tuesday, January 19, 1988 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, January 19, 1988, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Dr. Stan Sanford, First Baptist Church, Wabasso, gave the invocation, and Chairman Scurlock's daughter Susan led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS None. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Eggert requested that Items B, E, H, J, K and M, be removed from the Consent Agenda for brief discussion. Commissioner Bird asked that Item I be removed for discussion also. A. Emergency Management - Request to Purchase Software The Board reviewed memo of Emergency Management Director Doug Wright: JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 frAG 5f i r:JAN 1 9 1988 BOOK .70 PAGE 5 2 TO: Charles Balczun County Administrator DATE: January 5, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: Agenda Item - Request for approval to purchase software for SARA Title III Program FROM: Doug Wright, Director REFERENCES: Super fund Amendments and Emergency Management Services Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) Title. III DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The proliferation of dangerous chemicals in recent years has made hazardous materials emergencies inevitable and increasingly common. Events have occurred in our county wherein the public was in danger from chemical substances spilled on our roadways, in our waterways, and in some cases, illegally possessed and stored in homes as well as warehouses. SARA Title III fixes responsibility for managing hazardous materials emergencies firmly upon chemical facilities and the emergency management community. It establishes rigorous stand- ards for both planning and responding to dangerous chemical mishaps. Since responsibility has been placed, additional software is needed to assure creation of emergency capabilities and immedi- ate response to and recovery from a hazardous material/chem- ical incident with minimum risk or damage to the environment or populace. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Emergency Management Services has prior purchased the Emergency Information System software that included digitalized zoom maps of the County and other data base support for emergency management purposes. The SARA Title III software enhances the existing system and meets all the requirements for all levels of Title III Planning. The software is available for $1,000.00 from Research Alternatives, Inc. Instead of volumes of inaccessible paper plans, reports, and lists, with the proposed software every part of the information chain will be electronic with the result being increased performance, efficiency, and public safety. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends purchase of the SARA Title III software from Research Alternatives. This is the same source of the current EIS system and the software is user friendly readily interfacing with the existing data base. Funds are available in account #001-247-008-00 for this purchase. The funds in this account were received from the Village Green South Development in 1981 and were set aside for Emergency Management purposes in Indian River County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the purchase of the SARA title I11 software from Research Alternatives as requested by Emergency Management. 2 B. Budget Amendment #015 The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director: TO: DATE: SUBJECT: FROM: Members of the Board of County Commissioners January 11, 1988 BUDGET AMENDMENT 015 Joseph A. Baird OMB Director DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS Attached is a budget amendment appropriatingfunds for the following items: 1. The payment of a $2,801.00 one time assessment for the Florida Associations of County Administrators to purchase a building in Tallahassee. This was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 5, 1988. 2. Doug Wright's salary adjustment as authorized by the Board of County Commissioners in the meeting of January 5, 1988. 3. The Board of County Commissioners $65,000 be spend on site work for Progressive League Building. The appropriates those funds. authorized up to the Gifford attached entry 4. On October 6, 1987 the Board of County Commissioners authorized the purchase of the G.E. Star Validator for radios in emergency vehicles. This would allow 911 to know these vehicles locations. The attached budget amendment was necessary to appropriate funds. RECOMMENDATIONS The Board of County Commissioners approve the aforementioned budget amendments. Commissioner Eggert referred to the $65,000 for the Gifford Community Center and noted we were assured it could be done for that amount, but she just wished to know if we have any kind of budget or guesstimate of what those funds are being used for. Administrator Balczun advised that we have a highly detailed budget. Both Public Works and Utilities Departments have done quantities and cost estimates for their sides of the project, and the two budgets are being merged and totaled. 6h__JAN 15 1988 3 BOOK 70 F}1GE G3 r" - JAN BOOK 70 F` iF 564 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #015, as follows: TO: Members of the Board Director of Finance FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMEW NUMBER: 015 DATE: January 11, 1988 Entry Number Fund/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. GF/BCCshi.s & Dues 001-101-511-035.42 2,801.00 0 GF/BCC/Reserve for Contin.. 001-199-581-099.91 0 2,801.00 2. Regular GF/Emerg. Mgt./Salaries 001-208-525-011.12 10,867.00 0 Social GF/Eierq. Mqt./Security 001-208-525-012.11 817.00 0 GF/Emerg. Mgt./Retirement 001-208-525-012.12 1,454.00 0 Insurance- GF/Emerg. Mqt./Life & Health 001-208-525-012.13 62.00 0 GF/Ermerg. Mgt./Worker's Comp. 001-208-525-012.14 62.00 0 Reserve GF/Ererg. Mgt./for Continq. 001-199-525-099.91 0 13,262.00 3. GF/Parks/Construction in Prog. 001-210-572-066.51 65,000.00 0 GF/Reserve for Contingencies 001-199-582-099.91 0 65,000.00 4. Communication GF/Emerg. Mgt./Equipment Maint. 001-208-525-044.71 4,940.00 0 GF/Reserve for Contingencies 001-199-581-099.91 0 4,940.00 Communication NCFD/Fellsrmere/Equipmment Maint. 115-121-522-044.71 1,520.00 0 Communication NCFD/Roseland/Equipment Maint. 115-122-522-044.71 2,600.00 0 Communication NCFD/Sebastian/Equipment Maint. 115-123-522-044.71 4,370.00 0 Communication NCFD/Vero Lakes/Equipment Maint 115-124-522-044.71 1,710.00 0 Communication NCFD/Wabasso/Equipment Maint. 115-125-522-044.71 1,710.00 0 NCFD/General/Reserve for Cont. 115-104-581-099.91 0 11,970.00 SCFD/Communication Equip.Maint. 114-120-522-044.71 7,600.00 0 SCFD/Reserve for Contingencies 114-120-522-099.91 0 7,600.00 4 C. Budget Amendment #O16 - (Contracts) The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director: TO: DATE: SUBJECT: FROM: Members of the Board of County Commissioners January 11, 1988 BUDGET AMENDMENT 016 Joseph A. Baird OMB Director APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: BY: FOR: January $ri, 1988 DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Board of County Commissioners has authorized the following contracts: Agency Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby Service Consultant -Salary Study Amount $42,900.00 Architect Design Group, Inc. Court Facilities Needs $38,980.00 Siver & Associates Insurance Consultant $20,000.00 R & R Services Custodial Services $31,052.00 Sheriff Admin. Bldg. The above contracts will require the following budget amendments: 1. Salary Study At the preliminary budget hearing it was decided to remove the salary consultant from the Personnel budget and a budget amendment would be done when the amount was determined. A contract of $42,900 has been entered into; therefore, a budget amendment needs to be done transferring $42,900 from General Fund contingencies (001-199-581-099.91) to Personnel -Other Professional Services (001-203-513-033.19). 2. Court Facilities Needs Study. Staff had appropriated $30,000 in court funds (106-909-581- 099.91) for Court Facilities needs study. The contract was awarded to Architects Design Group, Inc., for $38,980. This would require a budget amendment of $8,980 from the Court Facilities contingency (which has a balance of $52,595) to Court Facilities -Other Professional Services (106-901-516- 033.19). 3. Insurance Consultant The Board of County Commissioners set aside funds in the General Fund contingencies (001-199-581-099.91) to be transferred to Insurance -Professional Services when the. exact amount of the consulting costs could be determined. A contract was entered into with Siver & Associates not to exceed $20,000. This will require the transfer of appropriations from the General Fund Contingencies (001-199- 581-099.91) to Insurance -Professional Services (001-246- 513-033.19). J.T N 19 1988 5 BOOK 70 PAGE 565 .1 JAN 19 198 BOOK 70 OCE 566 4. Custodial Services The Board of County Commissioners authorized a contract in the amount of $31,052 for custodial services at the new of Sheriff's complex. The Building and Grounds Department was unable to absorb $23,852 of the cost. A budget amendment transferring $23,052 in funds from General Fund Contingencies (001-199-581-099.91) to Building and Grounds -Other Contractual Services (001-220-513-033.49). RECOMMENDATIONS -- The Board of Coun-- Commissioners app-ove budget amendments appropriating funds for the :)ayment of the above stated agreements. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #016, as follows: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Director THROUGH: SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 016 DATE: January 11, 1988 Entry Number Fund/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase _ Decrease 1. GF/Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91 0 42,900.00 er GF/Personnel/Professional Srvs. 001-203-513-033.19 42,900.00 0 8,980.00 2. Court Fund/Reserve for Contingency 106-909-581-099.91 0 0 Court Court Fund/Facilities/Other Prof. Srv,106-901-516-033.19 8,980.00 3. GF/Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91 0 20,000.00 0 GF/Insurance/Other Prof. Srv. 001-246-513-033.19 20,000.00 4. GF/Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91 0 23,852.00 GF/E, Grounds/Other Contr. Srvs. 001-220-513-033.49 23,852.00 0 - D. Sheriff's 911 Center - Substantial Completion The Board reviewed memo from staff: 6 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JANUARY 5, 1988 THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H. T. "SONNY" DEAN MANAGER, SOLID WAS DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SUBJECT: SHERIFF'S 911 CENTER AGEMENT SERVICES - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION The attached forms were received on November 12, 1987. Due to the fact that this writer, along with Sheriff Dobeck, felt the facility could not be used as designed and defined in the contract documents, I would not agree to Substantial Completion at time of first submittal. Modifications to the HVAC System have been completed and the building can now be occupied. Agreement to the substantial completion does not authorize the release of retained funds. Warranties will begin for the equipment and building. Authorization to release any and all funds will be brought back to the Board at a later date. Staff recommends Board approval and requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the attached forms. JAN 19 1988 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the Certificate of Substantial Completion for the Sheriff's 911 Center. 7 BOOK 70 rAcE 567 ,'"- JAN 19 1988 CERTIFICATE. OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLE ION AIA DOCUMENT G704 OWNER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR FIELD OTHER 0 0 0 BOOK 70 FACT 568 PROJECT: Sheriff's Administration (name, address) 911 Center TO (Owner) 1 Indian River County Commission 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 ARCHITECT: C,E, Block Architect, Inc, ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NUMBER: 8643 CONTRACTOR: PWR Corporation CONTRACT FOR: 1 story administration office building/911 facility L_ J CONTRACT DATE: 10/13/86 DATE OF ISSUANCE: November 4, 1987 PROJECT OR DESIGNATED AREA SHALL INCLUDE: The 911 Facility and, the care computer room (room 110A). This does not include the remaining S'heriff's Administration Building. The Work performed under this Contract has been reviewed and found to be substantially complete. The Date of Sub- stantial Completion is hereby established as r which is also the date of commencement of all warranties and guarantees required by the Contract Documents. DEFINITION OF DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION The Date of Substantial Completion of the Work or designated portion thereof is the Date certified by the Architect when construction is sufficiently complete, in accordance with the Contract Documents, so the Owner may occupy the Work or designated portion thereof for the. use (or which it is intended. A list of items to be completed or corrected, prepared by the Contractor and verified and amended by the Architect, is appended hereto. The failure to -include any items on such li does not alter the responsi ty of the Contractor to com- plete all Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. C.E. Block Architect, Inc. ARCHITECT The Contractor will complete or correct the Work on the list of items appended hereto within from the above Date of Substantial Completion. PWR Corporation CONTRACTOR The Owner accepts the Work or designated portion thereof as substantially complete and will assume full possession thereof (date). /e/ DA E 10 // DA E days at 8:00 am. (time) on Chaimn of LA_. County Commission BY OWNER Tsday Novemb-r 1 9 /—/ i? Sr DATE The responsibilities of the Owner and the Contractor for maintenance, heat, utilities and insurance shall be as follows: (NOTE -Owner's and Contractor's legal and insurance counsel should determine and review insurance requirements and coverage) 'Approved as to form an`egal S ic ;racy By Sharon Phillips Brenn Asst County Attorney n at.s .Ara 9,.14ki' @Ica • err.Tfr;CdTr nr '.1!8STANTIAI COMPLETION • APRIL 7970 COITION . AIA® ON( PAC( CERTIFICATE W/LIST OF ITEMS TO BE -CORRECTED ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO BOARD. (On file in Contracts & Agreements file) 8 E. Contract for Professional Engineering - 1.R.BIvd. No. (Amend- mentIF67 2-goyle Engineering rp T The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director: TO: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director DATE: January 5, 1988 SUBJECT: FILE: Contract for Professional Engineering Services - Indian River Boulevard North Extension - Amendment No. 2 between Boyle Engineering Corporation and Indian River REFERENCESIPtY Charles M. Green, Boyle James W. Davis dated Nov. 17, 1987 and Dec. 22, 1987 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Boyle Engineering Corp., design consultants on Indian River Boulevard Phase III Extension (between the Main Canal and Barber Avenue), has notified the County staff via letter dated Nov 17, 1987, that numerous design items already completed on the project were not included in the original project scope of work contained in the Sept. 23, 1986 agreement between Boyle Engineering and the County. This list of nine items is attached to the Nov. 17, 1987 letter. The cost of the additional services was computed to be $13,170. In addition, the consultant has stated that other additional items which have not been designed should be added to the project at a cost of $4,198. The County staff reviewed the Engineer's request for additional compen- sation and is of the opinion that only six of seventeen items qualify for additional services. The six items are included in the attached amendment No. 2. The additional cost to the County is $4,318. ALTERNATIVE'S AND ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed Amendment No. 2 and concurs that additional services as defined are warranted. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Sept. 23, 1986 Professional Services Agreement between Boyle Engi- neering Corp. and Indian River County at an additional cost of $4,318. Finding from Local Option Gas Tax and Zone 5 Traffic Impact Fees. Commissioner Eggert inquired what exactly our policy is on additional costs or additional services; are all of those being brought back to us for everything that is out. Public Works Director Davis noted that he could only speak for Public Works items, and any time there are extra changes in JAS, 12 1988 9 BOOK 70 Mr,E 569 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 FACE 570 the contracts they negotiate, they are bought to the Board. Occasionally, if they are minor and they don't want to hold the project up, they authorize them contingent on the Board's approval. This, however, was a lengthy list. Commissioner Eggert was very concerned that the Board does get to see additional services, especially if they are over $1,000. Chairman Scurlock asked if all these come back to the Board. OMB Director Baird advised that it depends. If it is a blanket contract, for instance, with an engineering firm on a big contract, there have been cases where $100,000 is allowed for additional engineering. He asked, in such a case, if the Board wished staff to come back to the Board for every item as it is approved by that department. Chairman Scurlock indicated that he did, and it was confirmed that the policy of the Board is for all those items to come back to the Board prior to the work being performed. Commissioner Bird noted that we hire these firms both on the basis of their professional abilities and their ethics, and it bothers him to see such a big difference on what is an allowable item and what isn't, i.e., 17 items as opposed to 6. This poses some doubts in his mind about our relationship with them, and he asked how other firms handle additional services. Director Davis advised that staff has found that firms act differently when it comes to additional services. Local firms do not generally come back to us for additions. The larger firms which are much more sophisticated in their time accounting, do very detailed bookkeeping of their hours and seem to come back to us more frequently. Commissioner Bird noted we have a long way to go with this particular firm until the project is completed. He just wished to make sure we don't have an adversarial position with them, and wanted to know if they are agreeable to having just the six items qualify. 10 Director Davis confirmed that they are. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Amend- ment No. 2 to Professional Engineering Services Agreement w/Boyle Engineering Corp. for Indian River Blvd. North. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD NORTH EXTENSION AMENDMENT NO. 2 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT Dated September 23, 1986 SECTION I - GENERAL This is an amendment to the existing PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) dated September 23, 1986. This amendment includes services to be performed by Boyle Engineering Corporation (ENGINEER) related to modifications and additions to the plans beyond the scope of the existing AGREEMENT all to be incorporated into the Indian River Boulevard North Extension (PROJECT). SECTION I I - SCOPE OF SERVICES The ENGINEER agrees to perform the additional professional services as described in the following text and as shown in Exhibit A I. A. ROADWAY PLANS I.) Provide acceleration lane to current FDQT Standards to accommodate SR -60 westbound to northbound Indian River Boulevard traffic. 2.) Provide increased storage length and taper length for the southbound, left -turn movement at SR -60 intersection. 3.) Extend frontage road to stub -out at the south property line of the Eye Institute site. 4.) Add right turn lane to 37th Street (Barber Avenue). 5.) Add westbound left -turn lane on 37th Street (Barber Avenue). 6.) Revise Frontage Road to protect trees, in front of Vista Harbor Condominimums. 11 JAM 19 1988 BOOK 70 FA. E.5l1 BAN 19 1988 SECTION IV TIME FOR COMPLETION BOOK 70 0 DCE 5 12 These modifications and revisions can be incorporated in the plans for the basic roadway. The revised schedule for submitting Final Plans (prints) with this additional work is anticipated in early January 1988 subject to authorization of this Amendment by not later than December 31, 1987. SECTION V - COMPENSATION A. General Compensation shall be on the basis of "Cost Plus a Fixed Fee" as set forth in the AGREEMENT. B. Modification and Additions to the Plans The "Cost" budget for the work set forth in this amendment is $3,890 and the "Fixed Fee" is $428. The "Cost Plus a Fixed Fee" for the services related to this amendment will not exceed $4,318 without written authorization by the COUNTY. In 'the event of a change in scope, the "not to exceed'! figure for "Cost and "Fixed Fee" will be adjusted to a mutually acceptable amount commensurate with the change in scope. A man hour budget/costs for this amendment is shown in detail in Exhibit A I. A Summary of Total Cost for the PROJECT including this amendment is provided in Exhibit A2. OTHER PROVISIONS Receipt of an executed copy of this amendment shall constitute County's notice to Engineer to proceed with the work. All provisions of the AGREEMENT not specifically modified herein shall remain in full force and effect. This amendment, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Florida. In WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed these presents this /9 day of 19:x. BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS . OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ✓!' By: ✓ . /%Assistant Managing,Engineer Don . curloc 12 IMO Activity/Task ATTACHMENT A I Amendment No. 2 to the AGREEMENT Modifications and Additions to Plans Indian River Boulevard North Extension A B C D Total Direct Roadway Plans I.) Acceleration Lane Revision 2.) Left Turn Lane Revision 3.) Extend Frontage Road 4.) Add Right Turn Lane @ Barber 5.) Add Left Turn Lane @ Barber 6.) Revise Frontage Road .7.) General Admin Coord & Quality Control 8 8 4 3 7 5 5 10 14 16 18 3 $80 (Repro) Total MH 8 49 56 3 Rate 27.00 16.00 8.40 8.10 Cost $216 $784 $470 $24 $1494 $80 Wages 1494 x 2.55 = $3,810 Total "Cost" 3,890 Fixed Fee II% 428 Cost Plus Fixed Fee $4,318 Boyle Engineering Corporation OR -105-103-00 C.M. Green, Project Manager C9AN 1 e 19@ 13 BOOK 70 PAGE 573 l'" - JAN 1 9 198a EXHIBIT A2 SUMMARY OF TOTAL COST Amendment No. I Amendment No. 2 Environmental Coordination Phase Preliminary and Final Design (Excluding Bridge over North Canal) Bridge Structure over North Canal Construction Phase BOOK 70 rnr' 574 r COST FIXED FEE TOTAL 17,909.00 1,973.00 19,882.00 3,890.00 428.00 4,318.00 24,549.37 2,800.63 27,350.00 99,261.63 10,915.42 110,177.05 16,961.11 • 1,951.69 18,912.80 97,1 10.00 97,110.00 Revised Total $259,681.11 $18,068.74 $277,749.85 Cost, Fixed Fee and Total for Environmental Coordination, Preliminary and Final Design, Bridge Structure over the North Canal and the Construction Phases are taken from the September 23, 1986 AGREEMENT. Amendment No.- I approved June 5, 1987. F. Resolutions - Funding Applications Wabasso Causeway & Park The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer Brescia: 14 TO: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Direct() DATE: January 7, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: Formal Resolutions for adoption for funding applications Wabasso Causeway and Wabasso Causeway Park Ralph N. Brescia, P.E. FROM: County Engineer REFERENCES: DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS In order for eligible projects to be considered for matching funds by the Florida Inland Navigation District (F.I.N.D) the county must formally adopt a resolution designating each project. Two projects which will be eligible for matching funding are: 1 The Wabasso Causeway relief bridges dredging project. 2 Wabasso Causeway Park project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the resolutions as follows: 1) Resolution for Wabasso Causeway relief bridges dredging. 2) Resolution for Wabasso Causeway Park ,JAN 1; 688 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Resolu- tion 88-5 applying for a F.1.N.D. grant for the Wabasso Causeway Park project and Resolution 88-6 applying for a F.1.N.D. grant for the Wabasso Causeway Relief Bridge Dredging project. RESOLUTION NO. 88-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON GRANT ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROGRAM, FOR THE WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK PROJECT. WHEREAS, Indian River County is interested in carrying out the following described project for the 15 BOOK 70 F'AGE 5 J 5 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 UCE 576 enjoyment of the citizenry of Indian River and surrounding counties and the State of Florida: Project Title: Wabasso Causeway Park Total Estimated Cost: $250,000.00 Brief Project Description: To develop a county park on the Wabasso Causeway for picnicking, fishing, boating, sailboarding and general recreation. The park will contain picnic shelters, barbecue areas, landscaping, parking facilities, safety features, signs, markings, paving and drainage design. RESOLUTION NO. 88-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON GRANT ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROGRAM, FOR THE WABASSO CAUSEWAY RELIEF BRIDGE DREDGING PROJECT. WHEREAS, Indian River County is interested in carrying out the following described project for the enjoyment of the citizenry of Indian River and surrounding counties and the State of Florida: Project Title: Wabasso Causeway Relief Bridges -Dredging Total Estimated Cost: $80,000..00 Brief Project Description: To dredge the areas under the East and West Relief bridges of the Wabasso Causeway. The purpose of this project is to provide proper flushing action and water circulation for the Indian River in this vicinity. RESOLUTIONS 88-5 AND 88-6 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN THEIR ENTIRETY. 16 G. Routine Release of County Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo of County Attorney Vitunac: TO: Board aunty—Commissioners FROM: Char • •i unac, ••"ty Attorney DATE: January 12, 1988 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 1/19/88 ROUTINE RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIENS This office has processed the following matters and requests permission for the Chairman to execute the standard release forms: (1) Partial Release of Lien - Map #22 State Road 60 Sewers/Release 12 ERUs Paid by VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH, INC. Building No. 35 of VISTA PLANTATION (2) Partial Release of Lien - Map #C-4 State Road 60 Water/Release 1 ERU Paid by KINGSWOOD WEST, INC. Lot 43 of KINGSWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION The back-up information for the above is on file in the County Attorney's Office. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Partial Release of Liens as listed above. State Road 60 SEWER Project Map #22 (601 ERUs Reserved) BUILDING #35 Release of 12 ERUs PARTIAL RELEASE OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT WASTEWATER RESERVATION AND ASSESSMENT LIEN FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of $17,620.50 from VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH, INC., the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY hereby releases the property hereinafter described from that certain Certificate of Wastewater Reservation recorded in 0. R. Book 721, Page 938, public records of Indian River County, Florida, and from that certain Special Assessment Roll included in Resolution No. 84-107 recorded in 0. R. Book 700, Page 298, public records of Indian River County, Florida, which is more particularly described as: 17 L JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 FAGS 5 17 JAN 19 1988 BOOK .70 0 rAcE 578 EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF EXECUTED by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and countersigned by the Clerk of such Board this )1 day of January, 1988. Attest: CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By EXHIBIT A Building No. 35 of VISTA PLANTATION, according to the Declaration of Condominium recorded in 0. R. Book 699, Page 1817, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. State Road 60 WATER Project Map #C-4 (52 ERUs Reserved) Release of One ERU (Ahlf) PARTIAL RELEASE OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT WATER RESERVATION AND ASSESSMENT LIEN FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of $864.49 from KINGSWOOD WEST, INC., the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY hereby releases the property hereinafter described from that certain Certificate of Wastewater Reservation recorded in O. R. Book 700, Page 1887, public records of Indian River County, Florida, and from that certain Special Assessment Roll included in Resolution No. 84-47 recorded in O. R. Book 691, Page 74, public records of Indian River County, Florida, which is more particularly described as: Lot 43 of KINGSWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PHASES 2 & 3, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 39, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. EXECUTED by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and countersigned by the Clerk of such Board this )q day of January 1988. Attest: nERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 18 H. Bid #384 - 60" Riding Lawn Mower The Board reviewed memo from Asst. Administrator Mattes: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 8, 1988 FROM: FILE: SUBJECT:• IRC BID #384 One (1) New 60" Riding Lawn Mower P P.J. Mattes REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator Acting Manager, Purchasing Division 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received Wednesday, January 6, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC BID #384 - One (1) New 60" Riding Mower for the Parks Division. Sixteen Bid Proposals were sent out. Four bids were received. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The second lowest bid, was submitted by DeBra Turf and Industrial Equipment Company in the amount of $5,835 for a Cushman model #804. The low bid was rejected because it did not meet specifications. The State Contract has no equivalent. 3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends that IRC BID #384 be accepted and that the purchase be accomplished from DeBra Turf and Industrial Equipment Company. Budgetary approval has been confirmed for expenditure from the Parks Division Account Number 001-210-572-066.49. Staff requests authorization to order the riding mower. Commissioner Eggert wished to know in what way the low bid did not meet specifications as the memo does not say. Asst. Administrator Mattes introduced Gus Ambler, the new professional purchasing manager who started just last week, and after consulting with him, advised that the low bidder was not able to provide the 22 h.p. called for nor the 12" tires. ,JAN i 91988 L ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #384 for a 60" Riding Lawn Mower to DeBra Turf and 19 BOOK 70 r, 579 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 FAGS 5S© Industrial Equipment Company, as being the lowest bidder meeting specifications, in the amount of $5,835. 1. Bid #385 - Mid -Size '88 Station Wagon (Planning Dept.) The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 8, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: IRC BID #385 - Mid -Size 1988 Station Wagon FROM: P.J. Mattes REFERENCES: Ass't. County Administrator Acting Manager, Purchasing Division 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received Wednesday, January 6, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #385 - One (1) New 1988 Mid -Size Station Wagon for the Indian River County Planning Department. 21 Bid Proposals were sent out. Four bids were received. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The low bid, without trade. -.in was submitted by Janie Dean Chevrolet in the amount of $9,825.05 for a. Chevrolet Celebrity. The State Contract price for a Chevrolet Celebrity Station Wagon is confirmed as $9,39.5.85 via Ken Rummel Chevrolet, Inc. of Sanford, Florida. 3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends that IRC Bid #385 be awarded and that the purchase be be accomplished via state contract. Budgetary appraval has been confirmed for expenditure from the Planning Department. Account No. 004 -207 -524 -066.42. - Commissioner Bird asked in a case like this, where we have a local supplier who is only slightly higher than state contract, whether we have the ability to go back to that local low bidder and advise them that we can buy this at state bid price for a certain price, but we prefer to do business with them if they can lower their price and that way we can keep the money in Indian River County. 20 County Attorney Vitunac stated that we could go back to them legally, but it is a policy matter, and he believed the Board had generally decided against it because it would ruin the bidding procedure. He also pointed out that the state contract price is public record and the bidder certainly could determine it and bid it if he wanted to. Chairman Scurlock felt there would be a problem when you have two local bidders. Commissioner Bird noted we would only negotiate with the low bidder and only against state contract, but Commissioner Wheeler emphasized his feeling that the state contract price is available to them before they bid. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #385 for a 1988 Mid -Size Station Wagon to Ken Rummel Chevro- let, Sanford, as being the low bidder at the state contract price of $9,395.85, as recommended by staff. J., K., & M. - Bids #386 (Mini Cargo Van) - #387 (3/4 Ton Cargo Van & #389 tSeTT-PropelledVibratory Roller -Smooth DrumT The Board reviewed the following memos from Purchasing Manager Ambler: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 11, 1988 FILE: THROUGH: P.J. Mattes Asst. County Administrator FROM:. Gus Ambler, C.P. Purchasing Mana 1. .DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS SUBJECT: IRC BID #386 - ONE (1) NEW 1988 MINI CARGO VAN REFERENCES: Bids were received Wednesday, January 6, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC bid #386 - One (1) New 1988 Mini Cargo Van for Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division. 21 iJAN . 88 BOOK .70 PAGE 581 rr- JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 PAGE 582 20 Bid Proposals were sent out. Four bids were received. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The low bid, without trade-in was submitted by Janie Dean Chevrolet in the amount of $3,722.61 for a Chevrolet Astro Van with a six cylinder engine. The State Contract price for a tMC.SAFARI VAN is $10,140. with a 6 -cylinder engine 3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING The user Divison has determined that the vehicle offered by Janie Dean Chevrolet meets minimum specifications and is adequate for their use. Budgetary approval has been sought for expenditure from Traffic Division Accounty Number 111-.245-541066.42. Staff requests authorization to order the vehicle. TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 12, 1988 THROUGH: P.J. Mattes / Ass't. County Administrator FROM: Gus Ambler, C Purchasing u-na•-, FILE: SUBJECT: IRC BID #387 - ONE (1) NEW FULL-SIZE 3/4 TON CARGO VAN REFERENCES: 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received Wednesday, January 6, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC bid #387 - One (1) New Full-size 3/4 Ton Cargo Van for Indian River County Building and Grounds Department. 20 Bid Proposals were sent out. 4 were received, one of which was a "No" bid. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The low bid, by Barrie Reed Buick GMC, was for the amount of $9,342.88. This meets desired specifications by the user Department. State Contract price and vendor are the same as above, Barrie Reed Buick GMC. 3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends that IRC Bid #387 be awarded and that the purchase be accomplished from Barrie Reed Buick GMC. Budgetary approval has been sought for expenditure from Building and Grounds Department, Account Number 001-220-519-066.42. 22 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 12, 1988 THROUGH: P.J. Mattes Ass't. County Administrator FROM: Gus Ambler, C.P.M Purchasing Agent FILE: SUBJECT: IRC BID #389 - ONE NEW SELF- PROPELLED VIBRATORY ROLLER - SMOOTH DRUM REFERENCES: 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received Wednesday, January 6, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #389 - One (1) New Self -Propelled Vibratory Roller --Smooth Drum for Indian River County Road and Bridge Department. 22 Bid Proposals were sent out. 9 Bids were received, 6 of which were "No" bids. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The low bid, by Case'Power and Equipment for a Model 602, was for the amount of $39,890.00. This meets minimum specifications as indicated by the user Department. State Contract has no equivalent model. 3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends that IRC #389 be awarded and that the purchase be accomplished from Case Power and Equipment. Budgetary approval has been sought for expenditure from Road and Bridge Department, Account Number 111-214-541-66.43. Staff requests authorization to order the vehicle. Commissioner Eggert advised that her comment on all three bids is that the memos on all of them state that "budgetary approval has been sought for expenditure" rather than confirmed; therefore, it would seem these items were not approved in our budget last fall. Asst. Administrator Mattes explained that staff is trying to do several things; they are trying to clarify the procedures under which Purchasing functions. Secondly,they are under some pretty tough time constraints. At the time this memo was drafted, they had submitted a requisition to Mr. Baird's office and had not at that time had a response. They now have had a response and it has been confirmed; so, it is a timing difference. JAN 19 1988 23 BOOK 70 F' {GF: 583 JAN 1 11988 BOOK 70 m E 5S4 Commissioner Eggert emphasized her feeling that if something is not ready at the deadline for the agenda, then it should not be on the agenda until they do get the approval. Mr. Mattes stated that he would then ask the Commission to please direct Mr. Baird to give this a higher priority. OMB Director Baird informed the Board that he responds the same day as the requisition comes in; he had to send these back because they did not have the price and he could not tell if they were over budget. These items were reviewed as soon as they were sent back, and they are all budgeted. Commissioner Eggert felt that would seem to be as speedy as you can get. Mr. Mattes noted that they are working out their procedures; there are some wrinkles. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #386 for one 1988 Mini Cargo Van to low bidder Janie Dean Chevrolet in the amount of $9,722.61; awarded Bid #387 for one new 3/4 ton Cargo Van to low bidder Barrie Reed Buick GMC in the amount of $9.342.88; and awarded Bid #389 for one self-propelled vibratory roller -smooth drum to low bidder Case Power & Equipment in the amount of $39,890, with the understanding these are budgeted items. L. Bid #388 - Two (2) New Wheel Tractors (Road & Bridge) The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Ambler: 24 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 13, 1988 FILE: THROUGH: P.J. Mattes , ,_ 7D4uBJECT: Ass't. County Adiinnis rator FROM: Gus Ambler, C.P. Purchasing Mana IRC BID #388 - TWO (2) NEW WHEEL TRACTORS REFERENCES: 1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Bids were received Wednesday, January 6, 1988 at 2:00 p.m. for IRC Bid #388 - Two (2) New Wheel Tractors for the Indian River County Road and Bridge Department. 15 Bid Proposals were sent out. 6 Bids were received, of which 2 were "No" Bids. 2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The low bid meeting specification, was submitted by Berggren Equipment Company, Inc. in the amount of $11,528.81 for one and $23,057.62 total for two (2) each. State Contract price for one is $11,541.85 each. A bid from Pippin Tractor and Equipment must be rejected because it does not meet specifications. Our specifications required "Dry" air cleaner for ease of maintenance and their machine is "Oil Bath". Secondly, Pippin's bid does not include options required under paragraph M. 3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends that IRC #388 be awarded and that the purchase be accomplished from Berggren Equipment. Budgetary approval has been confirmed for expenditure from Road and Bridge Department, Account Number 111-214-541-66.42. Staff requests authorization to order the tractors. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #388 for Two New Wheel Tractors to the low bidder Berggren Equipment Co. in the amount of $23,057.62, per the following Bid tabulation: JAN 10 1988 25 BOOK 70 ME 585 .y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 BID TABULATION �"' QC Nc ti o� . �c * ,k• W ' CI ' � v ti tiw o fl, .c„ kz h,'= 4"' $ '' 03 03 kf Qo �, 4j 4. 4 N 4, � It!' 1 c � Q, 4h7 gyp' ; c !ti`s • r4, cp o I' v c %y N G '�7 ~ 2 W o ��' �o� A./"g.c�• �o yo "$ 'dl.o $.,00 o A/'/?7/111/ b . co tc, moo``' V �W .DATEOFOPENING IRCBID #388 BID TITLE ONE WHEEL TRACTOR, LCG TURF .56 NET HP, CASE"IH 584 LCG. JOHN DE . 235 LCG FORTY 461 LCG, OR. PPROVED E UIVALENT ITEM DESCRIPTION NO. UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT ITEM (1). ONE -WHEEL TRACTOR, LCG TURF .56.NET HP, CASE IH'584 LCG; JOHN DEERE 235 LCC, FORD 4610 LCG, OR. . APPROVED EQUIVALENT. rF� 10500 00 1588 i 00 13110 00 NB N$ 11528 81 • ITEM (2): Two (2) WHEEL TRACTOR, LCG TURF .56 NET HP, CASE IH 584 LCG, JOHN DEERE 235 LCG, T'ORD 4C10 LCC, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. Ea. 20000 00 3080 QQ 26220 001 NB NB 23057 62 • , ADVISORY COMM I Tf EE 0 O 4— a) L a) a) L 0 N O W U Z_ §I 1 1 TO • • Board of County Commissioners FROM: Gary C. Wheeler Chairman Marine Advisory Committee DATE: January 14, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: Marine Advisory Committee Recommendations REFERENCES: The Marine Advisory Committee made the following recommendations at their January 7, 1988 meeting: The Committee unanimously recommended that the County Commission assess $4,000 as this County's portion of the cooperative effort to do an aerial photography study of seagrass beds in the Indian River Lagoon. The Committee further unanimously recommended that the County Commission send a Resolution to the Governor asking that the Indian River Lagoon- be designated as an Estuary of National Significance. If the Indian River Lagoon is designated as an Estuary of National Significance, funds may be available from the Environmental Protection Agency for the implementation of our programs for the protection and management of the Indian River Lagoon. Commissioner Wheeler introduced Diane Barite of the Resources Council of East Central Florida, who will give presentation, and also Dr. Robert Virnstein of Seagrass Ecosystems Analysts. Ms. Barile informed the Board that appropriated funds for the Indian River Improvement Management Bill (S.W.I.M.). Marine a the State Legislature under the Surface Water Research on the river has been going on for quite some time and about 2.1 million in state and local funds have been spent on strategies. Right now this estuary is a studies and management model for the rest of the country, and Ms. Barite advised that they have been invited all over the United States to explain how they came up with strategies for the Indian River that people are willing to work with and act upon. Ms. Barite continued that there are three agenda items today related to the Indian River river. One is a part of S.W.I.M. - JAN 19 1988 27 BOOK 70 Fay[ 587 Pr— JAN 15 198 BOOK :70 inc588 8 the appointment of an elected official to serve on the Watershed Committees of the Indian River Lagoon Action Committee, as described in the following letter: MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL of East Central Florida 2915 Vassar Street • Melbourne, FL 32901 • 305/768-8135 January 11, 1988 Mr. Charles P. Balczun County Manager Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Mr. Balczun: The Indian River lagoon and its tributaries plays an important role in the economy of the region and provides the subtropical setting for each community on its shores. The State of Florida has taken action to maintain the vital function of this unique estuary in the Surface Water Improvement and Management Bill (SWIM). The Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies have expressed interest in expanding or funding programs in the Lagoon region. Local government plays a key role in managing the lagoon, its shoreline and freshwater f low. This letter is to request that Indian River County become a charter member of the Indian River Lagoon Action Commitees. Eight Watershed Committees are being organized along the six county reach of the Indian River lagoon. There are two Watershed Committees in Indian River County due to its geographic features. Each committee will be made up of an elected offical and a technical staff member from each governmental agency which has jurisdiction for water management, drainage, coastal resource planning or recreation. The purpose of the committees is to provide the opportunity to coordinate community programs, address common problems, and economically and efficiently provide drainage, flood protection and viable natural systems. Committee objectives for 1988 are: 1) Review drainage plans and ordinances 2) Reduce cost and effort in drainage planning 3) Coordinate local government comprehensive plans 4) Design and prioritize implementation strategies to be funded through federal, state or local programs 5) Share and network innovative strategies and programs to improve the lagoon and prevent flooding 6) Provide strategies for stormwater retrofitting, shoreline protection and coastal development. The plan for the action committees calls for approximately three meetings per year with workshops locally as the group finds necessary. 28 The organizational meeting will be held on February 5, 1988 at the Hilton at Rialto Place, Melbourne. Members of all eight Watershed Action Committees will meet for an introduction to the SWIM program and objectives. A series of presentations will highlight successful local government stormwater control and water quality management. The schedule includes luncheon and the Marine Resources Council Annual Banquet in the evening. We ask that you appoint a technical staff member to participate on the two Indian River Lagoon Action Committees in Indian River County; the Sebastian Watershed Action Committee and the Indian River Lagoon Narrows Action Committee. It is important that each community be represented. Please forward the name of your representatives, as soon as possible, before January 22, 1988 so that details of the February 5th meeting and background information can be sent to your delegate. Christine Panico, Assistant Dircetor Marine Resources Council/ F.I.T. 2915 Vassar Street Melbourne, Florida 32901 (305) 768-8135 We look forward to working with you as we shape the future of the Indian River lagoon region. Sincerely, Diane D. Barile Ms. Barile explained that part of the implementation strategy they are using under S.W.I.M. is the watershed approach. There are three problems with the Indian River. 1. There is too much fresh water coming into the River and that is having negative impacts. 2. The seagrass beds and mangroves are disappearing and declining. 3. There is nobody managing the river. Ms. Barile advised that they have three proposals to remedy these three problems. Chairman Scurlock believed the three actions Ms. Barite is asking for to deal with these problems are as follows - (1) appropriate $4,000 for an aerial photography study of seagrass beds in the Lagoon; (2) adopt a Resolution asking that the Indian River Lagoon be designated as an Estuary of National Significance; and (3) appoint a Commissioner to sit on the Sebastian Watershed Action Committee and the Indian River Lagoon Narrows Action Committee, along with a technical member of the county staff. Ms. Barile confirmed these are the actions they are hoping for. 29 JAN1.9'98& BOOK 70 r[599 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 7O rt.GE 90 Discussion ensued regarding who would volunteer to sit on the Watershed Committees, and Commissioner Wheeler noted it would tie into areas of interest both to him and Commissioner Bowman. Commissioner Bowman preferred it be Commissioner Wheeler. Commissioner Wheeler agreed and asked that Planner Mike Miller be the technical member. 0 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the appropriation of $4,000 toward an aerial photog- raphy study of seagrass beds in the Lagoon; adopted Resolution 88-7 asking for designation of the Indian River Lagoon an an Estuary of National Significance; and appointed Commissioner Wheeler and Planner Mike Miller to sit on the Sebastian Watershed Action Committee and the Indian River Lagoon Narrows Action Committee. RESOLUTION NO. 88- 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN SUPPORT OF DESIGNATING THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON AS AN. ESTUARY OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE. WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon is the most diverse estuary in North America; and WHEREAS, the quality of life and economic welfare of the residents of the region have long been associated with the Indian River Lagoon system; and WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon is an important part` of our nation's history as the first siting by the Spanish explorers and the last footfall for man .in space; and WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon system provides a growing economic base for commercial fishing, marine services and facilities, tourism, and Indian River citrus; and 30 WHEREAS, the Indian .River Lagoon system supports critical habitat for a variety of endangered species including the largest manatee population in the state of Florida and the United States; and WHEREAS, the National Estuary Program ensures the proper protection and management of vital estuarine resources through the development and funding of programs, research, and public education; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, that the County supports a nomination by the Governor designating the Indian River Lagoon as an Estuary of National Significance. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Egg rt who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner, Wheeler to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert and, upon being put Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 19th day of Janua_,_y , 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By —nons. Scur ock, Chairman Commissioner Bird brought up the thought that the Lagoon might need a two -fold approach, i.e., since there is too much fresh water coming in, possibly we need more salt water. He realized digging an inlet is probably out of the question, but JAN 12 1988 31 BOOK 70 ME 591 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 F,, GF 5q2 wondered if the idea of an aqueduct to bring in salt water is totally crazy. Ms. Barite replied that at this time they really do not know. They are doing computer models of the Indian River and are finding that wind is the major factorr in moving the water in the lagoon, not the tide. The better they understand how the whole thing works, the more reasonable some of the crazy things may appear down the line. They are working with Harbor Branch and taking advantage of the research and modeling they have done. Dr. Virnstein passed out the following proposed scope of work: 805 E. 46th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Phone: Bus. (305) 234-4717; Res. (305) 464-0679 Seagrass Ecosystems Analysts (SEA) will provide the following: 1. Aerial photos of all of Indian River lagoon within Indian River County. Film format will be 9" x 9" aerial color infra—red exposed to give a film scale of 1:24,000 (= 1" = 2,000 ft, the same as quadrangle—scale topographic maps). They could be printed at any scale to match planning maps. The film would belong to Indian River County, but would be available for examination by SEA. 2. Photointerpretation, to produce seagrass maps of all seagrass visible in the aerial photos. 3. Four days of field ground—truthing to interpret the aerial photos and determine the reliability of the photos. The deeper seagrass beds will probably not show in the aerial photos. Areas to be examined would be picked in cooperation with the Marine Advisory Committee. 4. Final report, including maps, interpretation, and recommendations for further action. Submitted 1-19-88 --C" Ro ert W. Virnstein (AGREEMENT FOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF SEAGRASS BEDS IN I.R.LAGOON ON FILE IN CLERK'S OFFICE) 32 r PUBLIC HEARING - REZONE FROM A-1 TO RS -3 (SUNSHINE HOMES/LUTHER) The hour of 9:05 o'clock 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 in the matter ofd gdyeet in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in sajd 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 e t s �" y ofJ?45,.D. 19 le? SEAL) JAN 10 1988 • L • ' {Bu ess Manager) S.0.0\00/ i „ • ,, (Clerk of the C,rcuit Court. Indian.River County, Florida) NOTICE —PUBLIC NEARING • ' • `".'Notice of hearing tirconsider the adoptiofibf a County ordinance rezoning land from: A-1, 'Agricultural District to RS -3, Single -Family Resi- dential District. •The subject .parcel is presently owned by Mr. & Mrs. Paul Luther. Romona Lu- . ther, and Patrick Luther and Is located east of U.S. 1 on the north side of 73rd Street. _The subject property Is described as:::'- -, All ,of , Government Lot 2 of Section 3, township 32 south. Range 39 east, less and excepting the. following described >, property: beginning–at the southwest • corner of Government- Lot 2, run north- .1',7r.,..1320 • feet: thence. run- east 330 • feet; • -. thence run south 1320 feet:.thence run f tt west 330 feet to• the point of beginning: . . :�•a..end less the southern most 10 feet of • Government Lot 2 as recorded in O.R. • Book 99,: Pg. 646, Indian River County All lands lying and being within Indian • '.River County. } c A public hearing at which parties in Interest • and citizens shall have an • opportunity • to be Com- missionersheard, will of lndiae held nyRiver County, Floridthe Board of a i County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th .. Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on ,Tuesday., Janu- ary 19, 1988 at 9:05 a.m. • The Board of County Commissioners may grant a less intense zoning district than the dis- trict requested provided It Is within the same general use category. ; 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 testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By -s -Don C. Scurlock, Chairman December 28, 1987 Staff Planner David Nearing made the following presentation: 33 Boor 70 FAGF.593 JAIL 19 1988 B00K 70 FaME.594 TO: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M Planning & DATE: November 2, 1987 FILE: g,. P SUBJECT: Dev lopmTrt Director THRU: Gary Schindler Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: David C. NearingG eW REFERENCES: Staff Planner SUNSHINE HOMES & DEVEL- OPMENT INC. REQUEST TO REZONE 62 ACRES FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RS -3, SINGLE-FAMILY RES- IDENTIAL DISTRICT It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 19, 1987. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Sunshine Homes & Development, Inc., acting as agent for the Luther family, has submitted a request to rezone approximately 62 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). Included within this acreage is a 7 acre lake; therefore, the total acreage actually being rezoned is only 55 acres. The subject property consists of three separate and contiguous parcels of land located east of U.S. Highway #1 and north of 73rd Street. The applicant intends to utilize the property for a single-family development. On November 12, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip- tion of the current and future land uses of' the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The west 60% of the subject site currently contains three single-family homes, and the east 40% of the property contains a mosquito impoundment area, all being zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). The property north is currently undeveloped, used for groves, and contains a mosquito impoundment area, zoned RS -3. The property south is used for groves, and contains undeveloped land, all zoned RS -3; it also contains a mosquito impoundment area zoned RS -1 (single -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre). The property west is currently used for groves and zoned RS -3. To the east of the subject property lies the Indian River. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the west 60% of the subject property as LD -1, Low -Density Residential District (allowing up to 3 units/acre) and the east 40% up to the Indian River as Environmentally Sensitive (allowing up to 1 unit/acre). The lands north and south also have land designations of LD -1 and Environmentally Sensitive. The land west of the subject property is LD -1 with the Hobart Road Commercial Node further west along U.S. 1. 34 Even though the entire parcel, including the environmentally sensitive portion, is included in this request, the ultimate development of this property will be dictated by the underlying land use designation. The rezoning of the entire parcel. will permit continuity of the zoning district, and allow for the possibility of a future PRD to be developed. Even with a zoning designation of RS -3, the 25+ acres which have been determined to be environmentally sensitive may only be developed at one unit/acre. In addition, the 7 acre lake lying within the property is excluded from density calculations. However, there are approximately two acres of land which are considered to be impacted environmentally sensitive land. Contingent upon obtaining proper jurisdictional agency permits and initiating mitigation, these two acres could be reclaimed as uplands. The total permissable density for the 30 acres considered uplands would be 90 units. If the two acres of impacted environmentally sensitive land could be reclaimed as uplands, an additional six units could be developed on the upland portion. With a density transfer through a PRD from the 25 acres of environmentally sensitive land (23 acres if permits are issued for the impacted two acres), then an additional 23-25 units could be constructed, permitting a total development density of 115-119 units for the entire parcel of land. This would translate into an overall density of 1.8 to 1.9 units/acre. Transportation System The site will have access to 73rd Street which is currently classified as a secondary collector on the County Thoroughfare Plan. However, on October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of an amendment to the Transportation Element of the comprehensive plan to the state for review and comment. Included within this amendment was a request to reclassify 73rd Street east of U.S. 1 from a secondary to a subdivision collector. Final action on this amendment is anticipated in February, 1988. Environment The subject property lies almost entirely within an area determined to be within the 100 year flood plain, and is therefore subject to occasional flooding. Any development on this land will require additional engineering in order to meet the County Stormwater and Flood Protection Ordinance. As verified through an environmental survey, and field verifi- cation by the environmental planning staff, approximately 25 acres of the subject property is considered to be environmentally sensitive. Any development which involves this sensitive portion of the site will require review and compliance with the require- ments of such agencies as the Army Corp. of Engineers, the DER, DNR, and all local ordinances. Utilities The subject site is not currently serviced by public water or wastewater systems. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request. JAN 1S 1988 35 BOOK 70 F,,v1595 JAN 19 1988 BOOR 70 FgE 596 The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Dean Luethje of Carter Associates came before the Board representing Sunshine Homes. He advised that Attorney Joe Collins and his client, as well as the owners, the Luther family, are here to answer any questions that may be asked. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and the Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 88-1, rezoning 62 acres east of U.S., and north of 73rd Street from A-1 to RS -3 as requested by Sunshine Homes, acting as agent for the Luther family. ORDINANCE NO. 88- 1 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County ORDINANCE 88-1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY. 36 PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE 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: 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 in the matter of in the •- Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of .',/7'7 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed bef a tis & 'L Q �lev ofei Arr • -_) i, . % (Bu ess Manager) / (Cler,.uf the Circuit Court. Indian River County, Fi rida) SEAL) NOTICE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of a Public l9. tow eduled for 9:05 A.M. on Jan e discuss a nproposed ordi- nanceance rrelating to Indian River County entified: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. SECTIONS 1E 51 THRNG ARTICLEOUGH ROUGH 1.63 3, DIVISION IN- DIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE AND ADOPTING. CHAP FLORIDA AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 162. FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FUTURE AMEND- MENTS THERETO, INCLUSION IN THE CODE. SEVERABIUTY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.d ecisi' Anyone who may wish to appeal need to on which may be made at this meeting will ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed- ings ings is made, which includes eawnony sl . evi- dence upon which the appeal i 111 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., CHAIRMAN December 30. 1987 County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following memo: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM: Sharon Phillips Brennan Assistant County Attorney DATE: January 13, 1988 SUBJECT: Amendment of Code Enforcement Ordinance This ordinance was drafted pursuant to a request from the Planning Director to bring our ordinance into compliance with newly effective Florida Statutes. The ordinance provides that the Code Enforcement Board for Indian River County shall operate pursuant to Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes, as that chapter exists and as it may be amended in the future by the Legislature. 37 ,SAN 12 '6 88 BOOK 70 FAGS 59 7 JAN 13 1988 BOOK 70 PAGE 598 The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 88-2 amending the County Code Enforcement Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 88- 2 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REPEALING ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 2, SECTIONS 1-51 THROUGH 1-63 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 162, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FUTURE AMENDMENTS THERETO, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: SECTION 1. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REPEAL Indian River County Ordinance 83-10 and Sections 1-51 through 1-63 of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances are repealed. SECTION 2. REESTABLISHMENT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD There shall be a Code Enforcement Board for Indian River County which shall operate pursuant to the organization, powers, and duties of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, as that chapter exists and as it -may be amended in the future by the Florida Legislature. SECTION 3. 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 4. SEVERABILITY If any section or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be 38 unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall not affect 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 5. 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 19th day of January , 1988. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 30th day of December , 1987, for a public hearing to be held on the 19th day of January , 1988, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Ay_ Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye — Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Attest: JAN 19 1988 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Don C. ScuFlock Chairman 39 BOOK 70 mE 599 ,JAN 19 1988 • BOOK 7J F.nE 600 PUBLIC HEARING - REPEAL & RECREATION OF HOME OCCUPATION SECTION OF ROSE -4 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS 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: 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 in the matter of 16— in s in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of m at /07 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 bef (SEAL) 19 K • • , usipees Manager) i el • (Clerk of the Circuit Court, India4.River County, Florida) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING :.• • TO CONSIDER THE • •'• . ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, •, Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par- ties in Interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build- ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. January 19, 1988, at 9:05 ' am' to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: • AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC- '• TION 15. ROSE -4: ROSELAND RESI- • DENTAL DISTRICT OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI. NANCES, KNOWN AS ' THE ZONING.- . •CODE. PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE • DATE OF REPEAL OF SECTION 15 (B)' +`- AND ESTAB- • ' (4) HOME OCCUPATIONS, TIME AND HINGCLIMIT UNDER WHICH QUAIFIED EXISTING HOME OCCUPATIONS MAY BECOME OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED VESTED • NONCONFORMING • USES;. AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CON-•. FLICTING PROVISIONS, " CODIFICA- TION. SEVERABILITY, AND. EFFECTIVE DATE. :.•:::::`, A copy of the proposed ordinance's available • at the Planning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building on Friday, January 8,1988. . 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 testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock. Jr. Chairman December 28,1987 Planner David Nearing made the staff presentation, as follows: 40 TO: Charles P. Balzcun County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: DATE nuary 5, 1988 FILE: Robert M. Kat�CP SUBJECT: Community Dev opm nt Director THRU: Gary Schindler Chief, Long -Range Planning David C. Nearing e4 �CCQ FROM: Staff Planner, Long-RangEPllnES: REPEAL AND RECREATION OF THE HOME OCCUPATION SEC- TION OF THE ROSE -4 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND PROVISION FOR THE GRAND- FATHERING OF QUALIFIED EXISTING BUSINESSES It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 19, 1988. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS This is a County initiated request to amend the Home Occupation provisions of Section 15. ROSE -4: Roseland Residential District of Appendix A of the Zoning Code. These provisions currently permit specific home occupation uses within the ROSE -4 District which are not permitted in other residential districts of the County. Further, it is the intent of this request to establish specific criteria which will permit certain existing businesses to continue operating as nonconforming uses. These businesses will be governed under Section 25 (J), nonconformities, of the General Provisions section of the Zoning Code. On February 24, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to approve Ordinance #87-22 which amended the Rose -4 Zoning District. This amendment permitted a broader range of home occupations in the ROSE -4 District than allowed in all other residential districts. Although approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the special home occupation provisions for the Rose -4 district were opposed by both the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The additional occupations permitted under this amendment are as follows: a. Metal working and casting; b. Contractor's office and storage of contractors materials, tools and equipment; c. Lawn mower and small engine sales, service and repair; d. Service businesses (provided there shall be no more than one sign advertising the same not in excess of four square feet in size). Also incorporated within that amendment were specific criteria with which any proposed home occupation use would have to comply. These are as follows: The activity is conducted only by living within the residence; Products are not offered for sale and from the premises except provided; Any evidence of the occupation street by type A screening; Traffic is not generated in excess residential uses; The property has be qualified) for purposes; and All home occupation requirements. members of the family to the general public as herein otherwise is screened from the of that customary for been qualified for (and continues to homestead exemption for ad valorem tax JAN 19 1988 activities must meet yard setback 41 BOOK 70 f v,E. 601 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 f!GE 602 Although the Board's approval of the subject ordinance amendment established procedures and set criteria for new home occupation uses in the ROSE -4 district, the Board did not resolve the issue of existing businesses at that time. While the Board indicated its intent to grandfather in those commercial uses established prior to passage of the ordinance amendment, there was uncertainty as to what businesses existed prior to the ordinance amendment date and what legal mechanism could be employed to effect the grandfathering. In order to address these issues, the Board directed the Planning staff to undertake a study of the ROSE -4 area, identifying all commercial uses, and to develop a procedure to allow granfathering of existing commercial uses. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The Study conducted by the staff was done on a parcel by parcel basis and included a visual survey to locate apparent businesses. Additionally, staff used a Tax Assessors office computer print-out of all occupational licenses to locate those businesses not visually identifiable. The staff then compared the printout with a list of property owners in the ROSE -4 district. The list was also used to verify that all visually identified businesses had valid occupational licenses. Two problems were uncovered with this search technique. First, if a license had been issued to a corporate name not containing the property owner's last name, the staff would be unable to locate it. Second, if a license were issued to a name not on the property owners list, it would also be missed. Prior County Commission Action At the July 21, 1987, meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the staff presented the outcome of their search and presented alternatives for grandfathering of existing businesses. At that time, the staff indicated that a total of 8 businesses had been located, and that two of the eight businesses had since ceased operation. The staff also indicated that of the six remaining businesses, only 4 had occupational licenses. The July 21st meeting was also attended by a large number of Roseland residents who were opposed to the home occupation section of the Rose -4 regulations. These residents requested that the Commission repeal the home occupationsection of the Rose -4 district. Complicating the issue further was a discrepency between the number of businesses located by staff and the number of businesses reported by the public. Because of these factors, the Board decided to hold a special meeting to discuss this issue. On October 14, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners held a special night meeting in Sebastian. After listening to comments from the residents in attendance, the Board unanimously directed staff to prepare an ordinance repealing the home occupation section of the ROSE -4 regulations. The Board also agreed that only those businesses which could produce evidence showing that they had maintained active occupational licenses for the five years immediately prior to February 24, 1987, the date the home occupation amendment was approved, would be grandfathered. To implement the Board's directive of repealing the home occupation requirements, the staff drafted the attached ordinance. In creating the subject ordinance, staff included the grandfathering requirement of providing evidence of valid occupational licenses issued for the site and covering the five year period prior to the February 24, 1987, approval date. Also, in order to establish conditions under which a qualified nonconforming business may remain, staff utilized the nonconformit--�s section of the zoning code. As recommended in the proposed ordinance, any business that becomes qualified for grandfathering will be governed by the nonconformities provision of the zoning code. Since the October 14, 1987 meeting, the staff has attempted to further verify the number of businesses in the ROSE -4 area. The staff has identified 20 occupational licenses issued for the ROSE -4 area. However, because of multiple licenses for several businesses (one identified business has 6 occupational licenses for one location), the 20 licenses represent only 12 sites (businesses). Of those 12, one has since been abandoned (license not renewed for 3 years); at least two represent uses that either have or qualify for standard home occupation permits (those granted under general, restrictive, countywide home occupation requirements) issued by the County; and one represents a commercial vehicle parked in a residential area determined as grandfathered by the Code Enforcement Board. According to this analysis, only eight or fewer sites in the Rose -4 area constitute existing businesses not already approved by the County or approvable under general countywide regulations. The proposed ordinance also includes a time limit of 45 days in which businesses must qualify for the grandfathering provision.. It is anticipated that the proposed 45 day period will be sufficient to allow Roseland area residents time to file the necessary documents to allow grandfathering. If after 45 days any business has not qualified, it will be deemed an illegal use subject to all penalties. Staff believes that elimination of these special home occupation provisions will benefit the ROSE -4 area. Elimination of the potential intrusion of nonresidential uses will guarantee the residential integrity of the Rose -4 area and avoid the establishment of incompatible uses in this area. As proposed, repeal of this provision will allow those existing businesses to operate without allowing additional incompatible uses in the area. Planning and Zoning Commission Action On December 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the proposal to amend the Rose -4 district home occupation regulations. However, it was the concensus of the Commissioners that the proposed ordinance, as presented by staff, should be modified. The Commissioners voted to recommend that the requirement of proof of a valid occupational license since February 24, 1982, be replaced with the lesser requirement of proof of a valid occupational license prior only to February 24, 1987. February 24, 1987 was the date on which the home occupation section of the Rose -4 regulations was approved. The Commissioners felt that a requirement of proof for the past five years was too restrictive, and that all businesses which had operated on the date of, or prior to the approval of the ordinance should be qualified for grandfathering status. During the public hearing on this issue, there was also discussion concerning the requirement of showing proof of existence exclusively through use of valid occupational licenses. Discussion of this requirement centered around concern that certain existing businesses, having been in existence for five or more years, may not have obtained occupational licenses during 43 JAN.19 1988 BOOK 70 PAGE 603 kiAN 19 198 BOOK 70 PAGE 604 all years of operation. It was stated that failure to obtain an occupational license may have been due to lack of knowledge of the requirement. During this discussion, it was recommended by the Assistant County Attorney that an alternative to exclusive use of occupational licenses might be the useof business records, bank accounts for the business, a combination of occupational licenses and business records and accounts, proof that the business had been granted prior grandfather status by another governing body such as the Code Enforcement Board, or proof of exemption from local permitting requirements. Although the staff's position is that none of the subject businesses existing in the Rose -4 area were legally established, staff feels, because of the reasons stated below, that grandfathering uses existing for over five years would be fair. Prior to its designation as Rose -4, the subject area was zoned RMH-6, RMH-8, R1 -RM, and R-3 at different times. Of these only the R-3 district allowed uses other than standard residential uses. The R-3 district allowed several non-residential uses; these were hotels, motels, restaurants, hospitals, boarding houses, filling stations and marinas. None of the existing uses falls in these categories; so none of the existing uses (all of which have been established since 1957 - the inception of zoning in Indian River County) could have been established in conformance with County codes. It is staff's position that grandfathering any business in place as of February 24, 1987 would be inappropriate. The February 24, 1982 date, decided by the Board of County Commissioners at their meeting of October 14, 1987,. is more equitable. That option reflects the fact that establishment of a business in the Rose -4 area within the last five years could only be done by intentionally circumventing County codes; whereas, prior to that time, particularly in the 1957 to the mid 1970's period, there is a possibility that businesses could have been established without an attempt to violate the zoning code. Therefore, using the February 24, 1982 date as the grandfathering cutoff reflects the fact that zoning code administration may not have been diligent prior to the mid -seventies, but recognize that code implementation has been adequate in recent years. Regarding the issue of requiring proof of occupational permits from 1982 to 1987 to acquire grandfathered status, the staff feels that other evidence could suffice. The options provided by the Assistant County Attorney to the Planning and Zoning Commission and identified above would be acceptable. Use of these alternate criteria would benefit those existing uses which have operated for a number of years yet did not have occupational licenses for that entire time. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed ordinance to repeal and recreate the home occupation section of the Rose -4 zoning ordinance. 44 Planner Nearing advised that staff continues to support the five year requirement for grandfathering existing businesses, but does feel the method of showing proof of the existence of the business could be amended if the Board desires. Chairman Scurlock asked how the ordinance is structured in terms of expanding an existing grandfathered use, and Planner Nearing explained that a conforming use may continue to exist unless it goes out of business more than ninety days or is more than 50% destroyed; but it may not expand or enlarge. Commissioner Eggert asked if the P & Z Commission included any requirement regarding proof of prior operation of the business when they recommended the date of February 24th. She noted she has never had the feeling that someone should be able to get a license on the 23rd, for instance, and have the business considered valid on the 24th. Director Keating stated it was his understanding they were agreeing with the concept of the occupational license being the method and with that recommending the change in the date. Commissioner Eggert noted that within the past five years this zoning has changed, but wished to know if it is correct that would have had no effect on the home occupations requirements at all, and Planner Nearing confirmed that none of the existing uses would have been permitted in any of those zoning districts. Commissioner Bird believed we added certain occupations that could be conducted in this area, but he felt the requirement that the activity be conducted only by members of the family living in the residence is a bit unreasonable. He pointed out that members of the family do grow up and establish homes of their own and still would want to work in the family business. He also questioned the provision that products cannot be offered for sale to the general public from the premises when one of the allowable occupations is lawnmowers and small engine sales, service and repair; where are you going to sell them other than to the general public? 45 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 ME 605 JAIL 1 1988' BOOK 70 PA U 606 Director Keating noted those are the exact problems that arose and one of the reasons staff recommended against this when it was first being proposed. He advised this whole section is proposed to be repealed. Chairman Scurlock felt the ordinance is designed to be self- limiting so that as these businesses grow and eventually phase out, this area will get in step with the rest of the community. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that when staff says this whole section is going to be repealed that doesn't mean anyone outside of the family living there can work there. The whole idea of a home occupation is that it is entirely within that home. Director Keating agreed that the normal home occupation requirements which are in Section 25 General Provisions of the Ordinance would prevail. Chairman Scurlock asked about expanding in terms of additional employees being hired, and Director Keating stated that is something we really can't enforce; we are only talking about expansion of the square footage of the activity. Commissioner Wheeler asked about evidence that could suffice for providing proof of the existence of the business other than licenses, and it was stated it could be business documents, checking accounts, etc., showing dates of operation and showing that the business was conducted on that particular site. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Ed Busch, Box 302, Roseland, thanked the Commission for all the energy they have continued t� put into this matter. He stated that the Roseland Property Owners Association continues to support the point taken by the Board that there needs to be some prior existence and proof of same to substantiate grandfathering. Their concern today is that that good faith measure be extended to those people who have been there for some period of time, and they think the five year plan is a step in the right direction. 46 v Mrs. Lena Marshall, 7655 129th St., Roseland, also thanked the Board for all their efforts and stated that at the October hearing they were pleased that Commissioner Wheeler introduced Alternative #4, which was to grandfather in those businesses that have legally existed and been operating in good faith for 5 years prior to February 24, 1987, and which Alternative was adopted at that meeting. Mrs. Marshall felt it is time to stop feeling sorry for those people who have been existing there illegally over the years as she believed anyone who can read is aware they need a license to be operating their business. She emphasized that what is unfair is to impose this type of existence on the majority of the people, and stated the people would like to see Alternative #4 implemented and carefully monitored so everyone is conforming in the future. They also would like to see some of the businesses cleaned up or concealed, if possible. Mrs. Marshall felt contractors don't usually store their heavy equipment in residential neighborhoods, and she would like to suggest that the owners of this type equipment look to areas where they could store it without detracting from the neighborhood. Joan Spaulding, 7890 129th PI., came before the Board in regard to the following letter: pauldhig harpening ervice January 11,1988 Dear County Commissioners, Box 305 7870 129th, Pl. Roseland, FL 32957 (305) 509-5588 We moved to the Rose 4 area of Roseland 20 years ago. in 1968. It was with the intention of homesteading and having a family operated business. It was so zoned that way at that time. In 1984, we became soluable enough to quit other outside jobs and make our home occupation a full time business. Before, it had been part timemeaning nights and weekends and lots of hard work and long hours. We then purchased an occupational license when we found out we needed one to open a business checking accoun-t. Frankly, we were ignorant of needing )(JAN IC 1@88 47 BOOK 70 fnE CO? A 1 1988 BOOK *I() MCr 69S an occupational license to do business. We went to the zoning department and applied for one and received one. Then, about a year and a half ago Betty Davis called on the phone and told us we could not have a business here. We immediately went to see Mr. Shearer about this and he told us not to worry about it that the zoning was up in the air. So we didn't. Last January the decision was made to let us continue with our small business, it was very pleasing to us and hope it is left at that. We do not believe that the Roseland Property Owners Ass. means to do away with us and that they have misunderstood the zoning as it was passed for our small home occupation. Mr. DeJoia has told me that they have no wish to put us out of business and infect, is a customer of ours. We have put our life and fortune into our business. We have a large investment in exspensive sharpening equipment and dealerships. We have a F1. state tax license and pay tangible property tax on the business. We are trying to do everthing legally. We hope that the commissioners will not favor a five yr. occupational license and:that it will be left as we are. We appreciate all the time and effort and courtesy the county commissioners has given us and hope the zoning is left as it was passed last.January. jrely, 44..4eei Ha & Joan Spau ing Chairman Scurlock believed that the Spauldings just need to provide staff with appropriate business records, etc., to prove they have been in business there the required length of time. C. N. Kirrie, 12855 79th Avenue, stated that it seems he and several of his business -oriented neighbors are the subject of this whole show, and he would like to go over the material supplied the Board in today's agenda point by point in rebuttal to staff. Re the statement in staff's memo "while the Board indicated its intent to grandfather in those commercial uses established prior to passage of the ordinance amendment...," Mr. Kirrie contended that the fact is the Board clearly indicated those existing businesses were to be made valid conforming uses, not just grandfathered, and this is shown in the official Minutes. In regard to identifying the existing businesses, Mr. Kirrie stated that the problems indicated by staff when they researched and found just 8 businesses and only 4 with occupational licenses, did not surface when he searched the files and found 23 licenses. This same information was available to staff. 48 Mr. Kirrie next addressed the statement that "The Board also agreed that only those businesses which could produce evidence showing that they had maintained active occupational licenses for the five years immediately prior to February 24, 1987 would be grandfathered." As far as he was concerned, the five year recommendation is some kind of hat trick, and he felt it is immoral, if not out and out illegal, when the Board tells people at one meeting that "we are going to make you a valid conforming use - please come down and get your occupational licenses" and then when they do go down and buy the licenses, all of a sudden we have a recommendation to remove these licenses. Until very recently there has been no requirement at the Tax Collector's office to determine whether the location was legal for the license being purchased. One of the people who moved in about three years ago, went down and got a license because of this very situation, and now has it in jeopardy because of this action. Mr. Kirrie noted that staff indicated that some of the licenses had not been renewed for three years, but as he understood it, if they are not renewed for that year, they are dropped from the print-out in the Collector's Office. He also felt that a time limit of 45 days to comply with the grandfather- ing provision is not adequate and that a period of one year would be more appropriate. Not everyone gets the Press Journal in their home town in Hoboken, N.J., to know what is happening here. Mr. Kirrie then quoted "It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the ordinance, as presented by staff, should be modified..., and the requirement of proof of a valid occupa- tional license since February 24, 1982, be replaced with ...proof of a valid license prior only to February 24, 1987." Mr. Kirrie was of the opinion that all licenses to the very date of the repeal of this ordinance should be legal. He did not see how you can go to court and say we are going to go back and pull out licenses at a certain date and time, which he felt is a very arbitrary approach. JAN 19 1988 49 BOCK 70 P CE 609 JAN: 19 1986 BOOK 70 F riF610 Mr. Kirrie next took issue with staff's statement that "none of the subject businesses existing in the ROSE -4 area were legally established...." Why, if he was specifically not legal, was he able to construct a shop, maintain licenses, and remain on the tax rolls for 20 years. He felt staff's statements that are erroneous are causing problems for the Commission as well as for people of that area. Mr. Kirrie agreed staff has done a good job in bringing order to the zoning situation, but stressed the people have been almost totally ignored in regard to their position and feelings as to show they should be zoned. As to staff's statement that the February 24, 1982, date for grand- fathering any business is more equitable, he wished to know to whom it is more equitable, and as to intentional circumvention of County codes, Mr. Kirrie pointed out that any person could get a license with nothing more required than simply purchasing it; so,' where is the intentional circumvention of the law. If someone happened to have bought in this area in the last two years, then you are instantly assuming they have circumvented the law, and Mr. Kirrie felt that is a slur on the integrity of the people in ROSE -4. Mr. Kirrie pointed out that the Board Minutes of October 14th stated that staff identified businesses by "driving through the area," and if that is the method they used, there has been no thorough study done of this area. Further, in the P & Z Minutes of December 10, 1987, Planner Nearing stated "that the staff did not look deeply into how many businesses existed for that 5 years." Mr. Kirrie referred to Mr. Nearing's statement that "If a business had been keeping itself legal in the eyes of the original license requirement of the county, it had been following some spirit and intent of the law." That reasoning is quite sound to a point, but he felt the failure of the five year proposal is simply that there are a number of people who, in good faith after having moved into the area and obtained licenses 50 after February 24, 1982, did so at the expressed intent of the Commission to make them legal. He further noted that at the same meeting, Planner Nearing presented a map representing the businesses located within the ROSE -4 area, which was erroneous by his own admission. Mr. Nearing also stated that some businesses were identified through visual means, but no license could be found, possibly because they were in a corporate name. Mr. Kirrie did not feel that was a valid excuse for not finding the license. Mr. Kirrie noted that mention was made of two site plan applications submitted by people who want to open a new business in ROSE -4. One of those is his, and Mr. Kirrie advised that he was not quite ready to go ahead and put up a building instantly, but the very fact that ROSE -4 Ordinance 87-22 showed every indication of being rescinded left him with no choice but to submit a site plan, and he believed the other person is in about the same position. However, he pointed out there is some good news - the great land rush and subsequent devastation of Roseland has not materialized and is not likely to because of the very stringent and expensive site plan routine. Mr. Kirrie felt other counties handle this situation better. Orange County gets the residents involved, and if they are satisfied with a particular area, they zone to suit the area. That is exactly what this Commission has done, but now we have a lot of noise coming from people who are not residents of the area - the Roseland Property Owners Association who hold themselves up to be the voice of ROSE -4, as well as Roseland, which is totally untrue. He. continued that in Osceola County they go to the agricultural. minimum of 5 acres for mixed use, and they grand- father existing uses. In Brevard they had existing mixed mobile home and conventional construction, and they simply made it a legal zoned area; they grandfathered existing uses; and they have a 6 -month reversion period if the business is not continued. In JAN 15 1988 51 BOOK 70 FK,F 611 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 rr,T 612 Orlando their non -conforming uses may expand through a condi- tional use review. Mr. Kirrie pointed out that with the present day problems of theft, vandalism, etc., those who live on the same land where they work, appreciate the reduction of these problems, and another factor is that insurance rates are lower for vehicles that are kept at the owner's residence. Mr. Kirrie thanked the Commission for their perseverance and urged their continuing diligence to complete this as they had originally envisioned so those living in ROSE -4 can continue to live as they have for many years without interference from those on the outside. Fred Mensing came before the Board to present graphs and material to back up Mr. Kirrie's presentation. He quoted the following from the Commission Minutes of February 24, 1987: " Attorney Vitunac understood that the intent of the Motion is to direct the County Attorney to find a vehicle for accomplishing making what is there legal, and to make the people who are legally grandfathered in a valid conforming use in the future. Commissioner Bowman asked for clarification of how we are planning to legalize the grandfathered businesses, and Attorney Vitunac explained that first a study would be• done to find out who is grandfathered under this new ordinance and then write a second ordinance, changing the. ROS.-9crIter.Ia,:Ifl. order to make them a valid and conforming use in.the future...._:: Chairman Scurlock.•felt..the.clear intent here has been expressed, and Commissioner Eggert emphasized that Ln seconding the Motion, her intent Is that this will be applied.:to only the ROSE -4 area. Mr. Mensing emphasized that the Board promised the people this would be done, and the County Attorney did not do this. Mr. Mensing then informed the Board that four or five people went to work over the weekend gathering signatures from owners in the ROSE -4 area exclusively. and he is submitting a petition signed by 167 property owners stating that they are satisfied with Ordinances 87-21 and 87-22 and request that the Board leave them 52 in place. Mr. Mensing displayed a graphic of the ROSE -4 area showing where the signatures were obtained, and, along with the petition, submitted the following letter from_Louis Simonye: Qa bZd (diz4 1' gam, imat(44ziA4,; a.� /Q a.c, fin. r� NtitdA .��' �GGwC�jLl/� /h47'64-7 /Z2/...e.61-4; 124t ,/./-e-hrAZ1t x2,,t e -e ite/C�l�jJ%Lf aw5 Sn7n4//L /90, /do/ <366 L,9 L1e4TYllZL SAID PETITION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. JAN 19 1988 53 BOOK 70 'PGE 613 Booz 70 rite 614 `JAN 19 1988 Mr. Mensing continued to review in detail the chart of the area where the signatures were gathered, emphasizing its accuracy, and stated that in Sec. 21, 85% of the land by acreage and 77.7% by parcel want the ordinances to remain in place and in Section 30, 87.8% of the land owners and 88% of the parcel ownership want them to remain in place. He also has a letter from Mr. Sembler, owners of 20 acres, who supports these ordinances staying in place. Mr. Mensing contended that the businesses in ROSE -4 make less of an impact on the county and generate Tess traffic than if this were subdivided to the maximum density allowed under the Land Use Plan or 8 upa. They now cannot develop beyond 2 upa because of the sewer restriction, which hopefully the county will alleviate in the next few years. Mr. Mensing hoped this issue can be laid to rest today with the Commission agreeing to leave Ord. 87-22 in place so the people in ROSE -4 can retain their life style. He felt the Board made a wise decision last February and then got "snowed" by the Roseland Property Owners Association which does not represent the people in that area. Mr. Mensing continued to urge that the Board not repeal Ord. 87-22 but direct competent members of staff to come up with polishing of Ord. 87-22 so present businesses there come into conformance as they are, and identify them so there can't be any sneak expansion. He would even suggest that the Board take the position that as of today, they will accept no additional site plans and direct the Tax Collector to accept no monies for licenses until the suggested polishing of the ordinance is done. Mr. Mensing urged the Board to be the intelligent people they are recognized to be and let Ordinance 87-22 stand. Discussion ensued regarding the wording on the petition submitted by Mr. Mensing, i.e. - "We, the undersigned, are residents and/or property owners in the ROSE -4 area and are satisfied with Zoning Ordinances 87-21 & 87-22 and hereby requesting that you leave them in place." 54 Ruth Clark, 7950 126th St., informed the Board that she was approached to sign the petition, and it was not headed as it was presented to the Board. It said "We, the undersigned of ROSE -4, petition that Roseland be left in its present position (and then it quoted the Ordinance numbers)." She contended that someone who has not been following this matter would not understand that if this goes through according to them, Roseland would not be left as it is, it would become a catch -alt. She stated that when she asked the person with the petition what the statement meant because she was not familiar with the ordinance numbers that followed it, he said Roseland would be left as it is; in other words, people would be allowed to park a truck in their driveway. Mrs. Clark expressed her opinion that 90% of the people who signed the petition, signed it under a false assumption, and, therefore, it is invalid. Frank DeJoia, 11625 Roseland Road, felt the great majority of people living in Roseland are proud of Roseland and of their low density profile, and they do not want Roseland to become a junk zoning area where we can institutionalize things that may have been there illegally. As far as getting occupational licenses is concerned, he pointed out that anyone can get one in any area of the county as the people who issue the licenses do not determine if what is being applied for is legal. Therefore, the people must rely on the Board of County Commissioners to help preserve Roseland, and Mr. DeJoia emphasized the fact that these people want to preserve in Roseland things that have been done in years past when there wasn't good code enforcement definitely is not in the best interests of the vast majority of the people. He particularly did not want to institutionalize the "Johnny-come- latelys" who want to get in on the act, and he, therefore, urged the Board to grandfather in only those in ROSE -4 who can document that they have had businesses there a substantial length of time. Mr. DeJoia also made the point that the fact that Mrs. Clark, who lives in the ROSE -4 area and who has been following all the JAN 19 1988 55 BOOK 70 PCE 615 ►AN 19 En BOOK 70 FACE 616 meetings on ROSE -4, was confused by the petition casts great doubt on its validity. He further pointed out that Mr. Mensing does not live in the ROSE -4 area, but just owns property there, and he did not see why the Roseland Property Owners should be limited to speaking only about the area where they live. Robert Kirrie, 12855 79th Ave., informed the Board that he was one of the persons who went around with the petition, and Mrs. Clark was given the opportunity to look at the ordinance as it was as was everyone else. Christopher Kirrie, 12855 79th Ave., advised that he also circulated the petition, and confirmed that if anyone was unsure of what they were signing, they had the opportunity to examine the ordinance as it was and he explained it to them as it existed today with home occupational uses and small business. He believed the majority were quite aware of the situation in the area and willingly signed the petition. Mr. Mensing stated that he is willing to swear that there is no way that petition was altered after anyone signed it. Mrs. Marshall wished to offer rebuttal Mr. Mensing's state- ment that traffic in the area does not present an impact. She noted that he and some very young boys were out this weekend with the petition and had a steady stream of traffic parading continually up and down 129th Street on his heavy equipment. Margaret Hearndon, 129th St., wished to rebut the statement made in regard to a discount on insurance for vehicles kept in the owner's yard. She stated that as long as those vehicles are kept in a fenced -in area, there is no penalty. She further noted that she was home on the weekend; no one brought her a petition to sign; and she wanted to say that she goes along with the committee with the work that they are doing. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard. There were none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing closed. 56 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to adopt Ordinance 88-3, re- pealing and recreating the Home Occupation Section of the ROSE -4 Zoning District Regulations as presented by staff. Commissioner Bird wished to have clarified just what effect it will have on existing businesses if the Motion passes. Director Keating explained that any business that can provide satisfactory evidence that it has been in place since February 24, 1982, would be grandfathered in and subject to the normal grandfathering provisions of the ordinance. Commissioner Bird felt we are saying that area is predomi- nantly residential, or at least in our future planning should become predominantly residential, but we are willing to accept businesses that have been bona fide for a period of five years. Attorney Vitunac stated that the only other choice he would recommend would be to forget the five years and require the businesses to have been legal when they originated. These businesses could have been illegal from the beginning of the Zoning Code; the county is giving these people a break by giving them the years up until 1982; and he felt this is arbitrary only in that it is giving a break to people whom we otherwise could proceed against. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he is only interested in giving people a break who have been operating legally and in good faith for several years - not those who have been "in the woodwork," so to speak, and only decide to come out now because they see an opportunity to be overlooked and get a license. Commissioner Bird noted that he probably will vote for the Motion; although, he believed at some point we told the busi- nesses up there to come out of the woodwork, get the occupational license, and we will grandfather you in. They did that and now we are changing that if they haven't been there five years. 57 JAN 19 1988 POOK 70 ,F 617 JAIL 19 1988 BOOK 70 FACE 618 Attorney Vitunac pointed out that if people did come in and become perfectly legal under the amendment, there is a chance that we can't shut them down, but he did not know how many came in and became legal. Director Keating advised that no one came in and complied with all the home occupation requirements in ROSE -4. Commissioner Eggert felt there was a lesser understanding that if anybody came in and just got an occupational license, they would be grandfathered, but Chairman Scurlock pointed out that anybody can get an occupational license because they don't screen them for anything. Commissioner Bird noted that just getting a license wouldn't make them legal, and Director Keating apparently is saying none have met all the criteria that would have made them legal. Director Keating clarified that in the ordinance passed, there were specific provisions specifying under what circum- stances certain businesses could come in as home occupations, and Chairman Scurlock confirmed that,' in other words, we did not say come in and pay $6.00 and then you are legal. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to adopt Ordinance 88-3 repealing and recreating the Home Occupation Section of the ROSE -4 Zoning District. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 58 ORDINANCE 88- 3 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 15. ROSE -4: ROSELAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPEAL OF SECTION 15 (B) (4) HOME OCCUPATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND TIME LIMIT UNDER WHICH QUALIFIED EXISTING HOME OCCUPATIONS MAY BECOME OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED VESTED NONCONFORMING USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1 Section 15 (b) (4) as reprinted below is hereby repealed in its entirety. (4) Home Occupations. In addition to those home occupation specified in Section 25(d), the following home occupation shall be permitted after receiving site plan approval and meeting the conditions specified below: a. b. c. d. e. Metal Working and casting; Contractor's office and storage of materials, tools and equipment; Lawn mower and small engine sales, repair; Service businesses (provided there than one sign advertising the same four (4) square -feet in size. Criteria for home occupation uses. All home occupations shall be established based on the following criteria: SECTION 2 contractor's service and shall be no more not in excess of 1. The activity is conducted only by members of the family living within the residence; 2. Products are not offered for sale to the general public and from the premises except as herein otherwise provided; 3. Any evidence of the occupation is screened from the street by type A screening; 4. Traffic is not generated in excess of that customary for residential uses; 5. The property has been qualified for (and continues to be qualified) for homestead exemption for ad valorem tax purposes; and 6. A11 home occupation activities must meet yard setback requirements. Section 15 (b) (4) is hereby recreated as follows: Section 15 ROSE -4: (b) Permitted (4) Home Roseland Residential District uses. occupations. a. New Home Occupation Uses New home occupation uses are allowed subject to the standards of Section 25(d) of the Zoning Code. CODING: Words in 4U-0,¢1k7zibiji4 type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. JAN 19198 59 Boos 70 FM3F 619 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 FACE 620 b. Existing Non -Conforming Home Businesses Any nonconforming home business existing at the effective date of thisordinance shall be considered a vested nonconform- ing use, provided it meets the following criteria: 1. The owner shall submit information on a form acceptable to the County which verifies that the business has existed at its current location since February 24, 1982. Verification of existence shall be through presentation of one of the following or a combination of the following materials: i. Originals or copies of occupational licenses issued by the Indian River County Tax Collectors Office or through certification by the Tax Collectors Office that the business has maintained an active occupational license at its current location since February 24, 1982; ii. Business records, ie, ledgers, invoices, sales receipts, etc...; showing existence in that location since February 24, 1982. iii. Cancelled checks issued by the business at its current location dating back to .February 24, 1982. iv. Proof of exemption from local licensing and zoning regulations; v. Evidence that the use has been granted a grandfathered status by a governing body of Indian River County. Once all information has been submitted, the Community Development Department staff shall notify the applicant if additional information is required. Based on the information provided, the staff shall either approve or deny the grandfather request. Any individual denied grandfathering status by the staff may appeal the decision. All appeals shall be submitted in writing to the Director of Community Development within 15 days of the denial. Appeals of this section shall be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. Verification of existence for businesses which qualify under this ordinance must be received by the Indian River County Community Development Department within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of this ordinance. All qualified 60 i businesses presenting verification shall be issued an Indian River County Certificate of Zoning Approval demonstrating compliance with this ordinance. Any qualified business which fails to comply with this ordinance shall be deemed an illegal use and be subject to all penalties under the Codes of Indian River County. 3. All businesses qualifying with and complying with this ordinance shall continue operating under and be subject to the guidelines of Section 25 (J) nonconformities, and all other applicable codes and laws of Indian River County. SECTION 3 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners or Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "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. 61 JAN 1S 1988 BOOK 70 FACE 621 :JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 P.1CF 622 SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 19th , 1988. day of January BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: •t DON C. SCUR OCK, JR. 'AIRMAN CODING: Words in Ott> Ok7LOitIA type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. 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: 62 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 41 a/(.4 in the matter of Ze esti in the _ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of >/f1_ i91'4L"2 (9s7 f7 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in sajd Indian River County, Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida. each daily and his 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. 19 f, Sworn to and subscribed befo A ,►.s �� • ,SEAL) (lausipess Manager) (Clea. ',l the Circuit Court. Indian diver County. Florida) if NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING • TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that the Board of . County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. shall hold a public hearing at which par ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build-. Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. January 19, 1988, at 9:05 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordnance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD .OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 2(b): 23.3(dXi); and 25(t) OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, ZONING; REGARDING ADDI- TIONS TO THE DEFINITIONS: REQUIR- ING DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL; AND RE- QUIRING DEDICATION OF RIGHT -OF- • WAY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS; ALSO . AMENDING••SECTION 10(cX2) OF AP- PENDIX B OF THE CODE O1 LAWS AND • ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUN- TY, SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING; RE- QUIRING DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-- WAY FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT AP • - PROVAL A copy of the proposed ordinance is available at the Planning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. Anyone who may wish to appeal any declsh%n 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 CoOnty ' Board of County Commissioners By -s- Don C. Scurlock Dec. 28, 1987 Chief Planner Stan Boling made the following presentation: TO: Charles Balczun County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Fl,44Vr o-bert M. K�eat Director, Planning DATE: January 8, 1988 FILE: CP SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMEND - Development MENTS AFFECTING RIGHT-OF- WAY REQUIREMENTS FROM: Stan Boling A' 6 ' REFERENCES: ROWAMEND Chief, Current Development STAN3 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissionersat their regular meeting of January 19, 1988. BACKGROUND: Mandatory right-of-way dedication has always been a major concern of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Because of those concerns, the staff was directed to 63 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 DOE 6 3 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 E 624 reassess the County's right-of-way dedication policies. In the beginning of 1987, the staff reviewed and analyzed current right-of-way dedication policies, held several workshops (including one with the Planning & Zoning Commission and another with the Indian River Farms Drainage District), drafted the proposed ordinance, and requested that the Board authorize advertisement of the proposed ordinance. Last May, the Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to draft and advertise for ordinance changes affecting right-of-way requirements. During the Summer and Fall, through several iterations affected by court cases, new right-of-way policies have evolved. These policies have been written into -the proposed ordinance amendments and address the issues of equity, compen- sation, and right-of-way corridor protection. At its regular meeting of December 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached proposed ordinance amendments. ANALYSIS: . Issues The amendments address several issues as follows: Issue Compensation Reservations Issue Equity Corridor Protection Existing Requirements Dedications may be partially or fully compensated for by impact fee credit or density transfer. Reservations may be used in lieu of dedi- cations for minor site plan applicants. Existing Requirements Some applicants (dev- elopers) are not fully compensated for dedi- cations. Single-family dwellings may be constructed within future rights-of-way and corresponding setback areas. 64 Proposed Requirements All dedications shall be fully compensated for by impact fee credit, density transfer, or cash payments. Reservations may be used in lieu of dedications in any situation where full com- pensation for needed r -o -w cannot be given at the time of development approval or development. Proposed Requirements All applicants are fully com- pensated for dedications, the same as property owners whose land the County condemns. Single-family dwellings on sites abutting corridors must conform to future rights- of-way; dedica- tions and/or reservations re- quired. . Proposed Ordinance A. Section 1 adds three terms to the zoning code definitions section. This section specifies the exact meaning of dedicating, reserving, and compensating for right-of-way, and it codifies for the first time the County's existing working policies describing how an applicant dedicates or reserves, and how the County compensates. The reservation definition specifies what uses are allowed within reservation areas. ,JAN 19 19 B. Section 2 amends the site plan ordinance right-of-way requirements, specifically establishing: 1. that right-of-way dedications/reservations are needed where deficiencies exist; 2. that theburden of correcting deficiencies is equal for property owners on either side of roadways, except where canals or railroads limit expansion in one direction; 3. that all applicants shall dedicate, where needed, sufficient right-of-way to local road standards to mitigate the impact of their projects (no compen- sation given since the dedication is project - related); 4. that the County may choose to compensate for dedications by cash payment; 5. that reservation areas may be utilized in lieu of dedication areas where full compensation cannot be given immediately; 6. that in situations where a combination of dedication and reservation areas is utilized, the Public Works Director shall approve which area(s) are to be dedicated and which are to be reserved; and 7. amends all street type designations to correspond with the new designations as per amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. C. Section 3 amends a General Provisions zoning code section regulating development on single-family lots. The amendment specifically establishes: 1. that development on single-family lots abutting Thoroughfare Plan roads must conform to the Thoroughfare Plan and observe future rights-of-way and corresponding setbacks; and 2. all aspects previously described under analysis Section B) 2-6. It should be noted that the only single-family home building permit applicants affected are those building upon sites adjacent to deficient Thoroughfare Plan roads and platted half streets. Also, it should be noted that the existing restriction of access to a lower functionally -classified road is merely re -written to better integrate this regulation into the to -be amended ordinance section. D. Section 4 amends the subdivision regulations, specifi- cally establishing all aspects previously described e 8 65 BOOK 70 PAGE 625 JAN 19 198& BOOK 70 FAc 6'i26 under analysis Section B) 1-7. This section also differentiates between right-of-way dedications/reser- vations needed along a project site's existing road frontage, and the newly dedicated roads created via plats. Dedications/reservations augmenting existing rights-of-way are treated the same as for site plan projects. Newly dedicated rights-of-way are not credited or compensated for because such rights-of-way are project related. To summarize, the proposed amendments codify dedication, reser- vation, and compensation arrangements already utilized by the Board of County Commissioners in a few specific cases. Protection of thoroughfare road rights-of-way from single-family development is new but necessary to save the County significant amounts of time and money for future road projects. The County's 6th Avenue road improvements project attests to the need for such protection. This protection also apprises single-family homeowners of future road needs so that appropriate setbacks may be applied now, to ensure that the normal open spaces and buffering typical of single family neighborhoods is preserved. Such long-range planning will help to ensure that single-family character and viability con- tinues into the future along thoroughfare roads. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance amendments. Planner Boling noted we now have no requirement for single family development to conform to RIW requirements, and he esti- mated the change would affect about 50 building permits per year. Chairman Scurlock believed we asked Public Works Director Davis to look at impact fees because we have underestimated the cost of acquisition of the RIW that the county wilt be required to pay for under the new legislation. Public Works Director Davis reported that he has reviewed what has been done in recent projects in the nine districts in the impact fee program. He did not feel Districts 1 and 2 will change. The CR 512 improvements near Sebastian will be the first construction project in, District 3, and we don't have the new figures right now. In Districts 5 and 6 where the Boulevard South project has been completed, staff found that the cost of the 6.4 lane miles of construction came out to be $612,000 per lane mile. The impact fee program had anticipated road costs at $385,000 and $286,000 in Districts 5 and 6; so, what they are finding is that the impact fees in Districts 5 and 6 relative to the actual lane mile cost are about half what they should be. 66 Where they have actual costs for R/W acquisition and road construction for similar projects, they can easily verify that impact fees in Districts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and possibly 9, should increase two or maybe even threefold. Staff will put these figures in a formal memo and bring that back to the Board as a proposed amendment to the Traffic Fee Ordinance. Attorney Vitunac noted that this is a major change. We now are paying for R/W as the fifth amendment requires and are in compliance with the Supreme Court cases; so, we no longer have to send our people out on the unenviable job of trying to get R/W donated. The down side is that the impact fees have to go up. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that there is an error in the proposed ordinance in the last part of Section 1.a. General Requirements - "in which case, the entire road right-of-way deficiency will be made up by dedication of land from the opposite side of the existing road right-of-way." The word "opposite" should be corrected to read "project site." Planner Boling advised that there are two other changes. They would like to go ahead and renumber some of the sections to make it easier for the Municipal Code service, and on Page 5 of the ordinance, Section 3, where we are amending the section dealing with single family home development, they would like to have an effective date of February 29, 1988, to allow time to make sure all the contractors involved in single family development understand the new regulations. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Nancy Offutt, representing the Board of Realtors, commented that the workshops went smoothly, and on the basis of equity, it is refreshing to see that the county now recognizes that applicants really do need to be compensated for their use of their property. Mrs. Offutt then noted that when the county demands R/W dedication on projects that are not on the Thorough- fare Plan, that means those developers can't get density transfer and can't get credit on impact fees, and she wondered if perhaps JAN 19 1988 67 BOOK 70 P GE 627 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 PAGE 628 the county is not taking a two -fold approach there because they are saying they recognize they need a future road there, but they are not putting it on the Thoroughfare Plan as yet. Mrs. Offutt contended this really shouldn't be the burden of the developer and that there should be some sort of compensation since the road will eventually be there or the county wouldn't want the R/W. Director Keating pointed out that the roads on the Thoroughfare Plan systems are the collector and arterial roads that are designed to carry more traffic; those not on the system are the local roads that art designed to serve specific projects. Mrs. Offut argued that as the county develops, it is looking at some major projects, and the roads within those projects may well later become arterial collector roads. She felt if the county recognizes that a roadway eventually is going to be there, but it is not on the twenty year plan, perhaps the twenty year plan is not as dynamic as it could be. It was agreed this may need to be looked at. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and the Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Ordi- nance 88-4 amending requirements for dedication of Right -of -Way, with the corrections cited. ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTIONS 2(b); 23.3 (d) (1) ; AND 25(t) OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE .OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, ZONING CODE; REGARDING ADDITIONS TO THE DEFINITIONS; REQUIRING DEDICATION AND/OR RESERVATION OF RIGHT- OF-WAY FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL; AND REQUIRING DEDICATION AND/OR RESERVATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; ALSO AMENDING SECTION 10(c)(2) OF APPENDIX B OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING; REQUIRING DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL. ORDINANCE 88-4 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY. 68 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING REQUIREMENTS 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: 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 8! ✓w �f in the matter of ��`G2%4;1 / s7� 61 in the _ Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues of ce,-,leel kt,/,,7 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in sajd Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before AL) D 7 . 19 (Clc rt . • Bus% ss Manager) •Ht Court. Indian River County, FI��rida) 'f Chief Planner Boling reviewed the following: 69 JN 119 1988 NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING 1,; • TO CONSIDER THE sh, ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE Notice • is hereby given that •the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, .. Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par- ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build- ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, January 19, 1988, at 9:05 a.m. to consider the•- adoption of an Ordinance • entitled: • AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ' .:. SECTION 7(f) OF APPENDIX B OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING; REQUIRING A FINAL. PLAT ADVISORY NOTATION REGARD- ING PRIVATE RESTRICTIONS; ESTAB- LISHING CONDITIONS REQUIRING THE FILING OF A COVENANT REGARDING PAYMENT FOR FUTURE UTILITIES SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CON- FLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICA- TION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE... . . A copy of the proposed ordinance Is available at the Planning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which 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 -8- Don C. Scurlock, Jr. • Chairman • Dec. 28, 1987 • BOOK 70 WIT 629 Ir" JAN 9 1988 BOOK 70 Mr 6:30 TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: December 15, 1987 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: tom• k LK i .P. AreCT— Robert M. Re�at' g, SUBJECT: Community Deve opme Director THROUGH: Stan Boling 46 Chief, Current Development FROM: Robert E. wieg ers"-(Ai REFERENCES: subord BWIEG AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Staff Planner It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration. by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 19, 1988. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: In July of this year the Utilities Department requested that language be placed on final plats that would guarantee future hook-ups to the County's expanding utilities services. Also, staff is revising the County's Subdivision Ordinance to reflect recent changes in state law (Florida Statutes) concerning prior property restrictions that may affect the ownership or use of platted lots. Other minor alterations have been made to these sections in terms of code organization. ANALYSIS: 1. Section 1 This section gives the Utilities Department the authority to require that a final plat applicant file a covenant document, with the final plat, that provides for future connection to county water/wastewater service with all associated fees paid by the subdivision homeowners' association or by indivi- dual property owners of that subdivision. The proposed amendment also requires thatall deeds conveying properties within the subdivision reference the covenant document. 2. Section 2 Earlier this year the Florida Legislature amended Section 177.091, Florida Statutes to require that plats for recording include a notice of possible additional restrictions which may affect the ownership of property, within a platted subdivision. The proposed amendment to the existing subdivi- sion ordinance precisely implements this new State requirement. The other notice referenced in this section concerning the placement of construction, trees, or shrubs in an existing easement, currently exists within the ordinance. The proposed change is intended to have this restriction more prominently displayed on the final plat. The County Attorney's office has verified that the proposed ordinance is acceptable as to form and legal sufficiency. At their regular meeting of December 10, 1987 the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed subdivision ordinance amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed subdivision ordinance amendments. 70 The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none, and he declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 88-5 amending subdivision and platting requirements. ORDINANCE NO. 88 - 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 7(f) OF APPENDIX B OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING; REQUIRING A FINAL PLAT ADVISORY NOTATION REGARDING PRIVATE RESTRIC- TIONS; ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS REQUIRING THE FILING OF A COVENANT REGARDING PAYMENT FOR FUTURE UTILITIES SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Commis- sioners of Indian River County Florida, that: Section 1 Section 7(f)(6) of Appendix B, the Subdivision and Platting Code, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: (6) COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS. (a) All covenants, restrictions or reservations placed by the developer or required by this ordinance shall appear on the final plat or be established by separate recorded document, which documents shall be submitted to the County with the final plat. If done by separate document, the public record location of such documents shall be indicated beneath the subdivision name as follows: "Covenants, restrictions, or reservations affecting the ownership or use of the property shown in this plat are filed in Official Record Book No. , Page It • (b) When deemed necessary by the County's utilities department to ensure the proper future expansion of utilities services, a covenant document shall be filed with the plat that includes the following statement: "In the future, when a potable water distribution and/or a wastewater collection system becomes available to service the subdivision, service improve - 71 BOOK 70 FA; 631 4 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 PAF 632 ments and connections shall be made by the homeowners' association, or by the property owners, to all lots and shall be paid by the homeowners' association or by the property owners". All deeds conveying properties within the sub- division shall reference the covenant document. Section 2 Section 7(f)(5)W. of Appendix B, the Subdivision and Platting Code, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: w. x i /Aktnkhk/fthy/N/ J/0(6A0 140t10vil/ttkkA/AY/F* s'/'UX/4 NA009t/Lii/04.40140rtA/01010WO011ai-//AW0)i4Xl The following statements shall be noted on the plat in a prominent place: "NOTICE: No construction, trees or shrubs will be placed in easements without county approval", and "NOTICE: There may be additional restrictions that are not recorded on this plat that may be found in the public records of this County". Section 3 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING SECTIONS _. All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 4 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. 72 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, unoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. Section 6 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official 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 1988. 19thday of •Tanuary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ✓ c_ / /AI Don C. Scurlock, Jr 9 hairman APPEAL OF MINING PERMIT SUSPENSION (DENNIS L. SMITH, INC.) Administrator Balczun reviewed the following: JAN 19 1988 73 BOOK 70 PAGE 633 JAN 191988 BOOK 70 FACE634 TO: Charles P. Balczun - Administrator William G. Collins 11 Assistant County Attorney DATE: December 31, 1987 SUBJECT: Dennis L. Smith, Inc. - Appeal of Operating Permit Suspension FROM: 114�L The appeal filed by Bruce R. Abernethy, Jr., Esq. on behalf of Dennis Smith, Inc. was timely, being received within 15 days following the December 23, 1987 notice, in conformity with I.R.C. Code Section 25(r)(13). If on-site inspections by County staff on December 29, 1987 revealed that the violations cited in the December 23, 1987 Notice of Violation have been corrected, then the suspension need not end in revocation of the mining operating permit. (I.R.C. Code Section 25(r)(12).) The requested rescission of: suspension could be granted if: a) violations have been corrected; and b) a new $10,000 security bond has been posted. The County ordinances do not give staff the discretion to waive forfeiture of the bond posted as security for compliance with the mining site plan as approved. The forfeiture of bond is mandatory, i.e., "failure to comply with the site plan and this ordinance shall result in forfeiture of the bond ." (I.R.0—Code Section 25(r)(11).) As a bond is a requirement of the mining operating permit, a new bond must be posted to replace the forfeited bond before the suspension of the mining operating permit is lifted. I suggest that since waiving bond forfeiture is not within the discretion of County staff, you set this matter for hearing on appeal to the Board of County Commissioners as requested by Mr. Abernethy and as provided for in I.R.C. Code Section 25(r)(13). The County Commission after holding a hearing on this appeal may: a) continue the suspension; b) modify the suspension; c) revoke the operating permit; or d) reverse the decision of the County Administrator. 74 TO: Charles Balczun County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: DATE: January 11, 1988 FILE: APPEAL BY DENNIS L. SMITH OBJECT: OF MINING BOND FORFEITURE Robert M. Kea ng,/•ICP Community Development Director. FROM: Stan Boling .% ' 6, REFERENCES: smith Chief, Current Development STAN4 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 19, 1988. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Dennis L. Smith', Inc. owns and operates a sand mine located on the north side of 49th Street (Lindsey Road) approximately 500' west of 58th Avenue (King's Highway). The total site is 65 acres in area, with an approved two-phase excavation area of 36 acres. The site is zoned A -1, -Agricultural district, which allows mining operations. . Chronology of Approval On April 23, 1987, the Planning & Zoning Commission granted conditional site plan approval for the mining operation, then owned by the Indian River Corporation. On June 8, 1987, based upon the site plan approval and satisfaction of the applicable approval conditions, staff issued a mining permit for Phase I of the project. Pursuant to County zoning requirements, a $10,000.00 bond was posted to ensure performance of the mining operation as conditionally approved. The Indian River Corporation later sold the subject property and mining operation to Dennis L. Smith, Inc. In accordance with County requirements, the mining permit and conditional site plan approval was officially assigned to Dennis L. Smith, Inc. on September 3, 1987. All commitments, responsibilities, and obliga- tions relating to the mining operation were assigned. . Chronology of Violation and Notice On December 23, 1987 it was brought to staff's attention, by an owner of property near the mine, that water was being discharged off of the mining site as part of the excavation de -watering process. Staff was also told (and later confirmed) that the St. John's River Water Management District had been informed of the unpermitted discharging. Staff's immediate field investigation and telephone contact with Dennis L. Smith confirmed that water was discharged via two ditches from a retention basin on the subject site to an Indian River Farms Drainage District canal (A-9) running along the south side of 53rd Street (Kingsberry). Discharging water off-site is specifically prohibited in the approved mining application. A December 19, 1987 staff investi- gation conducted on-site with Dennis L. Smith revealed some minor discrepancies between actual operating conditions and the approved mining application regarding the location, extent, and separation of water retention areas. Staff reviewed the violation and drafted a cease and desist order. Administrator Balczun reviewed and signed the order, which was served to Dennis L. Smith on December 24, 1987. The letter issued four specific statements: JAN H 75 Boor. 70 F,,,r 635 JAIL 1. 1988 BOOK 70 FACE 636 1. that all discharging of water off-site was to cease immedi- ately; 2. that a major violation of the approved mining application had occurred; 3. that pursuant to Section 25(r)(11) of the County zoning code, the posted $10,000.00 bond was forfeited due to the vio- lation; and 4. that the mining operation was suspended until such time that: a) it came into conformance with the approved mining application, and b. a new $10,000.00 bond was posted to replace the for- feited bond. . Applicant's Response Since receiving the cease and desist order, Dennis L. Smith, Inc. has: 1. ceased all discharge off-site, 2. submitted and received approval of an administrative approval to bring into conformance the minor discrepancies regarding retention areas; 3. submitted $10,000.00 into County escrow to "replace" the $10,000.00 forfeited bond, and 4. has appealed the forfeiture of the full $10,000.00 bond. By virtue of the first three responses listed, the suspension of the mining operation has been lifted. The appeal of the $10,000.00 forfeiture is now to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES: . Forfeiture Regulations Section 25(r)(11) of the zoning ordinance establishes requirements regarding the posting and forfeiture of the $10,000.00 mining bond. The section states that: "In the event of failure to comply with the site plan and this ordinance, this shall result in forfeiture of the bond to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. The bond shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per acre, with a minimum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)". Thus, the ordinance specifies that failure to comply with the mining ordinance site plan will result in forfeiture of the bond to the Board of County Commissioners. Since there has been an admitted failure to comply with the approved site plan, th forfei- ture is required and "automatic". The purpose of the bond is to guarantee compliance. Unlike "built" development projects, with mining operations the County has no "points of control" such as building permit or certificate of occupancy issuance. Thus, the bond is the County's only mecha- nism by which zoning and site plan compliance can be guaranteed. The forfeiture regulation is the operator's incentive to comply. Dennis L. Smith, contends that forfeiture of the entire $10,000.00 bond is too punitive, and goes beyond any negative impact the violation has had. Mr. Smith also contends that there is no "corrective measures" to which the money can be applied. 76 . Extent of Violation In staff's opinion, the discharge of water off-site was a major violation of the approved application. Discharging conflicts with the mining ordinance's recommendation to have "...one hundred (100) percent recirculation of water"... (25(r)(2)a.) on site. The recirculation of water on site is needed to mitigate potential negative impacts (lowering of water table and extreme drawdown) of extensive and continuous dewatering. Effects on surrounding potable water (Lindsey Pines subdivision) and irrigation water wells were expressed concerns of staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Discharging water off-site violated the County's recirculation requirement which is meant to protect wells used by surrounding property owners. . Purpose of Forfeiture In staff's opinion, the forfeiture of the entire $10,000.00 bond is commensurate with the extent of the mining operation and with the severity of the violation. The forfeiture is properly puni- tive and instructive for the applicant (evidenced by applicant's timely and appropriate responses to the mining suspension). ALTERNATIVES: The Board of County- Commissioners may choose not to keep all of the $10,00.00 bond, returning all or a portion of it to Dennis L. Smith, Inc. The Board's decision will set a precedent and estab- lish a policy regarding the punitive nature of mining bond forfei- tures. In essence, the Board could require $0.00 to $10,000.00. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that pursuant to Section 25(r) (11) of the zoning code, the Board authorize staff to complete the bond forfeiture and that the County retain the entire $10,000.00 amount posted. Attorney Bruce Abernethy of Neill Griffin Jeffries & Lloyd, Fort Pierce, came before the Board representing Dennis L. Smith, Inc., in their appeal of the calling of the bond; the suspension already has been lifted. Attorney Abernethy noted that staff is reading the Mining Ordinance to require that the $10,000 bond, which was required to obtain the operating permit, be forfeited because of the deviation from the site plan, and he did not agree with that interpretation. The penalty set out in Section 12 states that the permit can be revoked or suspended upon due notification and upon reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency; however, in this case, the deficiency already had been corrected when Mr. Smith received notice. If they had not corrected the violation and had continued in violation of the site plan for more than 7 days, then the Ordinance states that there is a penalty of $500 per day for non compliance, and in JAN 19 1988 77 BOOK 70 F'GF 63 Pr- ietiAN.19 1988 BOOK 70 ,CF 638' . addition, the permit could be suspended. In this case, the license was suspended and Mr. Smith was required to shut down his operation. He has 25 trucks and a substantial investment in that operation, and Attorney Abernethy contended that having to shut down his operation and buy substitute fill from a third party to fulfillhis contractual obligations certainly worked a hardship and a monetary Toss. Chairman Scurlock felt the purpose of the bond is such that if the site plan or other conditions aren't met, the county has funds to make the necessary correction to the mining operation. Commissioner Bird noted that he had always felt we would need the bond if the operator walked away and left the site in a poor condition. He did not think of it as being punitive, and the Chairman also did not see the bond as a penalty. Commissioner Bird asked staff if we did follow the proper procedure once we were aware of the violation. The Administrator and County Attorney indicated that we did, and Attorney Abernethy stated that his client has no complaint with anything other than forfeiting the bond. Commissioner Bowman felt the question is how long had he been in violation before he was cited, and Commissioner Wheeler wished to know why he was in violation as he felt the operator obviously must have known better. Chairman Scurlock noted that if the violation is not corrected within the seven days, then you go to the $500 a day penalty, but the correction was made in a timely manner, and Commissioner Bird pointed out that when you shut that operation down, you are costing the operator a lot more than $500 a day and he questioned which comes first after a violation, the Cease and Desist Order or the $500 a day fine. Assistant County Attorney Collins explained the Cease and Desist Order goes out and the permit is suspended until the conditions of the site plan that have been violated are complied with. According to the ordinance, once the operation has been 78 suspended the forfeiture of the bond is automatic, and this leaves no discretion with staff which is why this matter is coming to the Board. Chairman Scurlock asked if he felt the ordinance should be rewritten, and Attorney Collins noted that it is punitive as written, but there is the right to appeal and that appeal is being made to the Board now for determination of whether the punitive quality of the $10,000 forfeiture is more than is warranted in this event. The Board still has the option of saying what is an appropriate penalty for this violation, and we would have recourse against the bond rather than having to go to court to collect damages. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would look at it that by putting up the bond, you are are saying you are going to comply with the permit, and if you don't, you forfeit the bond. Argument continued re the fact that the corrective action was taken, and the feeling that shutting down the business was a penalty. The Administrator felt the timing of the appeal process in and of itself constitutes a penalty. Discussion then ensued as to why Mr. Smith was discharging the water offsite, and Mr. Smith stated it was because they had too much water. Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that he may have had to shut down his operation earlier if he hadn't dumped the water in the canal. He stated that he had received calls from those adjoining the mining operation and also understood that St. John's River Water Management was involved. Mr. Smith confirmed that they were involved, but had no problems with it; they just said stop the water from going off site, and the problem was already corrected before staff got there. Attorney Abernethy wished to review the history of the Mining Ordinance and read from the 1974 ordinance which stated "The amount of bond shall be determined on the cost to put the JAN l9 198e 79 BOOK 70 DDE 639 PP" - JAN 1 S 1988 BOOK 70 ME 640 land in usable condition should the owner not complete his operation." He then read further statements made in the Minutes of 1974 which indicated the Board's only concern had to do with the amount of bond put up to restore the property. Commissioner Bowman believed pumping the water off site is a very serious violation because it lowers the water table and the entire neighborhood may be faced with a salt water intrusion problem as a result. Mr. Smith wished to make the point that they were not dewatering surrounding property. They have a holding area surrounding the site that they pump into that recharges the water around the perimeter of the mine. This recharge area reached capacity, and that is when the dewatering operation started. Debate continued at length as to how to penalize for the violation, the severity of the violation, whether it was a deliberate violation, whether the $10,000 bond was intended only for restoration, what is a sufficient penalty to prevent this from happening again and to keep others from doing the same, etc. Commissioner Bird continued to stress that he had always felt the bond was intended for restoration and not to be punitive. He did not know any other permits we have that are quite that punitive, but Chairman Scurlock pointed out that we have heavy fines under our tree protection ordinance. Commissioner Bird assumed this happened in a period of very heavy rainfall, and if the ground was that saturated, then they were not drawing down the water table of those next door by pumping off site. Commissioner Bowman did not believe this had anything to do with saturation. She felt it was simply a mistake of the engineer and believed he went in and redesigned the retention areas after this occurred. Director Keating confirmed that the retention area was not as designed on the site plan. 80 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to have the county retain the entire $10,000 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Bird did not believe that is the intent of the ordinance and felt it should be something less. COMMISSIONER BOWMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Bird voting in opposition. Commissioner Bowman suggested the mining ordinance be re- viewed, and Dir. Keating advised staff is working on it to make it much more specific re what the bond is to be used for, etc. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE COMP. PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS The Board reviewed memo of Planner Loeper: TO: Charles Balczun DATE: December 30, 1987 FILE: County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Robert M. K a ng, ICP SUBJECT: IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Community Develop nt Director PREPARATION PROCESS THRU: Gary M. Schindler Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Robert M. Loeper ES: • Staff Planner, Long -Ran L___JAN 19 It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of January 19, 1988. INTRODUCTION Currently, the staff is involved in plan preparation activities designed to meet the State mandated requirement of preparing a revised comprehensive plan by September 1, 198As of this time, these activities have focused primarily on ata collection and research. Now, it is necessary to address \the issue of public participation. ) Public participation is an integral part of any successful public planning initiative. Moreover, public participation in the plan preparation process is required by the State of Florida and outlined in Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 988 81 BOOK 70 FACT 641 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 uu-.642.. 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The rules mandating public participation in the comprehensive planning process and contained in section .004 of Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code are flexible enough to allow each local government to develop a public participation program consistent with its needs and with local conditions. Although flexibility exists in structuring the plan, the requirement to have a public participation program is specific in state statutes and the administrative code. Consistent with these requirements, the staff has developed a plan for public participation throughout the comprehensive plan development process. This plan will ensure participation by County residents in plan development, utilizing the technical knowledge and expertise of individuals, groups and organizations within the County. Unlike. the public participation plan previously recommended by the staff, this proposal would not involve the creation of any new committees. In fact, the basis of the proposed public participation plan would be to use the interest and expertise of existing County committees to obtain public input and to advise the Planning and Zoning Commission. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Any successful program for public participation must be clearly formulated and contain opportunities for: public education regarding the planning process; public review of planning documents; public discussion and input during plan preparation; and development of public support for plan adoption. These were objectives considered by the staff in the development of the proposed public participation program. As recommended, the public participation program is divided into phases to coincide with the timing of comprehensive plan development. The three phasesare: public information (an ongoing activity), plan development, and plan adoption. Each of these phases will involve public meetings, workshops, public hearings, and other activities. The Planning & Zoning Commission, as the_ County's designated local planning agency (LPA), has responsibility for preparing the comp plan and, as such, for public participation activities. As proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission would coordinate all comp planning activities; however, public participation activities relating to specific plan elements would be assigned to existing committees which focus on areas relating to specific plan elements. An example of this would be the Marine Advisory Committee with staff assistance coordinating review and public input for the coastal zone element. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The attached public participation plan is the second alternative to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. While the first proposal involved creation of a new set of committees, the current recommendation focuses on existing groups. Other advantages of the current proposal are that it is more detailed than the former proposal; it allows for participation of Planning and Zoning and Board of County Commission members in the process; it incorporates an on-going public information program; and it ensures public participation in the process. Although the Planning and Zoning Commission has the responsibility to prepare the. comp plan and establish a public participation program, the proposed program involves using existing committees over which the Planning and Zoning Commission has no authority. Therefore, to implement the recommended plan, the Board of County Commissioners will need to delegate responsibility for plan element preparation to those existing committees referenced in the attached public participation plan document. 82 At its meeting of December 19, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the proposed public participation and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed public participation plan and delegate plan preparation/public participation responsibility for various plan elements through the Planning and Zoning Commission to those committees identified in the public participation plan. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the public participation plan and delegated responsi- bility for the various elements to the committees identified. DRAFTED PLAN ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. REQUEST FOR REESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA Administrator Balczun reviewed his memo and that of Veterans Service Officer Vincent McCann: TO C. Vincent McCann Veterans Service Officer FROM: DATE: January 6, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES: County Administrator • C7. dministrator7 4; ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPART- MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS - STATE OF FLORIDA I have reviewed your memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners dated December 21, 1987 with respect to the above referenced matter. I have paid particularly close attention to paragraphs 1 through 6 on page 2 thereof. While I find that the efforts of numerous individuals to support the creation of a Department of Veterans Affairs are commendable, I see nothing in terms of justification that would lead me to believe that creation of another element of bureaucracy would materially assist veterans in either this county or the state. 83 BOOK 70 r cE 643 19 1988 JAN 10 1988 BOOK 70 ME. 644 This is not to be interpreted as anti -veteran under any circumstances since I believe that society at -large must make ample provisions to support veterans in return for their extraordinary contributions to the nation, often times under the most arduous and dangerous of circumstances. I would feel much more comfortable in supporting additional veterans programs but I am not comfortable with side-tracking such potential additional funds to support additional bureaucracy. You should feel free to present your proposal to the Board of County Commissioners and if you wish to do so please advise me and I will schedule it for consideration. However, I will be unable to reflect on your recommendation in the affirmative. December 21, 1987 TO: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 se FROM: C. Vincent McCann e Veterans Service Officer Indian River County SUBJECT: Resolution to Establish a Department of Veterans Affairs in the State of Florida 1: Attached for your information and use is a sample Resolution. It would be most helpful to the Veterans of our County, if Indian River County Commissioners would come out with a Resolution that would support this drive to have the Division of Veteran Affairs made a Department of Veteran Affairs BACKGROUND: Veterans Affairs in the State of Florida have been relegated to a subservient status since the need to provide services to the State's veterans was first recognized. Veterans organizations have long observed the need to elevate the status of Veterans Affairs, but until recently, the individual groups failed to unite for common causes. The Florida State Veterans Planning Group came into existance nearly two years ago. This coalition of all major veterans' groups was organized for the prime purpose of unification when pursuing legislative initiatives in Tallahassee. DATA: Veterans is the number one industry in Florida. It is a greater enter- prise than the citrus industry, bringing in excess of $3 billion annually to the State's economy. The 1.5 million veteran population is growing at the approx- imate rate of 5,400 per month. Florida is fourth Nationally in state veteran population. By the year 1990, over half the veterans are expected to be 65 years old or over, which can only compound an already overloaded VA health care system. OPPOSITION: For various reasons, attempts to create a Department of Veterans Affairs has met with sympathetic listening but unresponsive action in the legis- lature,aibeit, the margin of defeat has been slim. The excuse that the twenty- five departments authorized by law are filled is lust that, an extremely lame- excuse...bunko! It is not an insurmountable rea:: n. 814 11. THE NEED: 1: Veteran population and future growth with associated dependent's needs dictates the requirement for an autonomous entity, such as a Department, reporting directly to the Governor. 2: Without recourse, the current Division Director is subject to receive disapproval from the Secretary of Administration in matters of importance to Veterans Affairs. A separate department would abolish this condition. 3: Under the current system, the urgency of a situation, or the need for action as stated by the Division Director, can be toned down, either inten- tionally, or in ignorance on the part of the Secretary of Administration. Direct access to the Governor would assure complete and factual information. 4: Under the current structure, up to 5% of the budget approved for the Division of Veterans Affairs can be "sidetracked" to other Department projects. A separate department would cure this inequity. . 5: The Secretary of Administration cannot devote full time to Veterans Affairs. Because of the size of the industry, Veterans Affairs is a full time, top level management position. 6: Other States with far less veterans have created departments to deal with veterans' affairs. Nationally legislators are considering elevation of the Veterans Administrations to Cabinet level because of its enormity and economical impact on the country. The concept is structurally sound, and Florida needs to follow suit for many reasons. Veterans Service Officer McCann stated that basically all he is asking of the Commission is that they send a Resolution to Tallahassee confirming their support of the proposed legislation. He noted that eleven counties have supported this so far. Commissioner Bowman asked what State Division the Veterans Service Office is now a part of, and Service Officer McCann advised that it is now under the Secretary of Administration. Commissioner Bowman asked if we would create another bureaucracy and need to hire more employees or if this would be simply a transfer of a division. Mr. McCann felt it probably would require more employees. Question followed as to wording in the proposed Resolution which supports the establishment of a cabinet -levet department of Veterans Affairs, and it was noted that you can't create another cabinet level without changing the State constitution. Commissioner Eggert stated that she is supportive of the veterans, but she has a lot of problems with a whole new department and she certainly could not support a cabinet -level department. 85 JAM !9 1988 BOOK 70 P F 645 JAS?i 19 BOOK 70 FA'GE 646 The Board indicated that they are supportive of the problem being looked into and handled, but continued to express doubt that Mr. McCann could be correct that the intent was to go for cabinet -level status at this time, which they could not support. Mr. McCann stated that he would research that and come back. Salvatore J. Suma, came before the Board representing the DAV, and spoke at length of the great need for another VA' hospital on the east coast of Florida, or at least a clinic. He also spoke of the fact that the local DAV has no home, and begged the Board to support the veterans. Chairman Scurlock believed the Board has indicated they are supportive of the veterans and will table this matter until Veterans Service Officer McCann brings back further information. MONTGOMERY PROPERTY SETTLEMENT IN LIEU OF EMINENT DOMAIN Administrator Balczun reviewed the following memos: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 13, 1988 FILE: FROM: Charles P. Balczun County Administrator SUBJECT: REFERENCES: MONTGOMERY PROPERTY ACQUISITION - FINAL SETTLEMENT IN LIEU OF EMINENT DOMAIN A settlement in lieu of trial has been offered by the attorney representing the owner of certain property immediately north of the County Administration Building to be acquired by the County. On March 23, 1987 the property was deeded to the County for some $23,000 based on the value established by the County's appraiser subject to future adjustment to be determined by eminent domain proceedings. The settlement proposed an additional amount of $29,842.50 be paid by the County for settlement in lieu of eminent domain proceedings. The proposal, if accepted by the Board of County Commissioners, would bring total acquisition costs to $52,842.50. Mrs. Montgomery's appraiser valued the property at $52,000. Staff recommends acceptance of the proposed settlement inasmuch as costs resulting from eminent domain proceedings are estimated to range from -$6,500 to $8,500. We see nothing to gain from a trial in this matter. Funds are available and are budgeted for this purpose. 86 TO: Charles Balczun, County Administrator FROM: . William Collins, Assistant County Attorney THROUGH: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: January 12, 1988 SUBJECT: Proposed settlement on Health Department condemnation of Montgomery property at 1902 27th Street. Background The acquisition of this parcel was authorized by Resolution 86-82 on September 23, 1986 as part of an assemblage of land north of the County Administration Building for the purpose of constructing public health facilities. A Declaration of Taking and Petition in Eminent Domain was filed by the County on December 5, 1986. By Agreement between Mrs. Montgomery and the County, on March 23, 1987 Mrs. Montgomery deeded the property over to the County for $23,000, less amounts needed to pay off existing liens on the property. (The $23,000 was an amount the property was appraised at by Thomas Osteen on June 27, 1986. Mr. Osteen's appraisal for the County was based on residential utilization of the property.) Mrs. Montgomery reserved the right to further contest the fair market valuation made by Mr. Osteen as a condition of the quick deed over to the County. The County initiated (11/20/86) and subsequently withdrew (1/9/87) a plan amendment and zoning change to accommodate the proposed institutional health facility use. The proposed changes received a favorable recommendation from the City Planning Staff. The residential uses had been excluded from the area's general "Institutional" designation only to avoid making the existing residences non -conforming. However, City Staff felt the residences amounted to a "spot -zoning" in an institutional area, and favored the proposed change. Mrs. Montgomery's Attorney had an appraisal prepared on February 10, 1987 by Peter Armfield which valued the parcel at $52,000 based on an office use of the property. In comparing Mr. Osteen's $23,000 residential appraisal in June of 1986, and Mr. Armfield's $52,000 appraisal of February, 1987 you should be aware that a court in eminent domain proceedings will instruct the jury to value the property as of the date of the deed to the County, March 23, 1987, and to value the property at the highest and best use for which the property is reasot'tbly adaptable and needed, or likely to be needed in the near or foreseeable future. Considerations in going to Trial Should this case go to trial by jury, Mr. Osteen's appraisal of $23,000 would be inadmissible and another appraisal would be required (estimate $2,000). Mr. 87 JAIL 19 1988 BOOK 70 FA.GE 647 JAN 19 1988 BOOK 70 DU 648 Osteen's appraisal was a "check -off" type and adequate for the purpose it fulfilled, i.e. to make a good faith estimate of value for the purposes of quick taking. A court would require a narrative appraisal such as prepared by Mr. Armfield, and would instruct a jury to consider factors which Mr. Armfield included in his valuation. The property in question consists of 12,500 sq. feet of land, improved with a 612 sq. foot residence. Mr. Finney, the County's Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent, has told me that land for office use in comparable areas runs in the five to six (($5 - $6) dollar per sq. foot range. Similar sized parcels are currently on the market on 37th Street near the Hospital at $5 per sq. foot. The County could reasonably expect the fair market value of the parcel to be reduced by the cost of plan amendment and rezoning (estimate $4,000) and the cost of back taxes paid by the County as part of the quick take ($83.90). Proposed Settlement Mrs. Montgomery's attorney, Russell Peterson has offered to settle the case in exchange for the following payments from the County: To Mrs. Montgomery for the Fair Market Value of the Property: $46,000.00 To Mr. Peterson for Attorney's Fees: 5,000.00 To Mr. Peterson for Appraisal Costs Incurred: 1842.50 Settlement Amount: $52,842.50 Less Previous Payment to Mrs. Montgomery: -23,000.00 NET SETTLEMENT AMOUNT: $29,842.50 Conclusions The settlement as proposed represents a land cost of $3.68/sq.ft. Thus, it appears the property can be obtained for $16,500 less than comparable parcels available on the market today. (This is in keeping with the fact a court would value the property as of March 23, 1987, and not as of today.) The County would be liable for additional attorneys fees, (estimate $3,500 - 5,000) should the matter go to trial. Also, increased staff attorney time would be expended on this case. The County would incur additional costs for appraisal, appraiser's expert testimony, exhibit preparation and court costs (estimate $3,000 - 3,500), should the case go to trail. Recommendation Accept Mrs. Montgomery's proposed settlement. It is for $6,000 less than her appraiser's valuation. It saves additional expenses estimated at $6,500 - $8,500. 88 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted Mrs. Montgomery's proposed settlement and authorized payment of the additional amount of $29,842.50. DISCUSSION RE MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED TO LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION Attorney Vitunac wished the Board to advise him of any changes that should be made in the following list of matters to be presented to the Legislative Delegation: LIST OF ITEMS OF COUNTY CONCERN TO BE DISCUSSED BY CHARLES VITUNAC, COUNTY ATTORNEY BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AT THE LOCAL MEETING AT CITY HALL ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1988 1. Dissolutionment of Special Act which created the Town of Orchid 2. Road Improvements - State Road 60 (four -lanes) 3. Continue to push for local tax options and operating money/no referendum 4. Voice County objections to unreasonable State mandates re: County Jail 5. Medical Malpractice, General Torts 6. Library Grants 7. Health Building - State funding 8. Oppose Senate Bill 19 re: HRS not having county say so in Health Director - Take Health out of HRS and set up a new district 1) Dissolutionment of Special Act creating Town of Orchid Chairman Scurlock believed the question related to recommending dissolutionment of the Town. He noted there was some concern about whether or not we can get some comfort as to just what may or may not be happening in Orchid. JAM i 1988 89 BOCK 70 WI 649 Pr- i 411191988 BOOK 70 PAGE 65O Darrell McQueen, Engineer, of Darrell McQueen Associates, noted that he has met with each of the Commissioners and discussed his client who has a contract to purchase the land known as the Town of Orchid. He has shown each a preliminary site plan of what this client is proposing to develop. They also have met with the Utility Department re utility services. Mr. McQueen understood a lot of the Board's concern is the utility service on the North Island and also the possibility of higher densities. The Town of Orchid presently has a Land Use Plan that would allow up to 5 units per acre (upa). The plan presented has a proposed density in the Town of Orchid portion of less than half a unit per acre and the portion of property they have closed on now, the Broadview portion, is zoned at 6 upa. If you put them together, the density of that plan would be about .6 upa. He emphasized that it is to be an "up scale" development, which will minimize impact on traffic but won't do much towards generating utility fees. Chairman Scurlock commented that his understanding after meeting with the group is that the proposed purchaser does not expect to be in the utility business but would prefer the county to assist them. He asked if that is correct. Mr. McQueen stated that he can say that those he represents will be fully supportive of the county, and he submitted the following letter from Attorney Darrell Fennell, speaking for the Town of Orchid. 90 LAW OFFICES OF GOULD, COOKSEY, FENNELL, APPLEBY, BARKETT & O'NEILL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JOHN R. GOULD BYRON T. COOKSEY DARRELL FENNELL FRANK M. APPLEBY LAWRENCE A. BARKETT EUGENE J. O'NEILL * + MICHAEL J. HANLEY CHRISTOPHER H. MARINE HAND DELIVERED Mr. Darrell McQueen Vero Beach, Florida Dear Darrell: January 19, 1988 RE: Town of Orchid 979 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963 TELEPHONE 1305) 231-1100 •ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS FLORIDA ANO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA •FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER OUR FILE NO As you know, I am and have been for many years the attorney for the Town of Orchid. The purpose of this letter is to confirm to you (and by copy of this letter to the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County to also confirm to them) that the present owners of all of the land lying within the boundaries of the Town of Orchid are happy to undertake the following: 1. At such time as the present land owners commence development of the lands within the Town of Orchid which requires water and wastewater services, then said property owners and the Town of Orchid would intend to look first to Indian River County to provide these services and would enter into good faith negotiations with Indian River County to finalize such agreements as are necessary with regard to the acquisition of such services from Indian River County. 2. If at the time of such development Indian River County is not in a posture to provide water and wastewater services and facilities then, obviously, the right to obtain those services from other sources would have to be reserved. merely yours, Darrell Fennell Mr. McQueen informed the Board that his client, the Richard Roberts group, is prepared to give the Board a letter similar to the above, and he would like the Board to reconsider their vote two weeks ago and not ask the legislature to abolish the Town. Commissioner Bowman asked about the height limit in the Town. Mr. McQueen believed it is 45' and he felt that goes to the top of the building. The county's limit is 35' and goes to the average elevation of the roof. He stated there is no intention JAN 1S 1988 91 BOOK 70 FSE 651 Pr - JAR JAR 1 198 BOOK 70 PACE 652 of having tall buildings - only single family "up scaler' development, fairly expensive, around a golf course and beach club, tennis club, etc. Chairman Scurlock stated that his feeling at this point is that it is premature to move ahead until we get additional information not only from the Town, but also the proposed purchaser as they have been willing to come in in a good faith effort to plan for the future. He did not believe we should completely abandon our concern because people come and go., but he did feel a short period for a breather to talk with hand would be appropriate. Commissioner Eggert noted that our legislators them first - have commented that nothing has changed from last year, and so there is nothing to hang our hats on. Commissioner Bowman reported that she had asked the group why they would be opposed to the Town being dissolved, and they said that it is a good marketing ploy to have their own town. Commissioner Wheeler further noted that once they build the first units and move in, then they will have citizens who will police the density themselves. He believed the type of people who would want to live there would prefer low density. Chairman Scurlock also believed there are many opportunities for the county to intervene if the right kind of development is not taking place since there are many permits involved. Mr. McQueen advised that he has discussed with staff the possibility of a joint review of this plan with the town and the county. The Broadview parcel is in the county; so, the county will be in on the review process. He did not anticipate the county having any problems with the project. William Koolage,.26th Ave., felt the step taken at the previous meeting asking for the dissolutionment of Orchid was proper, and he felt strongly that it is wrong to let that town continue as a viable body because he does not trust any developer in any way, especially when they have total control. 92 Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the delegation gave us less than a receptive ear last time we approached them re di s1ncorporation. Mr. Koolage noted that the Board was expressing the will of the people, and he has a problem with an elected representative not following the will of the people. He continued to express his feeling that the Town should be dissolved. Commissioner Eggert asked if Orchid's Comprehensive Plan has been approved, and Mr. McQueen advised that it has been submitted to the state, but he was not sure that it has been finally approved. Mike Dailey came before the Board representing North Beach Water Company. He wished to state for the record that they have sent a letter to the Town of Orchid saying that they are ready, willing and able to serve that Town and, in addition, are negotiating with the county to sell that utility. He felt this will answer the Town's concerns for utility service whether it be by North Beach or the county. Chairman Scurlock wished to note for the record that North Beach has still failed to provide a plan for Summerplace, which is in their existing franchise area, and they have served outside their franchise area. Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to move that this item be removed from the agenda of matters to be presented to the legislative delegation. Commissioner Eggert questioned whether it should be removed with no comment made at all, and Chairman Scurlock felt we should at least appear and express our concerns for this very significant part of our barrier island. We appear to have a wonderful group who seem to be legitimate, but he still felt we should express the concern we have until this is actually built. Commissioner Bird did not have any problem with that but just did not want to go to the delegation and argue to disenfranchise the town. 93 ,JAIL 191988 BOOK 70 F[ 653 Pr— JAN 1 `998 BOOK 70 P F 654 Commissioner Wheeler supported expressing concern also. He felt is prudent to have a good relationship with the developers of the town, and further noted that last year, we got absolutely no place with the delegation anyway. He also believed that high rises and condos are not selling this county. High class development seems to be what does sell. He was willing to voice concern and continue to work with the developers. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to change Item 1 to discus- sion of our concerns about the Town of Orchid, not ask for dissolutionment. Commissioner Bowman asked what we are asking the legislators to do, and Chairman Scurlock stated we would just express our concerns and suggest that the first time the developer moves in a negative fashion, we would ask them to reconsider dissolution- ment. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 6) Re Library Grants, Commissioner Eggert advised that we are going after them for the North County, but she didn't see any way we can bring South County in for this budget year. There is one in each budget and we want them to be aware of both. 8) Attorney Vitunac asked Commissioner Eggert if she still wanted to oppose Senate Bill 19, and Commissioner Eggert stated that she did because it just says "consult" and we wanted more than that. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Commissioner Bowman reviewed the following report: 94 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS January 13, 1988 MEETING 1. Request for Improvements to 21st Street The Committee concurred with staff recommendations to encourage the FDOT to program road widening and drainage improvements to 21st Street (SR -60) between US -1 and Indian River Boulevard as requested by John Schlitt, Jr. 2. Street Light Requests, 4th Quarter 1987 The Committee concurred with the staff recommendation not to fund street lighting requested for the intersections of US-1/1st Street and CR-510/66th Avenue due to insufficient need based upon the adopted street lighting policy. 3. Request from School Board to Plan for Proposed Road at Potential North County High School Site Inasmuch as the School Board has not definitely decided on the Eshleman -Brown site for the North County High School, the Committee tabled discussion on the request. 4. Locations Sought for FDOT Safety Improvements The FDOT has asked for help in locating any sections of roadway wherepavement markings or reflectors have faded or are missing, or unlighted roads where these safety devices are needed. The Committee members were directed to contact Jim Davis if they know of any such locations. NORTH COUNTY FIRE The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board of County Commissioners would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District. DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD Agreement with the City of Vero Beach re Utility Service Area (Ryanwood), having been fully executed and received, is hereby made a part of the record as approved at the Regular Meeting of January 12, 1988. JAfi 19 1988 95 BOOK 70 FACE 655 r JAN 19 19RB BOOK AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND CITY OF VERO BEACH RE: UTILITY SERVICE AREA THIS AGREEMENT made this 2114 day of t 1988, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960 ("County") and CITY OF VERO BEACH, a municipal corporation, whose address is Post Office Box 1389, Vero Beach, FL 32961 ("City"); W I T N E S S ETH : • WHEREAS, the City and the County are in the process of constructing precise boundary maps which will delineate the respective water and sewer utility service territories of the City and the County; WHEREAS, until the engineering is done on the final maps certain interim agreements need to be made so that present construction will not be made redundant by the final delineation; and WHEREAS, the County and. City have determined that a certain rectangular service area should be transferred from County service area to City service area, and this needs to be done as soon as possible: NOW, THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES AND OTHER GOOD AND -VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: That all that property shown on Exhibit "A" within the outlined area and described more particularly as follows: 70 mi. 656 All of Tracts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8; Tract 4 LESS the West 20 Acres thereof; Tract 5 LESS that portion lying in Ryanwood Shopping Center Subdivision, according to the plat recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 26 of the Public Records of Indian River County, all in Section 4, Township 33 South, Range'39 East. ALSO Tracts 14 and 15 in Section 33, Township 32 South, Range 39 East. Lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. all be transferred from the County service area to the City service area for the provision of water and sewer. 96 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the City have caused these presents to be executed in their names the day and year first above written. Attest INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA �� i '.; By Uon—C. Scurlock, FredaWri to er Chairman Board of County ommissioners a N M m -1 RYANWOOD SHOPPING CENTER SUB wI5I AVENUE A if PARKWAY V' I UNIT 2 AVENUE 54T4 rn AVENUE m VILLA' RAM EUCALYPTUS 01 • - 53RD — pj UNIT 1 --I I 711 mI I Al AVENUE PLACE Wesr N I al a m 444 AI a AVENUE 53r —4 D AVENUE al of mt N•I m a DGERATOai .t JWNz�' - N M SUB N W A n 2nd AVENUE N a A Y -I N a A a a OAK GROVE PARK MANOR SUB. •A ALBRECHT -I ORANGE GROVE, NE EX ECUTIVE UNIT 2 17TN i•4Nll. MANOR UNIT REDSTONE 47TH N in rat2 TERRACE SUB. PAP WAY \\ \\ -\ -- .----AYCNUE Pm O 0 0 Nr MANOR AVENUE I I ESTATES r 0 T1 N rA yi U) 1 m HEALTHLAr 44TH -4 N al -I m O 1$ m S►& R 0 Y A a a1 .1Im e N tp 49th AVENUE A I L M .1 pl a1+ to N 0 0 44, •1 al alNl a a 0 0 = 4711i AVENUE N N - ' •�5 ' CITY LIMITS — EXHIBIT `°1 na nIo I �o t NI N t AVENUE 1 % - t • t�tr. 1N t3' 97 jAN191988 4 • BOOK. 7Q 'Pr{GE657 r JAN 1S 1988 BOOK 70 PACE 658 There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:20 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk Chairman 98 •