HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/1989Tuesday, June 27, 1989
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,
June 27, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C.
Wheeler, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present
were James E. Chandler, 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, and Commissioner
Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Chandler requested that discussion of our
budget schedule be added under his matters as 8B.
Commissioner Bowman asked that a Resolution pertaining to
the Tri -County Council be added under her matters.
Chairman Wheeler requested the addition under his matters of
a Resolution pertaining to the Supreme Court decision regarding
the burning of the Flag.
Commissioner Scurlock believed there has been a request to
withdraw Item 7A (2) - Request to Close 16th Street at 58th Ave.,
and this was confirmed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously removed and
added items to the Agenda as requested above.
�JJ-
BOOK I �'�,;E •� •gi n
11 ;
r1
JUN 2 � 1989BOOK ��°'1� F.a �t
140
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Appraisal for North County Sewer Project - Budg. Amend. #086
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 21, 1989
SUBJECT: APPRAISAL FOR NORTH
COUNTY SEWER PROJECT
BUDGET AMENDMENT 086
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird *
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
To obtain financing for the North County Sewer Project, the county has
had to obtain appraisals for a few parcels of land involved in the
project. Raymond, James and Associates on the county's behalf
contracted with KPMG Peat Marwick to obtain several appraisals of
which the cost was $3,658.50. In order to enhance the financing of
the project there probably will need to be more appraisals done.
Staff would like to pay Raymond James
owed and obtain permission to expend up
appraisals.
FUNDING
and Associates the $3,658.50
to an additional $10,000 for
The appraisal costs be paid from Utility Operating account 471-218-
536-033.19 until we obtain. financing and then the expense be
reimbursed as part of the issuance costs if there is adequate funds.
The Board of County Commissioners approve the payment of appraisals
cost up to $13,659.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #086 authorizing payment of
appraisal costs up to $13,659.
2
go
TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
of County Commissioners
NUMBER: 086
FROM: Joseph A. Baird DATE: June 20-, 1989
OMB Director
Entry
Number
nds De artment Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
Time
$
20,436
Lifeguard
UTILITIES -SEWER/
Other Professional Services
417-218-536-033.19
$13.659.00
S 0
Lifeguard
Full
Time
$
15,664
Lifeguard
REVENUE
Time
$
16,448
Lifeguard
UTILITIES -GENERAL/
Cash Forward -Se tember 30
471-235-536-099.92
0
3 659.00
Recreational Supervisor
Full
Time
$
19,286
B. Recreation Department Reorganization
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 21, 1989
SUBJECT: RECREATION DEPARTMENT
REORGANIZATION
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
There has been confusion over the number of full-time and part-time
employees in the General Fund/Recreation budget. The Recreation
Department met with the previous personnel director and he agreed to
changing several part-time lifeguard positions to full-time. Even
though the change was agreed upon, personnel's records were never
changed and there was no official action taken.
The change would amount to only a $4,000.00 increase in the budget
inclusive of benefit costs; however, there would be no actual dollar
increase required in the current year because of vacant lifeguard
.positions. Below is the proposed General Fund Recreation positions
list:
Administrative Secretary
Full
Time
$
15,420
Lifeguard - Captain
Full
Time
$
20,436
Lifeguard
Full
Time
$
15,664
Lifeguard
Full
Time
$
15,664
Lifeguard
Full
Time
$
16,448
Lifeguard
Full
Time,
$
16,448
Recreational Supervisor
Full
Time
$
19,286
Lifeguard
Part
Time
$
31915
Lifeguard
Part
Time
S 3,915
$127,196
JUN 2 7199
3 BOOK �7 F',,�E141
JUN. 27 1999
BOOK 77 PA.JE 142
Please note that the reorganization does not give any salary raises,
it simply converts numerous part-time positions to a few full-time
positions. In light of the problem of recruiting qualified, competent
and reliable lifeguards, the county staff feels the change is in our
best interest.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
reorganization in Recreation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
reorganization in Recreation as set out above.
C. Release of Easement (Koehler Trustee - Bent Pine Subdv.)
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD. CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keati g, 4WP
Community Developmehe Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois-71MD
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. HeathG.eis/
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: June 7, 1989
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY:
PAUL E. KOEHLER (TRUSTEE)
1815 28th AVENUE
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
RE: KOEHLER MEMO
DISK. REMS
It is requested that the data
eration by the Board of County
meeting of June 27, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
herein be given formal consid-
Commissioners at their regular
The County has been petitioned by Paul E. Koehler, trustee of
the subject property, for the release of the common side lot ten
(10) foot -utility easements of Lot 15, Bent Pine Subdivision
Unit: 3, and the Replat of Bent Pine Subdivision Unit 3&4 (Unit
3), Lot 14, being the northerly ten (10) feet of Lot 15, Bent
Pine Subdivision, and the southerly ten (10) feet of Lot 14,
Replat of Bent Pine Subdivision Unit 3&4(Unit 3), Section 15,
0
4
Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County Florida;
according to the plats thereof as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page
80, and Plat Book 11, Page 9A, Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida. It is Mr. Koehler's intention to construct a
single-family dwelling on these two (2) lots.
The current zoning classification is RM -4, Multi -Family Residen-
tial District. The land use designation is LD -2, Low Density
Residential, up to four (4) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Compa-
ny, Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Cablevision Corpo-
ration, and the Indian River County Utility, Road & Bridge, and
Public Works Departments. Based upon their review, the Public
Works Director requested that an existing drainage pipe be
relocated, and construction drawings submitted depicting ele-
vations and placement. The petitioner has so complied, and the
drawings were approved by the Public Works Director. Therefore
staff analysis shows that with the relocation of the drainage
piping, stormwater runoff would be adequately handled.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution,
the release of the northerly ten (10) feet of Lot 15, Bent Pine
Subdivision Unit 3, and the southerly ten (10) feet of Lot 14,
the Replat of Bent Pine Subdivision Unit 3 & 4 (Unit 3), as
recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 80, and Plat Book 11, Page 9A, of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-63 releasing the common side lot 10'
utility easements of Lot 15, Unit 3, and Lot 14,
Unit 3 & 4, Bent Pine Subdivision, as requested by
Paul Koehler, Trustee.
RESOLUTION.#89-63 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
JUN 2 7 1989tj
5 BOOK 0 F,1IJE 14'
JUN 2 7 1989
BOOK
D. Assessment for Abatement of Public Nuisance - Cain
T1 FAGS 4
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M.teat' g, AXP
Community Developme t Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois�lb
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. Heathe.".�/'
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: June 7, 1989
SUBJECT: Dempsey C. & Joycelyn Cain, Jr. Public Nuisance
Assessment for Abatement of Nuisance
RE: CV -89-06-230
It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of
June 27, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On March 27, 1989, Code Enforcement staff sent a Notice of Public
Nuisance to Dempsey C. & Joycelyn A. Cain, Jr., concerning the
overgrown weeds. and accumulation of household trash, discarded
lawnmower parts, metal, and debris on their property at Lots 9 &
10, Block 1, Florida Ridge Subdivision. The respondents were
cited as maintaining their property in violation of Section
13-18(b)(1) of the County Code, which prohibits the accumulation
of junk, trash, and debris on any parcel of property.
The subject property was also posted as set forth in Section 13-23
of the County Code, giving the respondents thirty (30) days to
abate the nuisance.
The junk, trash, and debris nuisance was not abated within the
required thirty (30) day time period. Therefore, in accordance
with Section 13-19(b), County Code, County Personnel (ie: Road &
Bridge Division) cleared the accumulation of junk, trash and
debris, with costs to be assessed against the property owners.
Section 13-21 of the. County Code requires that the cost of a
County nuisance abatement shall be calculated and reported to the
County Commissioners, who, by resolution, shall assess such costs
against the subject property. This matter is presented herein to
the Board for consideration to adopt said resolution.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Section 13-21(a), Public Nuisances, of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County specifically reads as follows:
6
"After abatement of nuisance by the county, the cost thereof
to the county as to each lot, parcel or tract of land shall
be calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissio-
ners. Thereupon, the Board of County Commissioners, by
resolution, shall assess such costs against such lot, parcel,
or tract of land. Such resolution shall describe the land
and state the cost of abatement, which shall include an
administrative cost of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per lot.
Such assessment shall be a legal, valid, binding obligation
upon the property against which made until paid. The
assessment shall be due and payable thirty (30) days after
the mailing of notice of assessment after which interest
shall accrue at the rate of twelve (12) per cent per annum on
any unpaid portion thereof."
Cost for equipment use and labor, as indicated by the Road &
Bridge Division, plus the $75.00 administrative cost, calculates
to be:
Labor: $112.64
Equipment: 101.00
Landfill: 64.19
Administrative Fee: 75.00
352.83
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed resolution assessing $352.83 in abatement costs, in
accordance with Section 13-21(a), of the Indian River County Code
of Laws and Ordinances.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-64 assessing $352.83 in abatement
costs on Lots 9 & 10, Block 1, Florida Ridge Sub-
division owned by Dempsey & Joycelyn Cain, Jr.
RESOLUTION #89-64 ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
E. Bid 89-60 - Golf Course Equipment (Turf Vacuum & Gang Mower)
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Mascola:
7
U
you 11 F,nE146
DATE: JUNE 14, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SPRVICES
FROM: DOMINICK L. MASCOLA,/MANAGER
DIVISION OF PURCHASING
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID -89-60 - GOLF COURSE EQUIPMENT
BACKGROUND:
The subject bid for Golf Course Equipment was properly advertised and
eight (8) invitations to bid were sent out. On May 17, 1989, bids were
received. Five (5) vendors submitted proposals for the commodities.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Neff Machinery was the low bidder to meet all
requirements on the Five Gang Mower. Neff Machinery was also the
responsible bidder to meet specifications for Turf Vacuum.
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from account number
418-221-572-066.49. Total budget funds is $19,516.00. Additional funds.
of $20.00 will be augmented into the budget account.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the award of a fixed contract for $6,020.00 and
$13,516.00 to the low bidder, Neff Machinery for both the Turf Vacuum
and the Five Gang Mower.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid 89-60 for the Turf Vacuum and the.Five Gang
Mower to the low bidder, Neff Machinery, in the
amounts of $6,020 and $13,516 respectively per the
r�� follow.ing Bid Tabulation:
F. Bid 89-64 - Shatter Core Aerifier
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Mascola:
DATE: JUNE 14, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL Sj�VICES.
FROM: DOMINICK L. MASCOLA, /MANAGER
DIVISION OF PURCHASING
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID 89-64 - SHATTER CORE
BACKGROUND:
The subject bid for Shatter Core was properly advertised and six (6)
invitations to bid were sent out. On May 31, 1989, bids were received.
Two -( vendors submitted proposals for the commodity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Neff Machinery was the low bidder and met all
requirements.
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from
418-221-572-066.49. Total budget funds is $2,600.00.
of $9.00 will be augmented into the budget account.
JUN 2 `l 1989 9
account number
Additional funds
BOOK , ( 7 F,1I,E 14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IBWoa3thS&94VOW 80ch.FMyi&=80
Gatea= 15, 1984
PURCHASING DEPT.
•aw, 43M U74000
�P
� ' :. �
BID TABULATION
Submitted By Dominick L Mascofa r
PURCHASING MANAGER
a�
#
Recommended Award NSF MACHINERY Q; 6.020.00 VACUOM.
FOR TURF VACUUM & FIVE GANG MOWER WW
Bid No. Date Of Opening MAY 17. 198
IRC 089-60 MAY 17. 1989
id Title
EQUIPMENT
—
TURF Vogum
1. UMMS EQUIPMEST CO.
$6.000.00 (DID NOT WISR TO TARE TIME TO" DEMONST$� 1t�iT
2. NEFF MACHnMRx
& TSEIR BID WAS DISALLOWED AS NON..RESB`
$6.020.00
3. De BRA TMW
$7.800.00
4. PIFER. INC
$8,500.00
S. HECTOR TURF
$11.500.00
i
FIVE S
GANG
,
1. NEFF MACHINERY
2. PIFER
$13,860.00
i
3. LEWIs EQUIPMENT
$15.763.00.
4. De BRA TURF
$16.733.00
{
S. HECTOR TURF
$
F. Bid 89-64 - Shatter Core Aerifier
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Mascola:
DATE: JUNE 14, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL Sj�VICES.
FROM: DOMINICK L. MASCOLA, /MANAGER
DIVISION OF PURCHASING
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID 89-64 - SHATTER CORE
BACKGROUND:
The subject bid for Shatter Core was properly advertised and six (6)
invitations to bid were sent out. On May 31, 1989, bids were received.
Two -( vendors submitted proposals for the commodity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Neff Machinery was the low bidder and met all
requirements.
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from
418-221-572-066.49. Total budget funds is $2,600.00.
of $9.00 will be augmented into the budget account.
JUN 2 `l 1989 9
account number
Additional funds
BOOK , ( 7 F,1I,E 14
1989 BOOK 77 F,,IJE 148
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the award of a fixed contract for $2,609.00 to the low
bidder, Neff Machinery, for the subject commodity.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid 89-64 for Shatter Core Aerifier to the low bidder
Neff Machine 7 in the amount.of $2,609 as recommended
by staff and per the following Bid Tabulation:
BOAhD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1810 258h Street• Yae Beach. FIG?& a 52880'
' P
TW....t 170f1 YTi000 0 {. ,5. eMee TN�.wrs 91a.t0/1
Ree01,11.0 d Award 1UNT MAe9 �IORID)'
' $ 2;609.00
PURCHASING DEPT..
BID TABULATION
Dates JANE 14. 1 +
Submitted By Don*dclt L Mascala
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No."9—" Date Of Ope•anq 1
MAY 31. 1989
Sid Title
HHATnm CORE
1. NEFF MAC82EERY $2.609.00 f
t
2, ISM ZOUIPMENT A) $3,200.00
8) $3,500.00 I
D
G. Security and Fire Alarm Systems Contracts
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean:
DATE: JUNE 13, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: SECURITY AND FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS CONTRACTS
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to organize all the contracts for maintenance and
monitoring of the Security and Fire Alarm Systems in, the various County
buildings, it is necessary to standardize with one local company under
one contract. At the time, each existing contract had a different
expiration date and was confusing when trying to update or renew a
contract. The fire alarm monitoring contract for our County
Administration Building expired on June 11, 1989 and immediate action
was required to continue uninterrupted service.
10
•
ANALYSIS:
We now have security and fire alarm contracts on the Administration
Building, - Purchasing Warehouse, Courthouse, and Sandridge Golf Club
buildings, that will expire on August 31, 1989, at a total cost of
$2,200. Prior to that date, we will negotiate a contract for services
on an annual .basis with an option for renewal. This contract will be
brought back for Board approval.
FUNDING:
Funds are encumbered in the applicable budgets for these monies and will
not require a budget amendment.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board authorize their Chairman to execute the
pending contracts.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the pending contracts for
monitoring of Security and Fire Alarm Systems as
described above.
COPIES OF SAID CONTRACTS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
6TH AVE. & 8TH ST. GRAVITY SEWER PUMPING STATION & FORCE MAIN -
(ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION #3)
The hour of 9:05 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached,
to -wit:
JUN 271999 11 Boor 7
Qum 2 et Ii
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Dafly
Vero Beach, Indian River Codnty, 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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that,the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of n_�Q�v
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of "�-"•�e _ �, 1 (0 ( �
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.
-•�-� ^`�.�;�-.� mac- C�
Sworn to and subscribed before me this\ day of f` f A.D. 19 �—
(SEAL)
Ptotary Public, Stato of Florida
BOOK 77
NOTICE
The So" of County Comrelsssimers of Indian;
River County, Rorlda, hereby Provides notice of,
a Public Hearing scheduled for M A.M. � on'
Tuesday, June 27;1989. to discuss a proposed
resolutionrelating to a special assessment pro}
Vin Indian River County for the .lnstaliation of
a sewer cotlection along the west side of
Sixth Avenue from Eighth Street to u *11. -: % -
Anyone who may wish to appeal any gaclslod
which may be' made at this meeting wi8 need to
ensure that a verbatimrecord of pie Proceed-
ings is made, which Includes testimony #nd e,W
dance upon which the appeal is based.', : °
June 9,16,1989
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following memo:
DATE: JUNE 16, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL VICES
PREPARED AND
STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. MCCA
PROJECT ENGINEE
DEPARTMENT OF UT SERVICES
SUBJECT: 6TH AVENUE AND
8TH
MAINSTREET
RESOLUTIONSEWER
THREEPUMPING
STATION AND FORCE
(ASSESSMENT)
IRC PROJECT NO: US -88 -08 -CCS
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 1989,
Resolution No. One
We now wish to have
on June 27, 1989.
the Board of County Commissioners approved
and Two for the Sixth Avenue Assessment Project.
Resolution No. Three approved by Public Hearing
12
ANALYSIS:
Letters announcing the Informational Meeting at 7:00 P.M., on
Wednesday, June 21, 1989, and the Public Hearing on June 27, 1989,
were mailed out via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, on
June 16, 1989. All advertisements for the hearing have been placed
in the local newspaper.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends the Board of County
Commissioners approve the signing of Resolution No. Three and
proceed with all action necessitated by its execution.
County Attorney Vitunac clarified that this is the third
Resolution on this project, and this hearing provides a chance
for anyone to contest the assessment or the validity of the whole
process.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-65 confirming special assessments re
installation of sewer system on 6th Ave. from 8th
St. to U.S.1.
RESOLUTION 89-65 WITH ATTACHED ASSESSMENT ROLL ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
SITE PLAN & SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR USED CAR DEALERSHIP 6
OFFICE FACILITY (JOHN TANASE)
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:
, 3
JUN71989 Bou 77 r,,,1151
j u w
VERO BEACH PRESS-JOU10MAL
Published Daily j
I
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida j
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
• Beforb the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says thrt he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County,"Florida; that.the attached copy of advertisement, being
a ..
in the matter of
1 in the Court, was pub-
lashed in said newspaper in the issues of
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 pl;blished 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 Iurther says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund fort a purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _1 — day of /%%.� A.D. 19
(SEAL)
1 r"ndiartftiverCDUrtt}i-FtoTfUaj—
a 1 1 1 r OSLO ROAD
XXX X �C
`.
N SUBJECT SITE
�fy CF
NP — %
'12rM 5T. e• 5•
UNIT M 41 I r
T
D
RS= -6— I,P .L
1 TN ST.
K
1ltN FL. {TI
14
BooK 77 Fe y 152
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN
Notice of hearing to consider the qq ''of
special exception approval fora seed desk
ership. The subject progeny Is presen bwned
by Jahn C Tenses The subject pproperty fa fjing
betwen U.S. Hlghwey.1 errd FEC at 1205
South U.S. Highway 1:. The 'subject prdperty
contains approxi 2.43 acres and is lying M
the NW '/4 of Section qjowrTNp,33!S.Ranlp
`
40A public hearing et which parliis iri'6nerest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Coro-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida in the
Countjr Commia�on Chambers of the County
Admin stradon Building, located 'at 1840 25th
Street. Vero BeachFlorida, on.Tues . June,
27.1989 at 9:05 ZZ . •, .
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this m will need to
errau that a verbatim record or the proceed.
Ings is madewhichIncludes the testimony and
evidenceonwhich the INDIAN RIVER COUNTeY , be based
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s -Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
June 7. 1989 .
RM -4
RD -
,y
121
RIVER SHF
F
r
ti.
Chief Planner Stan Boling made the staff presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Reati g, A P
Community Developmen 4Diirector
THROUGH: Stan Boling �Icp
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoy /N
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: JOHN TANASE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION
APPROVAL FOR A USED CAR DEALERSHIP AND OFFICE FACILITY
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 27, 1989.
`- nFcr_RiPTiON AND CONDITIONS:
Carter and Associates has submitted a request for major site plan
` and special exception use approval .for a used auto sales and
professional office building. The 9,102 square foot office
building will be located at U.S. Highway #1, directly across from
the River Shores subdivision. The site plan also references a
future motel phase which will be submitted for site plan approval
at a later date.
A 1,200 square foot portion of the building will serve as a used
car sales office with accessory outdoor display area. Used car
sales are considered a special exception use in the CG zoning
district= thus, special exception approval is required for this
use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards neces-
sary to assure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
At the two Planning and Zoning Commission meetings (April 27th and
May 25th) at which this --request was discussed, there were concerns
raised as to how the office and used car sales uses would be
separated on the subject site. The applicant has prepared a
revised design which separates the office building traffic from
the used car sales area and which also relocates the office
entrance of the used car dealership to the south side of the
building. Thus, the redesigned plan separates the two uses. At
its May 25, 1989 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously recommended approval of the revised plan, and the
special exception use for the used car sales, subject to the
condition outlined at the end of this report.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Development Area: 1.4 acres
2. Zoning Classification: CG General Commercial
3. Land Use Designation:
MXD (Mixed Use District)
iJUN 2 7 c� 15 BOOK,
Jo
- - - Door 77 rA..GF13
4. Building Area: 9,120 square feet
5. Total Impervious Area: 43,562 square feet
6. Open Space Required: 20%
Provided: 28%
7. Traffic Circulation: The project will utilize a 24' wide
driveway connection to U.S. Highway #1. The driveway will
align with the U.S. #1 median cut for 12th Street S.E.
Marginal access along U.S. #1 (easement and driveway) is
.being provided to the adjacent phase (north) and the adjacent
commercial site (south). Separate parking areas are designed
for the office and used car sales uses.
8. Off -Street Parking Required: 44 spaces
Provided: 48 spaces
9. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has
been approved by the Public Works Department, and a Type "A"
stormwater permit has been issued.
10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with
Ordinance #84-47.
11. The project will utilize County water and an on site septic
system. These utility provisions have been approved by the
respective agencies.
12. Dedications and Improvements: The developer will be required
to provide a marginal access easement along the project's
U.S. Highway #1 frontage. The marginal access drive will
connect to the existing retail stores' parking area located
immediately to the south of the subject site.
13. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Vacant/CG
South: Retail Stores/CG
East: River Shores subdivision/CL;RS-6
West: FEC RR/NA
14. Criteria for used vehicle sales:
1. No such establishment shall be permitted on a lot of
record having less than ten thousand (10,000) square
feet in a CG District or fifteen thousand (15,000)
square feet in a CH District.
2. All vehicular sales and off-street parking areas shall
have paved surfaces which meet the standards of Section
24 (f) (1) or (2) .
3. No vehicular sales area or structure shall be located
closer than twenty-five (25) feet to any property line.
4. The site shall provide for separation of vehicular sales
areas and off-street parking areas.
5. All designated sales areas shall provide for a minimum
of three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle. Drives
and maneuvering areas shall be designed to permit
convenient on-site maneuvering of the vehicles.
There have been some differing interpretations among staff as
to how the special exception criteria are actually to be
applied. It is the opinion of the Assistant County Attorney
that this application does not specifically meet .all of the
16
special exception criteria. Yet, the Planning staff feels
this application is in keeping with the intent of the special
exception criteria.
The specific criterion in question is #3. Planning staff
feels that the intent of this criterion is to separate and
buffer the used car dealership from uses on adjacent property
and road right-of-way, but not as a setback from the railroad
right-of-way Yet, the railroad right-of-way line is A
property line, and the criterion reads "any property line".
The applicant is seeking approval of the plan with the
current design and will follow-up with an amendment to the
zoning text, which will permit the used car sales facility as
currently designed. The applicant is designating the used
car dealership as a separate phase, which will allow for
construction of the professional office building while the
ordinance amendment is being reviewed and considered.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends the Board of
County Commissioners approve the used car sales special exception
use with the following condition:
1. That the special exception use approval for the used car
sales portion of the project be contingent upon the special
exception criteria being amended by the Board of County
Commissioners, to allow the present design.
Commissioner Bowman asked about the setback from the FEC
property, and Planner Boling stated that it is zero setback.
Commissioner Bowman was surprised that they are talking
about eventually putting a motel so close to the railroad tracks.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Dean Luethie of Carter Associates came before the Board
representing the owner, John Tanase. He noted that the P&Z
Commission has recommended approval of the proposed ordinance
amendment. He agreed with staff's comments and hoped the Board
would grant this Special Exception contingent on the clarifica-
tion of the ordinance.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the car
sales special exception use with the condition recom-
mended by staff
and set out
in memo dated June
5, 1989.
i USE 2 8
989
17
Bou
8 �/ Fr?UC 15
OW �r'�?
EOOR 77
NORTH JUNGLE TRAIL MAINTENANCE MAP
Assistant County Attorney Collins reviewed the following
with attached newspaper clipping from July 1978 which references
workmen clearing R/W for the "county road" northward from the
Wabasso Bridge:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: W4.- William G. Collins 11 - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: June 20, 1989
SUBJECT: North Jungle Trail Maintenance Map
At the direction of the Board, the County Surveyor has
prepared a survey of Jungle Trail from C.R. 510 to A1A, the
portion of Jungle Trail commonly referred to as "North
Jungle Trail". The survey depicts a baseline with
measurements to either side of the maintained trail at
100 -foot intervals. The maintained right-of-way varies
generally between 16 and 21 feet, although it narrows below
that 16 -foot dimension occasionally (see Stations 348-350 on
Sheet 9 where the road narrows to 14/15 feet), and at one
point the road is only 10 feet wide (see Station 303 on
Sheet 7). The filing of a maintenance map duly certified by
the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners reciting on it that the road has vested in the
County by virtue of its construction by a County and the
fact It has been maintained or repaired continuously and
uninterruptedly for four years by the County constitutes
prima facie evidence of ownership of the land by the County,
and the road Is deemed dedicated to the public to the extent
and width that has been actually maintained for four years.
In the event the County subsequently determines to realign
and/or close a portion of Jungle Trail pursuant to the
criteria set out in the Jungle Trail Management Plan, such
closing of Jungle Trail should be legally described by
reference to this baseline survey of the maintenance map.
That is, the applicant for closure or realignment of the
trail should utilize the baseline survey to determine at
what station the realignment departs :.from the existing
alignment, and at what station it returns, plus or minus the
exact number of feet from any station.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board authorize the Chairman, by his signature or
the maintenance map, to certify that the road shown thereon,
North Jungle Trail, was constructed by the County and has
been maintained or repaired continuously and uninterruptedly
for four years by the County, and that the road shall be
deemed dedicated to the public to the extent and width that
has been actually maintained for four years, and that the
road has vested in the County by means of intenance
map provisions of Florida Statute 95.361(1):nd=RivtrCM Approved
Admin.
Legal W6,C 6_
Bud9el _
D, o I. p,� 6,
18 Risk mgr. _
Date
RED_ , �,
9-�7-7A
30 Yecrs'AgoIL
AF
n
LJ
1948 — The freakish hurricane that boiled out of the
Caribbean last Tuesday and swept across the state
t
�®n 6l
from a point near Everglades on the West Coast to
Jensen Beach brought hurricane winds to the Indian
River County area Wednesday afternoon. Highest
M Is mb8%
rsustained
wind velocity Wednesday afternoon between
3:30 and 6 p.m., as reported at the Civil Aeronautics
li• �d
Administration station at the Vero Beach airport, was
SS miles per hour. The checkup at 4:30 and S:30 showed
50 -Years Ago
gusts between -70 and 80 miles per hour from the north -
=e.'•• /� '�'�
northwest.
Members of the Miracle bale Association Monday
1928 —A quarter mile of highway, extending west
noon voted to accept the low bid covering installation of
sidewalks as submitted by Alfred F. Fletcher, to em -
from Dixie Highway a short distance south of Wabasso,
Is being built by the county road department as an
brace the area between the Florida East Coast Railway
experiment in road construction new to this part of the
company tracks and 11th Avenue.
0 Years Ago,,
state. The method being pursued has been in use with
9 ,,
very satisfactory results in California and other Pacific
1968 — The • storage building for Indian River
coast states in building secondary highways.
Memorial Hospital is 70 percent completed and should
. Very interesting results were obtained from the
be ready for use by Nov. 15, .rustees were told at this
field corn growing experiment conducted on a 40 -acre
month's board meeting by Roland Miller, trustee in
tract of land west of the city owned by the Sexton Grove
charge of the year-old project. Miller asked the board
Corp. The crop was grown under the supervision of N.
to authorize Hospital Administrator Francis O'Brien to
E. Dale. agronomist for the Indian River Products Co.,
negotiate and award bids for 270 feet of sidewalk to run
and County Agent W. E. Evans. .•
from the building to 26th Street north'of the hospital.
50 Years A o
g "
When the Sept. 27 deadline for mailing Red Cross
ditty bags to Vietnam arrives on Friday, 500 colorful
— An extensive shell mound found"by the crew
gift.packages will be on their way, according to Mary
oo1928
rkmen clearing the right-of-way for the county
Lou Durrance of the Indian River County Chapter of the
road northward from the Wabasso Bridge on t e
penrnsula will afford splendid material for surfacing
` American Red Cross. Volunteer workers have met
, twice during the past week to stuff the red and green
the new road. The entire four miles of the road Is being,
cotton bags with an assortment -of-gifts to be sent to
cut through a dense jungle of various tropical growths
J servicemen and servicewomen in that war-torn area.
•
on the penisula When completed the road will extend to:
'• 40 Years -Ago
within one mile of the north line of the county and will
• 9—E?--21-
provide access to a rich section of the peninsula north of
1938— Qualified freeholders of the Vero Beach and
the DeerfielC groves.
Wabasso special school tax districts went to the polls
Vem Beach offers the -fisherman wonderful op-
last Tuesday and approved' by overwhelming
portunit ns tar the display of his skill both In the fresh
majorities the issuance of general obligation bonds in
watrr caneic and In the salt wat •r of .he Indian River
connection with proposed additions and improvements
and Got Atlantic Ocean. This was proven recently when
to existing .school buildings, financed In cooperation :
the fishing party of Mrs. and Mrs. Gordon Olmstead,
with the Public Works Administration. ,
Mr. and Mrs. Albert Hei: eth and Dr. Dyrenforth landed
The Vero Beach City Council Wednesday night .
a 578 -pound Jewfish.
adnntod an ordinance orohibitlnu Mcketinw. Tho nr.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to authorize the Chairman to
file the Maintenance Map so that it may be filed as
recommended by staff.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if our Public Works Department
has any other records within the last 4 or 5 years showing that
we are doing maintenance.
Public Works Director Davis advised that Road 6 Bridge does
have accurate records in their data base back formally for about
4 to 5 years, and they also have expert testimony from the Road 6
Bridge Superintendent who has been with the county 27 years and
can testify that wehave maintained the road for that time.
iU P
� ���� 19 BOOK
JUN 0i Bm. 17 F,, u 158
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we get an affidavit
from the Superintendent, but the County Attorneys indicated that
it is not needed at this time.
Asst. County Attorney Collins noted that there are old
records that indicate Jungle Trail was a 50' R/W in 1923, but we
would have to go back to St. Lucie County Records to check
ownerships.
Some discussion ensued regarding the cost of researching
those old records, and Commissioner Eggert felt we should move
ahead with the vote on the Maintenance Map and get it on record.
Attorney Kevin Doty, representing the Historical Society,
stated that he did not have any problem adopting a map with the
existing R/W as long as the Board will allow him to present some
evidence this morning that suggests there is, in fact, a 50' R/W.
Beulah Law informed the Board that she also had a Resolution
that she wished to be allowed to present later.
John Dean, county resident and architect, presented the
Board with copies of a 1936 Florida State Road Department map.
(Copy of said map is on file 4�in the Office of Clerk to the
Board.) Mr. Dean pointed out that on this map Jungle Trail is
designated as State Road 252, and classified by the State of
Florida as a graded and drained roadbed, and they also find maps
in the Tax Appraiser's office that show the road and describe it
as having a full 50' R/W; so, just a very superficial investiga-
tion shows that Jungle Trail was 50' and a state road that was
graded and had a drainage system. He continued that there with
some calls to the state, they have determined that there is no
question of returning this R/W to public land owners. They also
find that taxes are being paid on property not including Jungle
Trail. Some of the descriptions start at the center line of
Jungle Trail and show 25' off the centerline. When you put the
25' and 25' together, you find there is possibly 50' of land that
has not had taxes paid on it. Surely if the 50' R/W was never
returned to private ownership, land owners are not paying taxes
20
on it, and the state had it listed as a graded, drained road,
then he felt the public should know this prior to any Maintenance
Map being filed. Mr. Dean stressed that the county to date has
not done the research. He felt it is easy at this point to yield
to an 18-20' R/W, especially because the developer has a lot of
pressure on him, but simply to yield this R/W is not in the
interest of the citizens of the county.
Chairman Wheeler asked staff if we are giving up any rights
to the 50' by filing the Maintenance Map for less.
Attorney Collins clarified that we are establishing a claim
to the 18-211, and if evidence later proves the 50' R/W, we have
not divested ourselves of any rights to the larger amount.
Chairman Wheeler then did not see any reason not to file the
Maintenance Map, but Mr. Dean contended that more research should
be done first.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the standpoint of the Commis-
sion is that there is no question that we have rights, and those
rights are yet to be exactly determined. He felt the appropriate
action would be to authorize staff to file the map to vest as
many rights as we possibly can and then direct staff to do
research to identify any additional rights beyond those on the
Maintenance Map we file.
Attorney Vitunac suggested that we put language on the
Maintenance Map indicating that we are not waiving any rights to
any other land we might own up to the 50' line, which he felt
would satisfy all objections. He agreed with Attorney Collins
that we don't divest ourselves of anything without that language,
but it wouldn't hurt to include it.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the Board were to adopt the
Resolution approving the abandonment and realignment of Jungle
Trail contingent upon all the conditions recommended by staff,
which are to be discussed in the next agenda item, and we have
the agreements between the Town and the County, would it not
21
J M Y ® 1989 BooK 77 F',�,,-[ I
JUN 271989 BOOK 77 pm,JAW
accomplish the same thing if there were an intergovernmental
agreement to hold that easement however wide that may be?
Attorney Vitunac agreed that if the Board did adopt that, we
would end up with the 50' at least protected, but, in return for
that, we would have to have the realignment.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know, disregarding the
question of the realignment, if we wouldn't come up with some as
strong or maybe even stronger to protect the R/W.
Attorney Collins noted that an agreement is only as good as
the people standing behind it, and if we file the map, it is an
established claim.
Commissioner Scurlock believed what Commissioner Eggert is
asking is if we go ahead and file the map as proposed, then
subsequent to that while we are researching the other item, we go
into an interlocal agreement with the Town of Orchid that adopts
the Management Plan setting those buffers, is that new interlocal
agreement far beyond any rights we may have, 50' or smaller.
Attorney Collins believed it would be because the Management
Plan speaks to a 70' corridor, but that is an agreement; it is
not a legal title to the roadbed.
Argument continued regarding the best way to proceed, and
Commissioner Eggert wished to know why the 50' easement is
superior to having both a map and an agreement.
Attorney Doty believed if we can establish a 50' R/W that
should affect the Board's decision on the next item regarding
abandonment and realignment, and that is why they are asking the
Board to defer action until more research can be done.
Commissioner Scurlock clarified that Mr. Doty's request then
would be to go ahead and file the Maintenance Map that we have,
writing across the face of it that we are not giving up any
rights, and to defer further action on the proposed realignment
and abandonment until such time as staff can research and come
back to the Board, and Mr. Doty felt that would be reasonable.
22
Architect Dean believed it would be fair to add that the
developer can research and try to prove the county doesn't own
the 50'. There is a joint responsibility here.
Technical discussion ensued regarding the complexities of a
title search, and Attorney Collins pointed out that even if a 50'
R/W was established at one time, there may be some claims that we
have lost some of that by reason of adverse possession.
Attorney William Caldwell came before the Board representing
the applicant, Orchid Island Associates. He informed the Board
that he represented the applicant when they closed on the prop-
erty involved, and he can state that there is no evidence on the
public records in this county, including public records as they
existed in St. Lucie County, that reflects any ownership of any
of this property by any public body. The title insurance that
has been issued on this property, however, reflects the potential
of a right of the County in Jungle Trail along its existing
traveled way. There is no insurance that there wasn't a public
right in Jungle Trail, but there is nothing in the public records
that reflects a 50' R/W.
Commissioner Bird noted that the Board has been presented
with a 1936 DOT map showing the road and that certainly repre-
sents some evidence.
noted that maps have been known to be
In discussion, it was
wrong and also that people who guaranty titles have been known to
make mistakes.
Mr. Dean believed there is some reasonable doubt here. The
nts 87,000 people, and the land has a
County Commission represe
very big value; so, surely two weeks or a month of research
wouldn't hurt.
Commissioner Scurlock believed our Attorney has said that
even if we researched more and found documentation, there still
would be the potential of going to court to prove the claim.
Attorney Collins agreed that further research possibly could
help establish a better claim, but not an invulnerable claim.
23 Poor.
JUN `� ` 98
R I�� VO{ s ,y
GOOK 77 r '_,
After further discussion, Commissioner Bird stated that he
would feel relatively comfortable with approving filing of the
Maintenance Map.
Commissioner Scurlock offered a Motion to authorize staff to
file the map, but it was noted that Cormnissioners Bowman and
Eggert had already offered that Motion at the beginning of this
discussion.
Commissioner Bowman wished to reword her Motion in regard to
protecting all our rights, and Commissioner Scurlock wished to
add a provision for further research, but the Chairman felt that
should be handled in a separate Motion.
Commissioner Bowman restated her Motion as follows:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation and authorized staff to file
the Maintenance Map on North Jungle Trail and add
language stating that by so doing we are not divest-
ing ourselves of any additional claims.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously directed
staff to do some additional research, including the
records in St. Lucie County, on our possible legal
rights to a 50' R/W, at a cost not to exceed $5,000.
ORCHID ISLAND ASSOCIATES PROPOSAL TO CONCURRENTLY ABANDON AND RE-
ALIGN A PORTION OF JUNGLE TRAIL
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:
24
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River Couinty, 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
i
a
in the Court, was pub-
lished In said newspaper in the issues of
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 pLblished 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, fora 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.
77r
Sworn to and -subscribed before me this day A?D. 19
(SEAL)
(Business Manager)
Rivery,County; Florida) -•-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING _t
Notice abanaonm�tt vacation an reafigt"
closing. on of north Ju le Tral
mI�ent of an of a pow Ingle
Indlef
Ri
rig
Country Floridhin a the
d betny IOrd ii irMiar
County. Flortda..more particularly definer
River Coun o Florid;,, r r. I,.J ,r
as follows: ,EIGHTEEN c
THAT PORTION OF AN
FOOT +- WIDE Di Yltdd AD ON OR ADJA OWNI AS
.
r'LUMI'm
OUS
FOOT PORTION WID IRT ROAD -KNOWN AS jt
JUNGLE TRAIL LYING ON;OR ADJA-
CENT
DJACENT TO THE NORTH LINE OF GOVT
LOT 3 AND THE SOUTH UNE OF GOVT
LOT 2 SECTION 23 TOWNSHIP 31-5
RANGE 39-E INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.....
FLORIDA SAID LINE BEING CONTIGU;ous
'r
>• AND '.
THAT PORTION OF ANI': EIGHTEEN
FOOT +- WIDE DIRT ROAD KNOWN AS
JUNGLE TRAIL LYING ON R A OF
CENT TO THE SOUTH 164.4?
THE ST LINE OF GOVT LOT I SFC
ON 22-31-39 AND THEOUTH 164 4
FEET OF THE WEST LINE OF GOVT
LOT 2 SECTION 2331-391NDIAN RIVER
COUNTY,
FLORIDA SAID LINE BEING
CO
A public hearing at which parties interest
to
be
and citizens shall have an opport fiY
Corn -
heard, had ald nyRiver Couthe Boardnry� FloriC0111d in the
missioners
County Commission Chambers of the County
. located at
Street,stratiOn Vero Beach,ingFlorida, en Tuesday, June
27 1989 at 9:05 a.m. al a decision
Anyone who mag, wish is apps
ensure that a verbatimtrecord 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 I
By -,Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Juna 7,1989
Discussion arose as to whether to proceed with considering
the proposal to abandon and realign a portion of Jungle Trail
without having additional research.
Commissioner Eggert noted that if we do table, it should be
to a time certain.
Attorney Collins felt two months would be appropriate. We
will have to retain a title company to prepare abstracts. They
will have to search the earliest public records, and we are going
to have to determine who owned what along every inch of the
Trail.
Darrell McQueen, agent for Orchid Island Associates, asked
that before the Board decides to table this item, they let him
put in perspective that when you are talking about 501 of R/W,
you are talking about 251 on each side of the center line. He
pointed out
that they are proposing a 401
control on
each side of
JUN
2
XI
25
BOOK
F_
J111
2'd A89
BOOK 77 PAGE 184
the center line and a 30'
additional buffer, and he felt
the
rights the Board is checking on are fairly insignificant compared
to what they are proposing to set aside. They are proposing 20 -
20 and 30 about the center line, a restriction of 70'.
Mr. McQueen felt chances are that the Board will find they
do not have the right to that 251. He claimed that the state map
in the 30's was for the purpose of putting every road they
possibly could on paper to get gasoline allocations during the
time of gas rationing. The Bill that went through the State at
that time had the provisions that this was a road the state could
maintain or that road could be relocated. The area north of
Section 30 and 32 is where Jungle Trail originally started and
that was when that was the St. Lucie County line. That is where
Jungle Trail crosses A -1-A and goes to the ocean and then along
the ocean to the Sebastian Inlet. He contended that the state
probably considered that SR 252 was relocated from this Jungle
Trail alignment to the present A -1-A when that was built in the
mid 150's. He again wished to emphasize that when you are talking
about a 50' R/W, you must think about the centerline.
Attorney Vitunac suggested that it might help to assume we
are at 6 weeks from now and that the staff has proved we have
rights to 50' of R/W, which is the best we could hope for. If
that is the case, and Mr. McQueen comes up for the same abandon-
ment, we still would be right here at do you want to consider it
or not, and if you do, you can go ahead and consider it today.
Chairman Wheeler believed staff's recommendation is based in
large on us not having the 501, and Commissioner Eggert again
asked the same question, which is, excepting the change in
direction of the road, what does the 50' do for us?
Planner Boling felt the difference between having the road
R/W and what we assume we have now under the Maintenance Map is
that you would have 25' from the center line of the existing road
bed and then whatever front yard setback the Town of Orchid would
require for the project. Under what is proposed now, if we just
26
_I
have the roadbed itself, we have a 10' roadbed and then an
additional 50' of setback, 20' of that being a buffer and 30'
being a setback. When you line them up and look at it, the
difference between a 50' road R/W and what the Maintenance Map
says we have now is the difference between a front yard setback
and 5' of buffer or just the setback itself. In other words, in
what is being proposed by the applicant right now, the buffer
area would only go 5' beyond what a 50' R/W would go before they
start a building setback.
Mr. McQueen contended that Mr. Boling's figures were not
correct, that the 10' figure is in error, and the Board members
indicated that they did not understand the figures.
Attorney Vitunac commented that he would like to ask Mr.
McQueen if he could simplify the whole problem by just giving the
County a 25' title from the centerline of the road.
Mr. McQueen stated that the answer to that is yes, but he
continued to argue the figures presented by Planner Boling.
Attorney Vitunac believed Mr. McQueen has just said he would
be willing to give us 25' of R/W from the center line for the
whole road, which is the most we could ever hope to get through
the historical research we were going to do. He stressed that we
would want title to that R/W.
Mr. McQueen stated that there is no problem with 25' versus
the 201, and the reason their proposal started out at 20' and
201, or 401, is that -Is what you have south of CR 510.
Attorney Vitunac again noted that if they can give us title
to 25' from centerline on each side of the existing road, he
would think that would solve the research problem and the delay.
Commissioner Bowman asked if this would be throughout the
entire Town limits.
Mr. McQueen noted that they would be willing to give this
through their property, but in future projects, developers may
not be willing to come in and give up that 251; so, possibly the
Board should do their research.
27 rvE
JUN'2,11989
JUN !
1999
RooK
77
Commissioner
Bird asked if this would pertain to
the
present
alignment or to the proposed realignment, and Mr. McQueen
believed it pertains to the proposed realignment and to the
present alignment. He wished to make a further presentation to
clear up the figures staff has presented regarding the buffer,
setbacks, etc., and also pointed out that there is 40' on each
side because of the conservation easement they are dedicating to
the County.
Commissioner Eggert noted that, in other words, there
would be a total of 80' through there as opposed to 501, and Mr.
McQueen agreed they basically would give the County an 80' R/W.
Attorney Doty believed we may be comparing apples to
oranges. If the developer is indeed willing to convey in fee
simple to the County 25' on the center line on the present
alignment as exists today, that will solve the research problem
only for the confines of the Town of Orchid, but it does not
affect the R/W not within the Town of Orchid.
Commissioner Bird believed we will have to do the research
for the remainder of the Trail.
Chairman Wheeler recessed the meeting for 10 minutes so that
staff could clarify.the figures under discussion, and the meeting
reconvened ten minutes later with the same members present.
The Chairman asked staff to make their presentation before
we move into the public hearing.
Question arose from the audience as to why the Board was
moving ahead now when they had been discussing tabling, and the
Chairman explained that we are moving ahead because no one
offered a Motion to table. The Chairman further pointed out that
when the Board was talking about tabling, there was a question
about the 50' R/W, but it now appears we may acquire the 50' R/W
without the necessity of doing all the research. He asked staff
28
- M M
to clarify the figures discussed earlier and proceed with their
presentation.
Chief Planner Boling referred to the following graphic:
til -tit Rol R/W
°firMTERLONE
SErBAetc. �u FFR t3/W
jo AO'
w fTO VA5' R .
Ce:N1ER �hJE
SEiBA�K u PFR RjW
Sol 1 S' o? 5
,r- 8u PFER
'�-/40,SOFFEI d1raw
Planner Boling explained that what we have now is a 20'
roadbed. If what the applicant is proposing with the realignment
is approved, it would establish a 20' R/W from the centerline, a
20' buffer beyond that, and a 30' setback. When you compare that
to the road R/W now if the realignment did not go through, the
buffers were not established, and no more rights of the County
were enforced, clearing could take place up to the road itself.
With the 25' R/W from the centerline, you would have a 15' buffer
and a 30' setback. In other words, if the County has a 50' R/W
total, any setback would start from that R/W. With what the
developer has proposed, you would have basically an 80' area of
R/W and buffer before the setback would start.
Chief Planner Boling made the staff presentation, as
follows, noting that some of the conditions have been tightened
up slightly since being approved by the P&Z Commission:
29 Bou 77 F'
�.JUN1 ��nn ,4i. -;F 187
,� 6,
M10
� r
M M
BOOK 77 f,,�u 16
TO% The Honorable Members of The Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. Keatin , A
Community Develo men irector
FROM: Stan Boling/3 (�
Chief, Current Development
DATE: June 19, 1989
SUBJECT: ORCHID ISLAND ASSOCIATES PROPOSAL TO CONCURRENTLY
ABANDON AND RE -ALIGN A PORTION OF JUNGLE TRAIL
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 27, 1989.
BACKGROUND:
JJppTHE REQUEST:
On March 10, 1989 Darrell E. McQueen, agent, on behalf of Orchid
Island Associates filed an application with the County to both
abandon and re -align a portion of Jungle Trail running north/south
and east/west that lies approximately three quarters of a mile
north of C.R. 510. The subject portion of the Trail (see attach-
ment #2) traverses exclusively the Town of Orchid jurisdiction and
the Orchid Island Associates development project site. Although
the County has no control or review of the development that will
surround the subject Trail portion, the County does control the
Trail.
Because the Trail runs through a significant portion of the
development site, the developer is requesting a re -alignment that
would push the Trail towards the perimeter of the project, allow-
ing better use and control (security) of the site for development.
In exchange for abandoning a portion of the existing Trail, the
developer is offering to re -align the Trail and establish buffers
along all portions of the Trail that run through the Town of
Orchid by:
a. creating a new roadway segment that winds through a
mature oak and palm tree hammock, and existing citrus
trees;
b. granting roadway/conservation and buffer easements along
the new road;
C. establishing a ±4 acre conservation area between the
proposed new north/south Trail segment and S.R. A.I.A.
to preserve a mature hammock area;
d. preserving existing citrus trees along the proposed new
east/west Trail segment;
e. placing historical markers showing and describing the
original alignment; and
f. granting roadway/conservation and buffer easements along
all other portions of the Trail abutting the project
(all through the Town of Orchid).
30
Thus, the applicant is proposing to "swap" a portion of the
existing Trail segment for. a new Trail segment along with the
buffers and easements and other appurtenances previously mentioned
and to establish buffers along other Trail portions abutting the
project. The applicant has agreed that if the request is ap-
proved, no abandonment would become effective until the,. new
roadway and dedications are acceptable and in place.
Staff will give a slide presentation at the Commission meeting
which shows the existing subject Trail areas and the proposed new
Trail area.
Jungle Trail Status:
In 1982 the County, via the Comprehensive Plan, officially recog-
nized Jungle Trail from Old Winter Beach Road to C.R. 510 and from
C.R. 510 north to S.R. A.I.A. as a scenic and historic route
deserving preservation; other roads were recognized as well (see
attachment #3). To implement the Plan's objective to preserve
designated scenic and historic routes, the County adopted ordi-
nance No. 85-64 in 1985. The stated objectives of the ordinance
are to promote user safety and convenience; protect natural and
cultural heritage and enhance the resource value; protect the
road's integrity, capacity for traffic, and visual qualities; and
to contribute to the environmental and historical appreciation of
the roads (see attachment #4). Among its various provisions,
ordinance 85-64 set-up the 30' protected buffer area requirement
along all designated scenic/historic roads.
In April of 1989, the County adopted Resolution 89-36, the "Jungle
Trail Management Plan". 'This Management Plan is in conformance
with and implements the Comprehensive Plan and a provision in
ordinance 85-64 which calls for the creation and adoption of
guidelines for roadway protection, enhancement, and functioning.
Among its provisions, the Management Plan allows for consideration
of re -alignment requests for segments of the Trail north of C.R.
510, and establishes six criteria by which re -alignment requests
are to be reviewed (see attachment #5).
This application has been processed in accordance with the re-
quirements of the Management Plan. All County departments and
other jurisdictional agencies and utility. providers normally
involved in right-of-way abandonment review have commented on the
proposal. As required by the Management Plan, staff has coor-
dinated with and received comments from the Indian River County
Historical Society, State Bureau of Historic Preservation Division
of Historical Resources, and the Florida Native Plant Society.
Planning and Zoning Commission Consideration and Recommendation:
Although the Management Plan was not adopted until after the
abandonment/ realignment application was filed, the applicant has
agreed with staff that the request shall be reviewed under the
terms and guidelines of the Management Plan. Pursuant to the
Management Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed
the realignment request and has made findings on each of the six
realignment criteria and has made a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners for its final action. (see attachment #6)
At its regular meeting of June 8, 1989, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved a motion, 4 to 2, recommending that the Board
of County Commissioners make findings that each of the Management
Plan realignment review criteria are met and that the Board of
County Commissioners abandon and approve the realignment of a
portion of Jungle Trail with the conditions as recommended and
expressed by staff. At the Commission meeting, staff expressed
the need to "tighten -up" and clarify some of the recommended
conditions as the result of items discussed during the meeting.
The need for staff to look into some changes in the conditions was
acknowledged by the Commission during its discussion and consid-
eration of the request.
Based upon further review, staff has amended some of its original-
ly -worded conditions along the lines referenced in the action
y� 31 1
JUN 2 �� y�7 BOOK: F7 I P� E IrS
nor.`�� FATE 1 d
JUN 2 z 1989
letter sent to the applicant after the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion meeting (see attachment V). Staff has also augmented its
report to further address various issues raised during the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Proposal Information:
The following information applies to the subject existing Trail
segment and proposed segment.
[*See Attachment B:Map]
3.
Road Bed Width:
EXISTING
PROPOSED
1.
Total Road Length: (Along
2.0
miles
2.3 miles
and through Orchid)
(10,5601)
16'
(12,1401)
2.
Total Road Length:
2,800'
4,340'
(realignment area)
is now filing a right-of-way map
for a 16'
- 21' width]
*3.
Road Segment Lengths:
Town of
Orchid
Segment "AA"
realignment area
2,800'
20' roadway/
4,340'
"A"
North/South
1,300'
conservation
"B"
East/West
1,300'
easement, 20'
"C"
North/South
200'
"AA"
Loop
30' habitable
2,900'
"BB"
East/West
building set-
1,440'
[*See Attachment B:Map]
3.
Road Bed Width:
16'
- 21'
18,
Realignment area
4.
Road Right -of -Way
16'
- 21'**
18'
Realignment area
[**County
is now filing a right-of-way map
for a 16'
- 21' width]
***5.
Buffer Areas
Town of
Orchid
Segment "AA"
Jurisdiction
20' roadway/
conservation
easement, 20'
buffer plus
30' habitable
building set-
back; both
sides of road
Town of
Orchid
Segment ^BB"
Jurisdiction
20' roadway/
conservation
easement, 201
buffer plus
30' habitable
building set-
back on south
side (toward
project); 20'
roadway/con-
servation
easement on
north side of
[***See Attachment
9:Map Sections]
segment
6.
Proposal Area Totals:
Hammock conservation area: 3.48 acres
Roadway, easements & buffering: 13.46 acres
Total 16.94 acres
32
M
I
NOTE: Staff's recommendation is to enlarge the initially proposed
conservation tract area or buffer area to S.R. A.I.A. where
the proposed Trail alignment runs parallel to S.R. A.I.A.;
the applicant has agreed to this. (See attachment #16)
7. Other Areas Abutting Jungle Trail: The Orchid Island
Associates project also abuts other significant stretch-
es of Jungle Trail from the subject proposed realignment
area south to C.R. 510 and north to the Polo Club
project. The applicant proposes establishing a 20'
roadway/conservation easement as well as a 20' buffer
and a 30' habitable building setback along the Trail
where the project abuts the Trail.
NOTE: Staff's recommendation is to better define and
restrict uses and structures allowed in the proposed
"30' habitable building setback" by making it a buffer
area.
8. Traffic Circulation: Based upon the County's recently
completed north Jungle Trail survey and information
provided by the applicant, the Public Works Director has
indicated that the proposed new alignment would better
accommodate grove service traffic than the existing
alignment. The first turn in the existing alignment has
a turning radius of 100', while none of the curves in
the proposed realignment have turning radii less than
1201. The roadbed width and recovery area of the new
alignment would be equal to or exceed that of the
existing alignment. The proposed alignment roadbed is
to consist of a stabilized marl base.
Reviewing Agency/Department Comments:
The following is a synopsis of reviewing agency comments:
a. County Attorney's Office: approve (no objections)
b. County Utilities: approve as long as new right-of-way is
obtained concurrently.
C. Public Works: (Engineering, Road & Bridge, Right -of -Way):
no objections; however, roadway dedication is preferred
instead of easements as proposed; Management Plan should
apply.
d. FP&L, Southern Bell: approve
e. Town of Orchid: approve; proposal should improve traffic
safety and enhance beauty of Trail.
f. FDOT: no objection as long as projec.t entrance on. S.R.
A.I.A. meets DOT standards.
g. State Division of Historical Resources: the proposal could
impair the historic character of the road and its potential
eligibility for listing in the National Register. However,
(pursuant to a June 1, 1989 conversation with Mr. Bill
Thurston of the Division) the historical character and
integrity of the existing Trail could also be adversely
affected and degraded by development and adverse changes in
the ambiance or character of the surroundings and environ-
ment.
h. Florida Native Plant Society: the County would benefit from
approving the realignment and securing a conservation ease-
ment over the hammock. Along the existing subject Trail
segment, some native species do exist, but the area is
largely invaded by exotic species and the accompanying
understory is severely disturbed. The hammock area that
could be preserved in the proposed conservation tract is
extensive enough to be viable and is a habitat complete with
canopy and understory species.
i. Indian River County Historical Society: the proposal fails
to take steps ... "to preserve the historical integrity of the
Trail while accomplishing the realignment." As proposed,
"...the application does not meet the requirements of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1982; Ordinance #85-64 of
1985; nor the Jungle Trail Management Plan adopted April 11,
1989, regarding realignment." It is recommended that the
33
BOOK ��
JUN 989 � 7
BOOK l
applicant hire historic preservation experts to address the
historical integrity issue.
Furthermore, Attorney Kevin Doty, retained by the Society,
has stated that Bill Thurston of the Division of Historical
Resources has stated that any realignment with complete
abandonment (no public access) to the original alignment
could and probably would adversely impact the historical
significance of the Trail and keep it off the National
Register. Attorney Doty also states that the applicant has
not precisely detailed in writing what the applicant intends
to do with the segment proposed for abandonment. Succinctly
put, Mr Doty believes that "...this matter is not ripe for
consideration".
Extensive comments from Mr. Doty and other members of the
Society are included in the draft Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion meeting minutes (attachment #6). Additional comments
received from Mr. Doty as a follow-up to a staff/Society
meeting held on June 14th, are included in this report under
attachment 413.
Realignment Criteria Findings
The following are staff's findings regarding the six realignment
criteria specified in the Management Plan.
[Note:, attachment #15 is the applicant's response letter that
addresses these 6 criteria].
a. Does the applicant own or control property on both sides of
that portion of the trail to be abandoned? to be created?
(including northernmost segment, "BB".)
Yes, the applicant holds title to property on both sides of
the existing alignment and the proposed realignment roadway.
In all cases the proposed realigned roadway is surrounded by
adjacent easements and buffer areas.
Also, the applicant has added an additional 20' buffer north
of. the proposed east/west segment ("BB") of the proposed
realignment. This will ensure that the Management Plan
protected area requirements will be accommodated regardless
of the type of development on the property north of this
segment.
b. How does the request enhance or improve traffic safety?
(address alignment and grove traffic routing/re-routing)
enhance scenic quality?
1. As discussed previously, the proposal would increase
presently restrictive turning radii. The roadbed width
would be standardized to 18' (no variations down to a
15' width as presently exists). Tree clearance concerns
and road surface construction should be specifically
addressed via a County (Public Works) right-of-way
permit if the realignment is approved.
2. The applicant has stated verbally that existing grove
traffic would be adequately accommodated along the
proposed new segment and that affected grove owners have
been contacted and do not object to the use of the new
alignment. The applicant should provide letters of no
objection from affected grove owners prior to any final
approval of the request.
3. Scenic quality would be enhanced in that the existing
road is lined with predominately exotic vegetation
interspersed with some oak and palm tree groupings while
the proposed road is longer and for a major portion
traverses a mature hammock. The future "scene" along
the existing segment would be oneof residential devel-
opment and golf course areas with vegetative buffering
to be determined by the Town of Orchid and the
34
M I M . M
C.
d.
developer. The "scene" along the proposed realignment
would be:
Along segment "AA", residential development, lake
and golf course areas buffered by a significant
hammock strip on the west side and a dense mature
hammock on most of the south and east sides.
Along segment "BB" the "scene" would be residential
development buffered by rows of presently mature
citrus trees.
Along other portions of the Trail that run through the
Town of Orchid, the "scene" would include preservation
of existing vegetative buffers within approximately 50'
of the Trail roadway.
If the proposal is approved, the proposed 3.48 acre
conservation tract should be enlarged to cover all land
south and east of segment "AA" to S.R. A.I.A., with the
exception of an area around the project's S.R. A.I.A.
entrance, and should be granted to the County and to the
Town of Orchid to ensure greater control and scenic
quality. The applicant has agreed to enlarge buffers to
include the area that staff recommends be covered
between the proposed new Trail and S.R. A.I.A.
Does the request maintain the continuity of the trail?
(as well as in relation to the Orchid development
entrance road intersection)
Yes, the Trail would be continuous, without interruption
as long as the road right-of-way dedication includes the
area where the Trail would cross the project entrance
road. The crossing would be constructed at the inter-
section of the project entrance road (off of S.R.
A.I.A.) and the Trail, and an additional crossing may be
needed for golf maintenance vehicles. Thus, the
proposed new road would require only one minor crossing
and one "curb cut" onto the Trail, whereas the location
of the existing road segment could require multiple
"curb cuts" and pedestrian/cart path crossings.
If the proposal is approved, the County should be
granted limited access easements along all project
Jungle Trail frontage except for the project's S.R.
A.I.A. entrance road, a golf maintenance vehicle cross-
ing -and any existing and approved driveways to ensure
limited access and roadway continuity without multiple
intersections, along all segments of the Trail that abut
the overall project,
Is the new alignment dedicated to the County fee simple
or as right-of-way and conservation easement and is the
new roadway within this alignment?
Yes, the applicant proposes granting roadway and conser-
vation easements. To better ensure County control, the
applicant should dedicate as rights-of-way all proposed
roadway/conservation areas to the County. Dedication
language must be made acceptable to the County Attor-
ney's Office. The remaining perimeter buffer and
buffer/setback areas should be granted as an easement to
the County and the Town.
e. How will the protected areas adjacent to the trail meet
all conditions of the protected areas section of the
management plan?
The areas adjacent
Trail segments are
of Orchid, outside
the protected areas
County Attorney's
JUN 2 � V,989
to the existing and proposed subject
3r would be entirely within the Town
3f County jurisdiction for enforcing
provisions. In the --opinion of the
office, the County's Jungle Trail
35
r_ I
JUR BOOK ��7 P,iiJt.1 74
Management Plan, and thus its 30' protected area buffer
requirement, would be effective until such time that the
Town may choose to pass its own Jungle Trail ordinance.
In practical terms, the Town could require setbacks from
the Trail without buffer requirements along the Trail or
could allow walls or other "barriers" close to the Trail
for security purposes. In the opinion of the County
Attorney, there is a very good chance that the Town
could "opt -out" of the County's Trail Plan and require
significantly less in regards to preservation of Trail
corridor vegetation than is required by the County. It
is quite likely that the Town would prevail in the event
of a lawsuit.
Thus, the County's protected area requirements, in all
likelihood, could only be enforced by the County in
"protected areas" established by the applicant and
granted to the County. This proposal would establish
conservation areas and buffer areas adjacent to the
roadway to be dedicated or granted to the County and the
Town. Within such established areas, native vegetation
would be preserved. If the proposal is approved, the
specific legal language of all established conservation
and buffer areas should meet the requirement of the
protected areas section of the Management Plan.
To further strengthen the proposed buffering along
existing Trail segments and the proposed realigned
segment, the proposed "30' habitable building setback
should be clarified to allow only certain uses and
structures. Such restrictions would effectively prohib-
it certain potential nuisances to the Trail's character
such as parking areas and maintenance buildings. In
staff's opinion, the proposed 30' setback should be
established as a buffer, where only certain improvements
can be provided or constructed as follows:
1. vegetative plantings, -
2. fences or walls located at least 10' from the
Inner (Trail -ward) boundary of the 30' buffer,
3. golf cart and/or pedestrian paths.
f. will the realignment adversely affect the historic
character of Jungle Trail as a whole?
This issue deserves its own subsection.
Historical Impact:
The applicant is of the opinion that approving the proposal would
not adversely affect the historical character of the Trail. The
applicant states that the proposal:
"...will not affect the historical integrity of the roadway.
It should be recognized that any alteration to the Trail, for
whatever reason, would represent a deviation from it's
established location, which may result in a 'modification to
the actual historical correctness of the road's alignment.
However, the limited area of re -alignment and the proposed
treatment of the re -aligned section will not affect the
traditional character of Jungle Trail. In fact, the modi-
fication will re-create a route that more closely resembles a
"jungle trail", than does the present day roadway."
The Historical Society has reviewed the proposal and is of the
opinion that although "... it may be quite possible that there are
steps which can be taken to preserve the historical integrity of
the Trail while accomplishing the realignment" the applicant has
failed to adequately research and propose such steps. Unless the
applicant hires a qualified consultant and more specifically
addresses the integrity issue, the proposal in its present form
should be denied. 36
Furthermore, the Society's attorney has stated that Bill Thurston
of the Division of Historical resources is of the opinion that
unless the realignment proposal also allows for public access to
the original alignment, approving the proposal could impair the
historic character of the Trail and its potential eligibility for
listing in the National Register.
In staff's opinion, the proposal can be conditionally approved in
such a way that the realignment would not adversely affect the
historic character of the Trail as a whole.
Impact Analysis:
In reviewing this proposal, the County must consider the impact
of approval or denial of the request on the Orchid Island Associ-
ates development, and in turn the impact of development on the
historical character and integrity of the Trail. Several factors
can play a major role in affecting the Trail's historical charac-
ter and integrity:
A - alignment
B - intersections and crossings, access control
C - surrounding or "encroaching" development
D - regulation and jurisdiction
Evaluating each of these factors in light of this request is
uniquely affected by the fact that all development and "protected
areas" surrounding the subject road segments are under the exclu-
sive jurisdiction of the Town of Orchid. The applicant's proposed
"realignment plan" offers a package of design features and assur-
ances under the control of both the County and the Town of Orchid.
A. Alignment
Ideally, any development plan that would be approved would
preserve the Trail's existing alignment and provide extensive
vegetative buffers and development setbacks to preserve the
Trail's traditional rural character. However, assurances of
this type of development design are not within the County's
grasp. Because the development site is located on both sides
of the Trail, the developer feels that realigning the road
would accommodate a secure and unified development and
present fewer conflicts between the Trail and the develop-
ment, while providing incentive for the developer to estab-
lish and provide buffers and conservation areas which exceed
the requirements of the County's Jungle Trail Management
Plan.
In staff's opinion, based upon comments from the Division of
Historical Resources, public access of some kind to the
original alignment would lessen any adverse impact on histor-
ic significance. Visual access of the original alignment,
which would include a "structure -free zone" along and around
the original alignment roadbed, along with appropriate
markers and informational signs could be maintained from the
proposed new road. Because the existing alignment is simple
geometrically and in relation to line -of -sight from the
proposed new Trail segment, the original alignment could be
described and observed by the public on site. Any kind of
physical access over the original alignment, such as a
footpath, would further mitigate any adverse realignment
impacts, but would probably be contrary to the developer's
basic purpose for requesting the realignment.
B. Intersections, crossings_ access control:
The realignment plan proposes only one new major "inter-
ruption" in the Trail for a large project that has several
Miles of Trail frontage. A condition that could be attached
to approval would be the granting of a limited access ease-
ment along the project's Trail frontage. This would give the
County more control over access connections which affect
traffic safety and the corresponding "interruptions" which
37
BOOK AJ C
L -
JUN 27 '289 booK 77
could change the existing historically rural character of the
Trail.
The design of the proposed new Trail/project entrance road
intersection would include the decision as to whether or not
stop signs should be placed to stop traffic on the Trail or
the project entrance road. In the opinion of the Public
Works Director, the best traffic practice would be to have
Trail traffic stop since traffic on a less travelled unpaved
road should normally yield to a more travelled paved road.
The Indian River County Historical Society has expressed its
opinion that if the realignment proposal is approved, Jungle
Trail traffic should not have to yield to project traffic
since Trail continuity is an objective in the Management
Plan.
C. Surrounding development:
According to Bill Thurston of the Division of Historical
Resources, development of an area can change the character
and surroundings along the Trail and consequently "degrade"
the historic character and value of the road. The realign-
ment plan proposes preservation of a mature hammock along a
significant portion of the proposed new Trail segment.
Further buffering proposals (native vegetation and existing
citrus trees) establish some "knowns" regarding the future
character of the proposed Trail segment: that the citrus and
buffer areas and the conservation tract will maintain a rural
and natural character. The area along the proposed new Trail
segment would be more rural and natural in appearance than
the existing segment if golf course and residential areas are
developed around the existing Trail.
D. Relation and jurisdiction:
The subject Trail area is a concern to both the County and
the Town of Orchid. The proposal, with conditions, could
essentially give coordinated and joint "control" of this area
of the Trail to the County and the Town. The conservation
and buffer areas 'and conservation tract could be granted to
both the County and the Town to ensure a perpetual and
coordinated effort to maintain the Trail properly.
Alternatives:
There are essentially two viable alternatives for the County:
denial or approval with conditions. (The applicant has repeatedly
expressed concerns for timing and desires action on the request.]
If the County denies the realignment request, the developer could
either build/re-design around and over the Trail in accordance
with adopted Town of Orchid regulations or he could partially
develop now and re-initiate a different proposal at a later date;
the overall effect of the development on the Trail would be
unknown. If the County approves the realignment request with
conditions, the developer would proceed with the basic design
indicated on the submitted realignment plans; the parameters of
the overall effect of the development on the Trail would be
known.
CONCLUSION:
As shown in the report's analysis section, the proposed realign-
ment would enhance the scenic value of the Trail and can, with
conditions, clearly meet all of the realignment review criteria
specified in the Jungle Trail Management Plan with the exception
of the criterion regarding historical character and integrity;
evaluating historical impacts is not as clear-cut an issue as the
other criteria. In staff's opinion, the historic rural character,
and environment surrounding the existing Trail will be eventually
diminished by impending development over which the County has
little or no control. If the proposal is denied and the project
38
develops around and over the existing Trail, then the historic
character could be greatly diminished.
In staff's opinion, approval of the request would greatly enhance
the scenic value of the Trail and would meet the Management Plan
review criteria; the historic character of the Trail as a whole
would be better preserved than if development is placed around the
existing Trail in a manner that would greatly change the natural
character of the Trail. Approval with conditions offers access
control, buffering a scenic conservation area, and a significant
degree of coordinated joint County/Town control of the Jungle
Trail corridor in the project area; all of which can better
preserve the historic character of the Trail as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners make
findings that each of the Management Plan realignment review
criteria are met and recommends that the Board authorize the
Chairman to sign the attached resolution approving the abandonment
and realignment request upon the satisfaction of the following
conditions:
1. That the legal arrangement for obtaining dedication of the
proposed rights-of-way and the granting of easements and
buffers and conservation tract(s) to the County be approved
by the County Attorney's Office prior to final effect of the
abandonment;
2. that the applicant dedicate the proposed road rights-of-way
and conservation tracts and grant buffer easements to the
County for road, drainage, and vegetation preservation uses
along -the project's entire Jungle Trail frontage and that the
language establishing said areas ensures that the Jungle
Trail Management Plan "protected areas" provisions are met or
exceeded where applicable;
3. that the applicant grant to the County and the Town of Orchid
a conservation tract and buffer areas between the proposed
new Trail and S.R. A.I.A. (except for an area around the
project's entrance road not to exceed a total width of 2001)
and between the new Trail, and the project's south property
boundary located east of the existing Trail, for purposes of
preserving vegetation;
4. that the proposed 30' "habitable building setback" instead be
established and granted to the County, as a buffer area,
allowing only preservation of existing vegetation and the
location or construction of:
a. vegetative plantings,
b. fences or walls located at least 10' from the inner
(Trail -ward) boundary of the 30' buffer,
C. golf cart and/or pedestrian paths;
5. that the applicant grant 5' wide limited access easements
(can be in conjunction with buffer easements) to the County
along the project's entire Jungle Trail frontage, except
where there are existing approved driveways and the proposed
project entrance road and golf maintenance vehicle driveway;
6. that the applicant have in place historic information and
original alignment markers and that the applicant grant to
the Town and County an easement enveloping the, original
roadway alignment location such that the building of struc-
tures within the easement is prohibited and the prohibition
is enforceable. The applicant shall also mark and maintain
public visual access of the original alignment from the new
alignment and provide historical information regarding the
Trail prior to final effect of the abandonment.
39
JUN 210 '11989 �oo� r F',4, 1 T
_I
JUN 2'6' ' 989
BOOK 7 7 FA:Ff
Prior to final effect of the abandonment, the applicant shall
obtain from the County Public Works department a right-of-way
permit, detailing construction of all traffic, road and
drainage aspects of the new roadway, construct the requested
improvements, and obtain acceptance and approval of the new
construction by the Public Works director. The constructed
roadway shall accommodate grove service traffic at least as
well as the existing alignment without adversely impacting
tree preservation.
Said resolution shall not be deemed to have been adopted until it
is signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.
Approval shall be null and void if all conditions are not sat-
isfied and the resolution signed within 120 days of the date of
this hearing.
Planner Boling referred to the following chart showing
portion of the Trail to be abandoned and where it is proposed to
be realigned. He then displayed slides showing the trees and
vegetation in relation to various sections of Jungle Trail. He
pointed out that in one segment Kennedy Groves is very close to
the roadbed itself, and the windrow is substantial and thick.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we went 25' to the left, if
that would take out about two rows of citrus trees, and Planner
Boling believed it would eliminate one row for sure.
Planner Boling continued displaying slides noting that most
of the windrow consists of pines, but there are some oaks as well
as some palm trees and pepper trees.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know how much of this is
truly native indigenous vegetation, and Planner Boling advised
that the Florida Native Plants Society spent about 21 hours out
there, and they said it was heavily invaded by exotics.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if it would be accurate to say
that more than 50% is not native vegetation, and Planner Boling
believed it would.
Planner Boling continued his slide presentation showing
pictures of the hammock the realignment would go through. He
noted that it is hard to visualize setbacks and buffers because
what is cut through is just enough for you to get through on
foot. There obviously would have to be more cleared for .the road
R/W itself to go through there.
40
M M M
17_
Commissioner Scurlock asked if overall in terms of the type
of vegetation, this percentagewise is more native or more exotic
than the other part suggested for realignment.
Planner Boling stated it is much more native and, in fact,
the Florida Native Plant Society said this was basically enough
of an area, with the conservation tract that is proposed, to be
an ecological community.
Gordon Michael, of Earring Point Groves, contended that some
of the pictures being shown are out of date and not accurate, and
that where vegetation is shown, it is all cleared out and a
desolate area now.
Planner Boling confirmed that the pictures were taken in
April but stated that when he was there last week, he had not
noticed that much difference.
Planner Boling continued to show pictures demonstrating the
setback, noting that staff is proposing the 30' setback be
treated more like a buffer and that only certain types of
structures could be placed in there.
Commissioner Bowman believed the developer wants to build in
that setback.
Planner Boling clarified that they want golf cart paths
there, and in some areas where there are single family lots
abutting the project, they would like the ability to have a wall
201 in from the outside and to have pools in there, but staff is
not in agreement with that. What is being proposed is to
establish buffers and easements along the entire frontage of the
project which corresponds with the boundaries of the Town of
Orchid. In one area of that realignment, the Town of Orchid is
on both sides, but in the other areas, it is just on one side of
the existing roadway; so, the proposal for realignment not only
encompasses the realigned area, but the entire length of Jungle
Trail within their property. Mr. Boling stressed that,the main
consideration staff has in this recommendation is that this is a
different type of situation than we may run into elsewhere
41
UV BOOK � �
I
BooK 77 f'acE 180
J U N 2 7 1999
because the project itself is in the Town of Orchid and the
County does not have development review or control. On both of
the bends in the realignment, the Trail runs close to A -1-A and
goes through land owned by the developer on both sides.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if staff has identified
any realignment changes in the history of Jungle Trail.
Mr. Boling was aware of two. He understood from the
Historical Society that there was a realignment in the 120s along
CR 510 when it was shifted, possibly physically or possibly just
on paper, to the east where the existing alignment is now, and he
believed there also was a realignment with the River Bend
Property on the south of CR 510 along the river.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that when he tried as a lay
person to track the legal description of the Trail from early
records, it seemed to him that there was a gap there and it
didn't line up.
Asst. County Attorney Collins confirmed that the legal
description of Jungle Trail in the St. Lucie County records does
have a call "thence go East 33901, and if you followed this, you
would go out into the ocean. The suspicion is that it was a
clerical error; however, it is a further complication.
Planner Boling informed the Board that since staff sent
their memo went out, they have received a memo from Public Works
Director Davis regarding the proposed realignment geometry, and
also a copy of a letter written to Mrs. Millie Bunnell of the
Historical Society by William Adams, Ph.D, of History Property
Associates in regard to the chances for acceptance of Jungle
Trail in the National Register -of Historic Places, as follows:
42
TO: Stan Boling,
Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Jungle Trail Relocation Plans as Submitted
by McQueen and Associates
DATE: June 26, 1989
In reviewing the proposed realignment geometry for Jungle Trail,
the Public Works Department staff has determined that the
realignment will meet the geometric intent of the trail to serve
{ latge citrus trucks and grove traffic based on the following
condition:
Where minimum 120' radii and other horizontal curves are
proposed, the roadway should be widened to 20' minimum. The
typical cross section shows only an 18' roadway width.
In some locations, the existing sections of Jungle Trail will be
geometrically less adequate than the proposed realignment.
•-_ • ivy :.
HISTORIC r' CC;�MNN,ry -
C 'LCPMENT DEPT. w
PROPERTY
ASSOCIATES�ll016�
L°'� •
June 23, 1989
�•
Historic preservation consultants Mrs. Millie Bunnell
Indian River County Historical Society
p.O. Box 6535
Vero Reach, F1 32961
Dear Mrs. Bunnell:
On June 201. 1989, my associate, Mr. Robert Stein -
back, and I traveled the route of the"
Jungle
Trail" to view ite,present condition and determine
the potential impact of proposed changes on its
historic character. We have also reviewed maps and
National Register listing other documentation pertaining to this issue. .
Mr. Steinbach, whose resume is included along with
*' mine,. is an experienced field archaeologist with
historic property tax over thirty years of experience in historic preser-
• certification vation activity. ;
historic area survey
preservation planning
grant writing
JUR 2? 1989
L_
The issue in Indian River County with regard to the
Jungle Trail is whether a portion of the road
should be- abandoned in the incorporated Town of
Orchid, which is comprised wholly of a development
known as Orchid island Golf and'Beach Club. The
developer of the project has offered, we are
informed, to make certain concessions in return for
abandonment and relocation of the right-of-way.
Such concessions include the establishment of buf-
fer zones on all portions of the road bordered by
the Town.
43 GOOK P_ 1 i"�'F 181
_I
JUN 2 7 1989 Boor /7 r,, u,1 2
cultural resource
Relocation of
the road
will, obviously, destroy, the
Impact studies
historic authenticity
and
originality
of the route. .
Whether the
lose of
a portion of
the route may
jeopardize chances
for
acceptance in
the National
archaeological survey
Register of
Historic
places we cannot day, for
there is not
sufficient
experience in
Florida with
•
listings of
this kind
upon which to
make a judge -
ment of that
kind.
preservation education
The Indian River County Historical Society and
those persons who are rightfully concerned about
- the preservation of the Jungle Trail and, indeed,
of 'the related preservation of the environmental
and ecological character of the island are faced
with what is essentially a "no-win" situation.
Relocation will destroy historical authenticity; on
the other hand, the rights of the developer along the exist-
inq route will permit the effective destruction of its scenic
and visual character.
The developer will have opportunity, impinged only by the
County's assertion of a right-of-way, to establish screening
devices such as fences, berms, wallet hedges and other visual
impediments along that portion of the route passing through
hie parcel. The Jungle Trail at that point will lose its
visual character. The Historical Society must judge whether
preserving the authenticity of the route is preferable to
efforts to maintain a sense of physical character along the
route.
`
-Development. will undoubtedly continue along the route qnd in
the future present continuing problems to the preservation of
I:4 the Jungle Trail. The supporters of the Jungle Trail should,
we belive, use the present situation to extract concessions
and assurances from the parties involved in this decisibn to
establish perm went buffers on both sides of the road along
its remaining portions. The difficulty in this; of course, is
to establish sufficient guarantees for accomplishing this in
the face of future development.
In addition to buffers, public accebs to the original route
should be a bargaining point. If, however, the original routs
Is effectively destroyed along a portion of it, public access
to that potion might be regarded as moot.
In our opinion, the Comprehensive plan which Indian River
County and the Town of Orchid are compelled under state law
to submit should reflect the guarantees and assurances pro-
vided for maintenance of the Jungle Trail.
Sincerely, P.O. Box 1002
,4 St. Augustine, Florida 32085.1002
y
(904) 824.5118
.00
William R. Adams, Ph.D.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that the latest information
he has is that if, in fact, you do make it onto the National
Register and if any federal monies are ever involved in any way,
then any development plans would have to go to Atlanta and be
approved out of that office.
44
M M M
Planner Boling confirmed that his understanding from the
Historic Preservation people in Tallahassee is that any time
there is development that could impact or would abut something on
the National Register where there are federal or state funds
involved, it would require federal and/or state review.
Commissioner Scurlock also understood that if any of the
adjacent property owners object to being placed on the National
Register, they, in fact, would not make the list, and Commis-
sioner Eggert confirmed that the Atlanta and Washington offices
told her that if anyone objects, it will not go on the National
Register.
Commissioner Scurlock brought up the Resolution adopted by
the Board in support of this being placed on the National Regis-
ter, and believed that support was conditional on minor realign-
ments being allowable because of safety reasons. He wondered if
we ever got anything from anyone in writing about that because
that was a condition of the Resolution.
Planner Boling stated that he had never received anything in
writing.
Commissioner Bird asked Planner Boling about his feeling
'regarding the probability of Jungle Trail being added to the
National Register.
Planner Boling believed the Historical Society is applying
not the County, but in talking with Bill Thurston of the State
and Dr. Adams of Historic Properties Associates about this, he
understands that there are no roads in Florida that are in the
National Register. He believed that are some in other states
(Natchez Trace and Cumberland Gap), but it seems those were
untouched by development and in pristine condition. He felt it
is really difficult to assess the potential for registering of a
road because there are so few on the Registry.
Commissioner Eggert believed there was some concern on the
part of Dr. Adams that even the presence of Sea Oaks and other
45 77�� ���� BOOK f'dE 1
Fr
JUN 2 ee 1989 7
BOOK rt�v� '1
developments there would be a big negative and may have already
ruined the historical integrity.
Planner Boling advised that Dr. Adams, after viewing the
Trail just last week, was of the opinion that the realignment as
proposed would not have any worse effect than the development
that has already occurred at Sea Oaks, Indian Trails, etc.
Planner Boling resumed his presentation and proceeded to
review the conditions of staff's recommendation and how they
differed from those presented to the P&Z Commission. Condi-
tions #1, #2 and #5 are the same, and the others differ as
follows:
3. that the applicant grant to the County and the Town of Orchid
a conservation tract and buffer areas between the proposed
new Trail and S.R. A.I.A. (except for an area around the
project's entrance road not to exceed a total width of 2001)
and between the new Trail, and the project's south property
boundary located east of the existing Trail, for purposes of
preserving vegetation;
Planner Boling explained that in the middle of that
condition we are talking about the area at the corners of the
realignment where the project boundary is very close and asking
that buffer area be brought out to the project boundary; he did
not believe the applicant has a problem with that. We also want
increased buffer at the portion of the realignment near A -1-A,
but the developer is asking for an exception to that area because
he wants to control their entrance onto A -1-A, and that exception
is different than what was presented to the P&Z.
4. that the proposed 30' "habitable building setback" instead be
established and granted to the County, as a buffer area,
allowing only preservation of existing vegetation and the
location or construction of:
a. vegetative plantings,
b. fences or walls located at least 10' from the inner
(Trail -ward) boundary of the 30' buffer,
C. g.olf cart and/or pedestrian paths=
Planner Boling advised that this has been modified to say
the 30' setback is to be treated as a buffer area with only
certain structures allowed. The applicant objects to this and
wants to be able to put some other type of structures in there.
46
M
6. that the applicant have in place historic information and
original alignment markers and that the applicant grant to
the Town and County an easement enveloping the original
roadway alignment location such that the building of struc-
tures within the easement is prohibited and the prohibition
is enforceable. The applicant shall also mark and maintain
public visual access of the original alignment from the new
alignment and provide historical information regarding the
Trail prior to final effect of the abandonment..
Condition #6 has been modified and toughened up a bit in
that staff is asking that the original alignment be marked and
that it be a structure free zone.
IT. Prior to final effect of the abandonment, the applicant shall
obtain from the County Public Works department a right-of-way
permit detailing construction of all traffic, road and
drainage aspects of the new roadway, construct the requested
improvements, and obtain acceptance and approval of the new
construction by the Public Works director. The constructed
roadway shall accommodate grove service traffic at least as
well as the existing alignment without adversely impacting
tree preservation.
Condition #7 has been modified the most to deal with the
accommodation of grove traffic. We do not want grove tractors
going out on A -1-A. Planner Boling continued that the applicant
believed he could get letters of no objection from all the grove
owners north of 510, but that apparently has not been the case.
We want the developer to demonstrate that the new alignment would
be at least as good, if not better for grove traffic, and staff
would like to add to Condition #7 the provision set out in the
Public Works Director's memo of June 26th which is that "Where
minimum 120' radii and other horizontal curves are proposed, the
roadway should be widened to 20' minimum. The typical cross
section shows only an 18' roadway width." Planner Boling advised
that instead of staff going with letters of no objection, they
have gone with having the applicant demonstrate to the Public
Works Director that the roadway will work.
Attorney Collins added that the Jungle Trail Management Plan
sets out criteria for realignment, but the Florida Statutes make
provisions for abandonment of roads. Mr. Boling tells him this
has been advertised for a public hearing for abandonment of that
portion of the road which is to be realigned, and he wanted it
clear for the record that there will be a public hearing on that.
47
JUN � ' S Door l Farr
Fr -
JUN 2
BOOK 'j-/186
Planner Boling
explained that their recommendation takes
in
both applications - the realignment and the abandonment. The
Resolution that is attached is for abandonment meeting the
conditions of the realignment in the agenda item.
Attorney Vitunac noted that staff's recommendation should be
modified to reflect the increased fee simple title that the
developer has offered.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that before the Chairman opens
the public hearing, something needs to be said about the facts
that have been gathered by everyone. One of the most difficult
things up to this point for him as a Commissioner is that we have
had quite a few honorable people give us a lot of information,
and it seems that the picture in each one's mind of what the
Trail was apparently is different for different people. This
makes it very difficult when some of the memories conflict.
Chairman Wheeler opened the public hearing
Darrell McQueen, agent for the owners, wished to give the
Board a little more data and supplement staff's presentation.
He referred Board members to a booklet entitled "Proposal Jungle
Trail Realignment," which contains the following letter and
graphic setting out their plans:
L _J
48
McQueen & Associates, Inc.
Engineers - Planners - Land Surveyors
March 28, 1989
Mr. Robert M. Keating
Planning and Development Director
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Orchid Island Golf and Beach Club
Jungle Trail Management Plan
Dear Bob:
Darrell E McQueen, RE
David S'Knight
Stephen R Melchiori
Scott B. McGuire. RE
Stuart A. Houston, RLS.
I would like to take this opportunity to acquaint you with
the management plan that has been prepared for the Orchid
Island Golf and Beach Club for that portion of Jungle Trail
that traverses the Town of Orchid.
The developers of the Orchid Island Golf and Beach Club
recognize that Jungle Trail North represents a viable asset
for the county as well as for the town, and that the road
should be treated as an historic and scenic resource
protected from development impacts, wherever possible.
The professionals involved with the project have expended
considerable effort to formulate a plan that would
incorporate the existing location of the trail into a plan
for an exclusive, residential community, while
simultaneously providing adequate areas for mutual buffering
of public and private uses. With this goal in mind, a
master plan has been prepared which accommodates both
objectives. However, during the design process it became
obvious that re -alignment of a one-half mile section of the
trail would be necessary if adaptive re -use of the roadway
was to be realized. As shown on the attached plan, this
portion of the trail is located within ',the town where title
to adjacent properties are held by a single entity.
This minor re -alignment would not only enhance the scenic
value of the trail and the adjacent residential development,
it would result in increased design flexibility that could
ultimately benefit the town and the general public.
Specifically, since the area of re -location supports a
primarily undisturbed coastal oak hammock, the trail would
be re -constructed to selectively travel through the native
vegetation approximately 750' east of its -present location
while maintaining its physical and scenic continuity. This
adjustment would result in a connected land parcel for the
residential portion of the Orchid Island Golf and Beach
Club, lying west of SR A -1-A, as opposed to two separate
tracts divided by Jungle Trail. The public benefit that
could be derived by the re -location is the creation of a
tract that is no longer suited to residential development,
due to its proximity to SR A -1-A, that also supports
pristine, native vegetation worthy of conservation measures.
UR IN 49 �r�
77 rr11J l_�V
As a result of these considerations, a development plan has
been prepared that provides for the following actions:
1. dedication to Indian River County and the Town of
Orchid of 9' of right-of-way, from the center line
of the existing Jungle Trail roadbed, for that
portion of the road lying along an incorporated
boundary;
2. dedication to Indian River County and the Town of
Orchid of 18' of right-of-way for that portion of
Jungle Trail lying within the Town of Orchid;
3. an 11' conservation easement lying parallel to and
abutting the dedicated right-of-way, would be
granted to the Town of Orchid and Indian River
County, the conservation easement would preclude
the disturbance of any native vegetation and also
require approval by the Town Council of any
proposed activity within the easement;
4. running parallel to and abutting the conservation
easement, a 201buffer would be established as a
common element of the home owner's association.
The buffer would prohibit the removal of any
native vegetation, while encouraging the
establishment of new native plantings;
5. contiguous to the buffer, a 30' habitable building
setback will occur. Structures, such as: parking
garages, pools, fences, parking areas and utility
structures would be permitted, however, no
building that contains living space shall be
allowed.
All dedications would be provided via a recorded plat for
the Orchid Island Golf and Beach Club subject to approval by
the Town Council of the Town of Orchid, and -approval by the
Board of County Commissioners of the proposed re -alignment
of Jungle Trail
As previously mentioned, the re -alignment would also create
a parcel of land not appropriate for residential
development. The tract in question would be .located
immediately west of SR A -1-A, south of the entrance' road to
the Orchid Island Golf and Beach Club. The land would be in
an unusual configuration, however, the site's vegetation
warrants conservation measures regardless of the parcel's
shape. Therefore, in an effort to diminish any effects re-
alignment of the trail may have on the public, the developer
is willing to dedicate the 3.48 acre tract to the Town of
Orchid as a public conservation area. The parcel would
remain entirely undeveloped, however, provisions could be
made for the placement of a limited, emergency services
facility, subject to approval by the Town Council and the
Board of County Commissioners.
Assuming this proposal was acceptable to the Board, a total
of 10.55 acres of land would be dedicated to the public for
roadway and conservation land uses, while an additional 6.39
acres would be reserved by the Orchid Island Golf and Beach
Club for the home owner's association as a buffer area
between the trail and future residential development. The
cumulative effect would be the dedication of 16.94 acres of
land for public use and scenic enjoyment, which, at current
real estate values is equivalent to $1,744,820.
50
_ M
Clearly, this effort demonstrates that the developer's of
the Orchid Island Golf and Beach Club community are sincere
in establishing a route for Jungle Trail through the Town of
Orchid that will be permanently recognized and maintained as
a scenic and historic route in the future.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the master plan
for the town and answer any questions you may have regarding
the pending development.
Sincerely,
MCQUEEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Darrell E. McQueen, P.E.
1 u0naas
1 a011 —� 1
III I
11, 1 I I°e
W
I
I I � 1 I Ix 1►i�l
I I I a l 111 1$ I la l"1
1 I al v 11'I I �
00
1 I o It fa
b 818 a
1 s\
1„I Fill II,I�� ►�
I
1 I s \
u
i, ,) I I i I — 111 uopaaSe•--- � ,�, —� '.\\
111 uolW�s S! A :'
Jew! 2 ? 1989
I\ \II
51
Bov 17 P,1,AK
BOOK 77 f.+..E
Mr. McQueen then referred to the photos in the booklet
showing the citrus, Australian pines, oaks, pepper trees, and
areas of natural oak hammock along the roadway. He referred to
the drawing showing the limits of the Town of Orchid, noting that
the Polo Club development is to the north. On the ocean side,
Orchid owns 35-40 acres of land and proposes a beach club and
some single family homes and beach villas. On the west side of
A -1-A is about 560 acres of land, some 450 in uplands, and about
110' in mosquito impoundment. The development consists of an 18
hole golf course, a golf club, a beach club and a tennis
facility. They propose a total of 400 units, but Mr. McQueen
believed it will end up something less than that. He pointed out
the 71 acre tract in Orchid presently zoned commercial, which he
believed would be developed like the Village Shoppes. They are
negotiating with the County on utilities, and in conjunction with
the Polo development have constructed a water main that goes from
the North Beach plant to the north limits of the Polo
development; they also want to get sewer service through county
utilities. They have talked to the Fire Chief about dedication
of a site for a fire station and emergency vehicles. Mr. McQueen
advised that there are 70-80 lots in the development that have
been contracted for. Their preliminary plat has been approved
by the Town of Orchid and the golf course, in the areas outside
the Jungle Trail area, is about 80-90% completed and a lot of
that grading, clearing, and planting is in place.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that he has received a number of
letters which suggest that the request for the realignment is
based on security reasons, and he asked if that is valid.
Mr. McQueen agreed that is a valid point, but thought it is
a little more than that. This obviously will be a private
gatehouse community.similar to many others on the Barrier Island
in the county.
Commissioner Scurlock noted when you talk about security,
52
the
people's
fear
is that the public will not have free access to
the
Trail in
its
realignment.
Mr. McQueen stated that with the realignment any person from
the public can drive the realigned trail across the entrance road
and continue as they are doing today.
Commissioner Scurlock believed people are concerned that you
will have to go through a guard gate with a pass to traverse that
portion of the Trail, and Mr. McQueen stated that is not so.
Commissioner Eggert expressed her opinion that when you talk
about security, what you actually have is a gate and a big bluff
because anyone can come in from the river or the beach.
Commissioner Scurlock again wished it made clear that when
you say security, you are not saying no access, and Mr. McQueen
assured the Board that there will be complete public access to
the realigned Trail with no restrictions.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there will be stop signs there
on Jungle Trail.
Mr. McQueen pointed out that there are stop signs on Jungle
Trail at CR 510. He believed that members of the Historical
Society had at one time proposed that possibly this would be a
controlled Trail with access only at certain hours, and that is
not what is being proposed by the applicant. They are proposing
to dedicate the County a new alignment of the area that they are
asking for abandonment, and in the existing area of the Trail,
they will dedicate what they have shown, and that will be public
R/Ws to do with in the roadway aspect what the County sees fit.
In the buffer, they would like to tie that to the Town of Orchid
and the County, and in the setback, they are open for
suggestions.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the key issue is that it will be
a free open access, and Mr. McQueen once again confirmed that it
will be.
Mr. McQueen advised that outside of the commercial site,
there are no units proposed along the NW section. What they had
53
g g�-�
JUN 2 g1 NO BOOK 7 F'� c �•}�
JUN
2 fd 1989
BOOK
77F�.�E
19Z
proposed in the plan was a 9'
roadway easement and
an 11'
conservation easement or R/W if you will. They have no problem
with the R/W. They were trying to prevent that 11' from being
disturbed as a 4 lane paved roadway or the buffer taken out. 'It
is essential that buffer stay in there; the heavier the buffer,
the better this development will be perceived. Mr. McQueen noted
that as you continue north by the 13th hole to the point where it
starts the realignment, there are no homes that are within 200 or
300' of Jungle Trail, and he believed you will see a different
character of the Trail with this development than you see south
of 510. He continued to discuss the buffering and stressed that
the only homesites in the development that back up to the Trail
are 15 lots on the first loop of the realignment that are planned
as courtyard home lots, which is why they want to build a fence
20' into the 30' setback in that particular area. Most of the
realignment borders golf course holes, and almost everyone of the
golf holes outside of those that affect Jungle Trail have been
completed and are in place.
Commissioner Bowman asked if he is saying they are going to
have single family housing in the coastal hammock, and Mr.
McQueen noted that hammock was a triangular hammock near A -1-A
and it had been disturbed by citrus groves. The northern loop of
the realignment is through pristine coastal hammock.
Commissioner Bowman believed they proposed a firehouse in
the hammock near A -1-A.
Mr. McQueen clarified that they are dedicating that to the
County and the Town as a conservation easement, and it is to be
either open space or to be used for emergency rescue services,
but that would be up to the County and the Town.
Discussion returned to the previous confusion about the 10'
R/W, and Mr. McQueen noted that the first proposal is a 20'
roadway and conservation R/W. Mr. Boling took the center line as
being in the center of that 201. They now are proposing that not
be 20' but 25' and that the buffer area be 151. They would still
54
want to look at a roadway R/W of some 9' and a 16' conservation
easement to be sure the road does not get expanded to a full
blown 4 lane roadway.
Attorney Vitunac believed the County wants 25' unrestricted
title, and asked if Mr. McQueen is trying to restrict the 25' of
fee simple roadway.
Mr. McQueen said no; they.just want to restrict what con-
struction goes in the roadway. They want it to stay in its
natural condition.
Attorney Vitunac noted that would be a restriction on the
title, but Commissioners Bird and Scurlock did not see where that
works against us.
Mr. McQueen further clarified that all their drawings show
20' and 201, but we now are talking 25' on each side of the
center line and a 15' buffer and 30' setback. The only thing
that would affect the setback would be in the south 500' of
commercial property and the 15 homesites in the realignment. He
discussed the segment along the Polo property, noting that they
have moved that portion 20' additional off the Polo property line
so that they could dedicate 25' and 15' on both sides of the R/W
and have a full 40' dedication on both sides, or 80' bordering
the Polo property. Mr. McQueen continued his review
noting that throughout 90-95% of this proposed project, there
will be nothing other than golf course or buffers or landscape
built in the 301+ setback. They would not like to lose control
9
of what they do by the homesites and entry area; they do not want
to take that vegetation out, and he envisioned they would add,to
it and do some landscaping. They have moved the guardhouse
further back into the project, even back of the setback line,
and their plan is being worked as much as possible around
existing vegetation.
Mr. McQueen stressed that their plan never addressed the
fact that after they donated all that R/W and had the old R/W
abandoned
the county would keep it.
They assumed once
that
R/W
�
JIUM J 1? 1989
55
BOOK
� �
�
FAuE �•J 3
L-
e�
JUR� ri 66 BOOK 77
?11�E 10 4
J
was abandoned, they would be able to build on it. That existing
R/W comes through Lot #42, and they oppose that staff recommenda-
tion. He felt it is not hardly fair to give up what they are
proposing to give to the County in exchange for an abandonment
and then the county actually doesn't abandon it. He emphasized
that it is not a matter of shifting that lot around; they would
have to give up that one lot. That is a decision the County has
to make as well as deciding on the use of the 4 acre tract they
are proposing as a conservation easement.
Mr. McQueen then addressed the historical character of the
Trail and displayed an excerpt from the tax maps showing Jungle
Trail as it presently exists, the old route of Jungle Trail as
taken from a 1920 R/W deed, and showing the limits of Orchid Isle
development and where groves have been removed. Mr. McQueen
noted that some comment was made about whether there was a
mistake in the 1920 legal description leaving a gap, but he
contended that legal description was meant to be from beach to
beach and did not believe that has a big affect on what they are
proposing.
Mr. McQueen informed that Board that Mrs. Bunnell told him
that her father, R. D. Carter, at one time realigned a portion of
Jungle Trail to the edge of the river to make room for groves in
that area. He believed with the realignments that have been
done, that what they are proposing will only enhance the scenic
character of the Trail. He contended that the northern portion
of the Trail is different than the portion to the south.
Mr. McQueen stated that he did receive letters of no
objection from grove owners. Tom Kennedy sent a letter of no
objection; another letter of no objection was from the Liers, and
they also have such a letter from Pryor Groves. He noted that
the letter of objection that the Board has in their backup
material is from Earring Point Groves, and they have not accessed
Jungle Trail for their grove operation for about 20 years; their
access is from A -1-A. Mr. McQueen advised that they are still
S
56
pursuing letters of no objection; although, staff has changed
their recommendation about that to have them conform to Director
Davis' recommendation about their realignment. He then referred
to a letter received from the Uniola Chapter of the Florida
Native Plant Society, which he believed endorses the new align-
ment, and he also felt a letter from the Historical Properties
Associates, which talks about a "no-win" situation, is somewhat
an endorsement for the realignment. Mr. McQueen personally felt
that both sides win with what they have proposed. As to the
importance and value attached to having Jungle Trail put on the
National Register, he felt the Commission must consider whether
what they are doing is to the benefit and best interests of the
public, and noted that the value of the real estate they are
proposing to put in the county's hands is about 1.7 million. He
further pointed out that the letter from the State of Florida
about the National Register states that the owners of the site
being proposed for nomination are notified in writing and given
an opportunity to comment on the proposal, but they were not
notified nor given an opportunity to comment. It also states
that if the owners object, the site will not be listed. Mr.
McQueen believed it could benefit the developer for this to be on
the National Register as it would give them some tax advantages,
and if the Historical Society wishes, they would pursue this
being on the Register subject, of course, to the realignment and
abandonment.
Mr. McQueen wrapped up his presentation by addressing the
following conditions in staff's recommendation.
3.) In regard to the applicant granting property lying east of
the realigned portion except 200' at the entrance, they would
like to change that to dedicate all that portion south of their
entrance except the first 5001. That would give the developer
control of his entrance.
4.) Re the 30' building setback being a buffer area, they have
agreed to establish the first 10' of that as a conservation
57
--
BOOK 77 f'tq,GE
easement and their building setback could go from that 101, but
to restrict what they would do in that other 20' is a tough
restriction, and they would ask that the Board strike Condition
#4 or add that 10' of that habitable building setback instead be
established and granted to the County, not the full 30'.
6.) They would ask that the County not restrict buildings being
placed on the previous alignment of Jungle Trail, which would
affect the one building lot.
The Board recessed at Noon for five minutes and then
reconvened with the same members present.
Attorney Kevin Doty came before the Board representing the
County Historical Society. He contended that the abandonment and
realignment are separate and distinct items and that there should
be no talk of abandonment at this time; advised that they intend
to offer evidence that will suggest that any realignment will
adversely affect the historical integrity of the Trail; contended
that the procedure followed to date is wrong because they feel a
Comprehensive Plan amendment is a required step; and advised that
there is some evidence this may be a state highway and the County
may not have the right to abandon it. Attorney Doty stressed
that the Society's ultimate position is that they are opposed and
feel this application should be denied and stated that he would
at this time renew their request that this item be tabled until
the questions he has brought up can be answered.
THERE WAS NO MOTION TO TABLE.
Attorney Doty began his presentation contending that the
applicant's stated reason for the application "to provide
necessary security for development and to buffer the Trail from
development" is not criteria on which a realignment request can
be based. The developer bought this property subject to the
58
existing historical roadway, and he has no vested right to
request this realignment.
The first issue Attorney Doty addressed was that present
procedure requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment, his reason
being that the current alignment of Jungle Trail is in the
Comprehensive Plan on Page 90 in the form of a map; therefore,
any
realignment from that would be
a modification
to that page of
the
Comp Plan and would constitute
an amendment of
the Comp Plan
and require the proper procedures.
Attorney Doty next addressed the issue of whether the
proposed realignment and abandonment will adversely affect the
historical integrity of the Trail. If it does, he suggested that
the Board is acting in excess of its authority and is disregard-
ing its own recognized documents adopted in April of 1989 as he
did not believe the record before the Board shows that the burden
of_proof has been borne by the applicant or that there is
substantial competent evidence upon which the Board can grant the
application.
Attorney Doty then referred to the statement in staff's memo
under the heading CONCLUSION that "the proposed realignment would
enhance the scenic value of the Trail, and can, with conditions,
clearly meet all the realignment review criteria specified in the
Jungle Trail Management Plan with the exception of the criterion
regarding historical character and integrity" by which he felt
staff has admitted unequivocably that the criteria is not met.
Community Development Director Keating believed Mr. Doty is
taking staff's wording out of context. They stated that the
criteria is not clearly met. Also, the memo goes on to reference
the fact that the existence of a vegetative buffer is an integral
part of the historic integrity, and the whole point of staff's
recommendation hinges on the fact that if the Trail is not
abandoned, there is a good possibility that the vegetation could
be cleared right up to the roadway.
59 BOOK r,nj.97
ji
JUN "i 198 Bou I7 Fa E
198
Commissioner Bird commented that Mr. Doty made the statement
that any deviation from the present alignment would jeopardize
the Trail's historical value, but he believed there has been
evidence presented that the alignment of this Trail has been
realigned over the years; so, he did not know what the magic date
is that would have an effect.
Attorney Doty advised that he could only say that previous
alignments have not been documented at this point.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that back early in the discus-
sion, he asked Mr. Boling some very specific questions, some of
which related back to native vegetation. The real fact of the
matter is that the existing Trail that is there now is not what
was there, and what is more indicative of the history is the 100
year old oaks and the live orchids that happen to be within the
coastal hammock, and he wished that to be spread on the record
because that is the reason he asked those specific questions.
What is indicative of history is not necessarily an orange tree.
That's not what was originally there.
Attorney Doty did not wish to debate that point. He noted
that is one interpretation, but it is not his. He also referred
to staff comments about criteria not being clearly met and stated
whether it is clearly met or not, it is clearly not clearly met.
Attorney Doty then referred to a letter addressed to him by
William Thurston, Historic Preservation Supervisor, of the
Florida Division of Historical Resources, regarding the proposed
realignment in which Mr. Thurston stated that "we can only
comment that such action could impair the historic character of
the road and its potential eligibility for listing in the
National Register." He next referred back to the letter received
by Millie Bunnell of the Historical Society from Dr. William
Adams of Historic Property Associates, noting that he reaches an
absolutely different conclusion than Chief Planner Boling did
after reading the same letter, which stated that "Relocation of
the road will, obviously, destroy the historic authenticity and
60
originality of the route. Whether the loss of a portion of the
route may jeopardize chances for acceptance in the National
Register of Historic Places, we cannot say, for there is not
sufficient experience in Florida with listings of this kind upon
which to make a judgement of that kind." Attorney Doty felt the
point of this letter is that at this point there is insufficient
record evidence on which to base a realignment. He disagreed
with staff's interpretation of the same letter.
Planner Boling wished to point out that in his letter Dr.
Adams had said that there is not sufficient "experience" in
Florida with listings of this kind, and he did not know that
necessarily means evidence.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if Dr. Adams was aware there
were previous alignments, and Planner Boling did not believe so.
Attorney Doty again did not believe there is documented
evidence of previous realignments. He then presented the Board
with a FAX copy of a letter from Suzanne Walker, Chief of the
Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation, which he read for the
record, as follows:
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Jim Smith
Sey:retary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
R.A. Gray Building
500 South lironough
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-W0
Directors Office Pelecopier Number (FAX)
(904)488-1480 (904) 488-3353
June 26, 1989
Mr. Kevin Doty
817 Beachland Boulevard
Vero Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Doty:
At the request of Mrs. Ruth Stanbridge, I have reviewed the
memorandum from Stan Boling to the Planning and Zoning Commission
dated June 1, 1989 regarding a proposal to abandon and re -align a
portion of Jungle Trail.
BooK 17 PAGE 200
On pages 6 and 7 of the staff memorandum, the statement is made
that the staff's opinion, based on comments from the Division of
Historical Resources, is that "public access of some kind" would
lessen any adverse impact on historical significance. Elsewhere
in the memorandum, a conclusion is reached that the proposal can
be conditionally approved in.such a way that the realignment
would not adversely affect the historic character of the trail as
a whole. The Division of Historical Resources would like to make
a statement in regard to that conclusion.
Rased on the drawings which were sent to this office, we believe
that the project, as proposed, will have an adverse effect on a
historic resource of local significance. Furthermore, while the
series of markers and the.easement proposed by the staff make
gesture toward the significance of the trail, they do not
significantly reduce the adverse effect of the project as
planned.
The proposed development, if properly planned, need not have an
adverse effect on the historical character of the trail. There
appear to be development options which would allow retention of
the fabric of the trail within the golf course and residential
development. One alternative is to make use of the trail as a
means of internal circulation. In this approach, new construct-
ion in proximity to the trail would need to be sensitive to its
character. This would mean new construction should be screened
by landscaping or berms to reduce its visual impact. This
approach would have minimal impact on the historic integrity of
the trail and, in our opinion, would have no serious effect on
the developer's ability to carry forth his development program.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free
to contact me at 904/487-2333. We.would be happy to discuss
project alternatives with any of the involved parties.
Sincerely,
t
JwSuzae P. Walker, Chief
of Historic Preservation
Commissioner Scurlock felt as part of the record we should
have the drawings that were sent so we can compare apples to
apples.
Attorney Doty stated that he cannot supply these now, but
will be glad to supplement.
Chairman Wheeler asked staff if we have the authority to see
that the development is carried out as Ms. Walker has suggested
so that it wouldn't have an adverse affect on the Trail, and as
far as setting a precedent is concerned, he noted that we have a
historical trail that runs through a city where we don't have any
jurisdiction, and he did not know that we have that same situa-
tion anywhere else in the county.
62
Director Keating answered in regard to jurisdiction that the
very southern part of the Trail is within the Town of Indian
River Shores and the County does not have jurisdiction there
either - although we do have a 40' maintenance easement. He
advised that he had the same letter FAXED to him by Ms. Walker.
It appears Ms: Walker is stating that there has to be this
buffering of the Trail to reduce the impact, etc., and the whole
basis of staff's recommendation was that staff does not have the
ability to ensure that within the Town of Orchid and we have been
operating under the worst case scenario which conceivably could
be no buffer.
Attorney Doty pointed out that there is no decision made as
to whether the Management Plan is enforceable in the Town of
Orchid and whether the 25' easement adequately protects the road.
Commissioner Eggert asked what happens if the Town of Orchid
opts out of the plan and enacts their own.
Chairman Wheeler agreed there is a risk involved. It
appears in talking with some of the legal counsel, that while no
one has said they would do such a thing, apparently they have the
right to go right up to the line and put up a concrete wall. It
is easy to say we want to protect that road, but we are gambling
on whether we can or not.
Attorney Doty felt none of us would have to gamble if the
Board would defer until the questions he asked earlier were
answered.
Discussion continued at length regarding what could happen
to the Trail, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that for some
reason there is an implication that to be historical, the road
has to be on the National Register, and that is bunk! Whether we
either get on or don't get on the Register doesn't make this
historic. That is not the issue.
Attorney Doty agreed that is not the issue. It is historic
and has been recognized as such, and the Management Plan mandates
that the County will actively support the Historic Society's
63
JUN 2 `! 1999 Boor �a; 01
JUN
Bou 77 MGE ®2
efforts to get on the National Register. The Board has committed
itself to pursuing this.
Commissioner Scurlock believed specific questions were asked
when the Board made that Resolution, and those questions have yet
to be answered; for instance, the question regarding the ability
of a person to develop his property without going to Atlanta
still has not been answered.
Attorney Doty again contended that the Trail is part of the
Jungle Trail Management Plan, and he would -suggest the Board
cannot deviate from its stated goals as adopted without an
amendment. He wished to go over the six criteria of the
Management Plan and referred to Page 12 of that Plan which states
that "the following criteria are required for approval of a
realignment request. (1). The Applicant must own or control
property on both sides of the Trail proposed for realignment."
They have some question whether the carrot the developer is
offering is enforceable against the Polo Club as pertains to the
30' setback on the north portion of the Trail.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that portion is not within
the corporate limits of the Town of Orchid and, therefore, our
normal ordinances are applicable, and we can set whatever set-
backs we do through a public hearing process.
Attorney Doty suggested it would be better to request that
the realignment be moved 30' south so there is no question about
a taking.
Planner Boling advised that the developer has met that by
moving the realignment portion south and adding another 20'
buffer so we could have 31' from the northern edge of the
proposed realignment roadbed to the property line, and then the
county setbacks would apply.
Attorney Doty continued to argue that unless that property
is made a party to it, it is unenforceable and it could be
considered a taking, and Attorney Collins agreed it would be a
taking if we shifted this burden directly onto the Polo Club, but
64
as long as the Jungle Trail protected area, the 301, can be
provided and the setbacks can be measured from that protected
area, he felt we should be all right.
Attorney Doty then cited Page 12 of the Management Plan as
stating that any realignment must be traffic safety related and
enhance without jeopardizing the historic integrity of the Trail.
He believed there is no doubt that the realignment will adversely
affect the historic.integrity of the Trail.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that this Board, based on
a public hearing made a judgment and came up with a vote to agree
that the Trail is historic. This is still that very same Board
and he believed future Boards will continue to agree it is
historic.
Attorney Doty agreed the Board did that, but did not feel
they should necessarily sit in judgment. If they did that, he
supposed then that the Board feels comfortable with saying that
the realignment itself has been historic when it doesn't even
exist. He did not wish to debate but felt it requires some legal
Imagination to say that because the Board established what has
existed since the 120s and 130s as a historic road, the Board
also has authority to declare what doesn't yet exist historic as
well. He did not think that is supportable at all.
Chairman Wheeler believed that is an interesting point
Attorney Doty just brought up. He felt probably it was reaching
some in the beginning to call the north portion of the Trail
historic anyway, and if you take the same criteria, you could
apply it to quite a few other roads in the county and call them
historic as well.
Attorney Doty next stressed that the realignment must
continue the continuity of the Trail, and the developer is
proposing a cut at some point here; he believed they are asking
for 500' for that. The proposal is to stop traffic on Jungle
Trail so that it yields R/W to traffic in a development, and he
would suggest that it should be the other way around.
65
JUN 2 21999 ROOK 7 F'';E 2031
UVJ �� aooK 77 Pa E 20
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we have a uniform
traffic code we must adhere to, and Chairman Wheeler felt if what
Attorney Doty is saying about continuity is the case, then we
should stop the traffic on CR 510 and have it yield to Jungle
Trail.
Attorney Doty referred to the condition in the Management
Plan which states that the realignment shall not adversely affect
the historic character of Jungle Trail as a whole. They are of
the opinion that it will, and even if it may not ultimately, they
take the position that there is insufficient record evidence
before the Board on which to make that decision.
Commissioner Scurlock asked just who sits in judgment as to
who sits in judgment of the fact as to whether or not it shall
affect the historical integrity, and Attorney Doty did not feel
it is the County Commission, but rather a court of law.
Chairman Wheeler asked who besides the County Commission has
called that road historical, and Attorney Doty advised the
Historical Society has.
The Chairman noted that the Society then apparently sat in
judgment instead of the County Commission, and Attorney Doty
stated that he was not saying that.
Attorney Collins addressed the issue of who makes the
finding. He pointed out that the last criteria of the Management
Plan, which Mr. Doty just referred to, goes on to say that the
County Planning staff shall coordinate with the Historic Society,
the Department of State, the Bureau of Historic Preservation, and
the Florida Native Plant Society, and report to the applicable
reviewing commission, which is the Board, to provide information
for the finding determination. He agreed that Mr. Doty is
correct that if this goes to court and there is not sufficient
evidence, the court could say how did you arrive at this conclu-
sion. However, the last paragraph of the letter from
Suzanne Walker, Chief of the Bureau of Historic Preservation,
states that "The proposed development, if properly planned, need
66
not have an adverse effect on the historical character of the
trail." and further states that "One alternative is to make use
of the trail as a means of internal circulation." The suggestion
he takes from this is that there may be ways the historical
integrity could be preserved. There is evidence that goes both
ways, but the Commission is the body -that makes the determina-
tion and he did believe not the court would substitute its
judgment for the Board's unless there is substantial evidence.
Commissioner Eggert commented that those she has talked to
in Tallahassee and Washington have said that if a road that is to
be declared historical had native vegetation of some type, for
instance, bean fields, etc., and that no longer existed, or if
the roadbed had been changed, etc. then that historical integrity
already has been affected.
Attorney Doty pointed out that the Historical Society recom-
mended that the developer be required to retain a consultant who
is expert in these areas, and that has not been done.
Attorney Doty next addressed the issue of whether Jungle
Trail is actually a state road and not under the county's
jurisdiction, and submitted the following evidence in this regard
taken from the Laws of Florida in 1931, 1935, and 1941, which he
asked be made a part of the record.
67
BOOK 77 F'A.;E 20
JUN 2 i 1969
LAWS OF FLORIDA
mania, in Glades County, Labelle and Felda, in Hendry
County, and Immokalee in Collier County, along the most
practical route, and the same is hereby placed on the list of
State Roads. The State Road Department is authorized and
empowered to construct and maintain said road and is hereby
directed to take over, at once, the maintenance of that part
of said road between LaBelle and Everglades."
Provided that the construction on the aforesaid Road shall
begin as soon as possible when that stage of construction has
been reached on Roads 1 to 5 inclusive, 8 and 17, 19, 5A, 10,
11, 13, 15, 20, 28 and 47, when labor and equipment may be
transferred from the roads mentioned in this proviso that will
not delay the construction of such roads mentioned in this
proviso.
1145
Chap. 13898
1931
Section 2. That the number of said road be and the same Number
changed from
is hereby changed from Number 26A to Number 164 and 26-a, to No.
shall be named and called the 'Bob Bentley Highway". J69.
Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon the approval of
the Governor or upon its becoming a law without such
approval.
Approved- June 26, 1931.
CHAPTER 15648—(No. 48) .
AN ACT Designating, Declaring and Establishing as State
Roads Certain Highways in Indian River County, Florida.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. * That the certain highways located in Indian
Designation
River County, Florida, the road beds 'of which are now exist-
of
high raysnln
Ing, described as follows, to -wit: that certain Highway known
Indlan River
count as
as Emerson Avenue from intersection with the South bound-
w ysgh-
a.y line of Indian River County and then running north to
the intersection of said Emerson Avenue with State Road No.
30 in Indian River County;
Also, that certain road located in Indian River County com-
monly known as King's Highway running from the south
boundary line of Indian River County; thence in a northerly
1146 LAWS OF FLORIDA
r;ChaD:. -,direction to the point that said King's Highway intersects
with State Road No. 4 near the City of Sebastian, Florida;
Also, that certain road located in Indian River County and '
known as Lateral A from the point that said Lateral A road
intersects with the _paved .Highway 'commonly known as Oslo
road; thence running north to the point that said Lateral A
' road connects with a road running east and west which. said
point is at the Common Corner of Sections 29, 30, 31, and 32,
Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County,
Florida; ,
Also, that certain .road located in Indian River County run-
ning from Lateral A road to the highway now existing on the
peninsula lying between the Indian River and Atlantic Ocean
in Indian River County;
Also, that certain -highway running from the paved high-
way now existing between the. City of Sebastian and Fells -
mere, Florida, in a southerly and easterly direction through
the City of Wabasso, Florida, and thence to the highway now
existing on the peninsula in said county lying between the
Indian River and Atlantic Ocean thence along said highway
in a southerly and easterly direction to the bridge across the
Indian River to the City of Vero Beach and thence westerly
through the limits of said City to State Road No. 30 known
as Osceola Boulevard;
68
LAWS OF FLORIDA
CHAPTER 1731,) —(No. 543).
HOUSE BILL NO. 938
AN ACT Establishing and Designating a Certain State Road.
I:e It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
1225
Chap. 17315
1935
Section 1. A road leading from Cross City, Florida, in a south- n� Ignn1eton
erly direction to a point on the gulf coast known as Horse Shoe, woad.
lm, and the same is hereby established and designated as a state
road. i
Section 2. This act shall become effective upon its becoming a
law.
Became a law without the Governor's approval.
Piled in Office Secretary of State "May 28, 1935.
CHAPTER 17315—(No. 544).
HOUSE BILL NO. 936
AN ACT Designating a State Road in Indian River and Brevard
Counties.
Be It Enacted by the Leyislature of the Slate of Florida:
Section 1. That the public road running in a Northerly and nesiguation
Southerly direction from the road known as the Wabasso Bridge i o ttatu
Road on the peninsula in Indian River County, Florida to the Se-
bastian Inlet in Brevard County, Florida be, and the same is,
hereby designated as a State road.
Section 2. The State Road Department is authorized, in its dis- Maintenance.
eretion, to take over and maintain the road herewith designated, to
,rant a number thercror, and to re-route said road from the
Wabasso Bridge Raid in Indian River County, Florida on said
iwninsula to the Sa;bastuul Inlet in Brevard County, Florida along
.licit route as the State Road department may deem advisable.
Section 3. All laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed.
Section 4. 'Phis act shall become eirective immediately upon its
becoming it law.
Became a law without the Governor's approval.
Piled in Office Secretary of State May 28, 1935.
ST:1Th: ROAD SYSTRAi OF FLORIDA 41
1 Road No. 251: Beginning at the laternl.A road; thence
to the highway now existing on the peninsula lying
betwecni Indian River and Atlantic Ocean in Indian
Iti�•er cotintv�CLnny180.13,.�1ets,1931:)
Road No. 252: From paved highway now existing be-
tween Sebastian and Felisntere, running southerly and
�• easterly through the - City of Wabasso and thence to :
'I:ighwat� now existing on the peninsula in said county; ;
thence along said highway in a southerly and •easterly j
1 direction to the bridge across Indian ItIver to the City .
r of Fero ;leach and thence westerly through the limits of
said city t0 Load No. 30, known as Osceola Boulevard
also from the road known its the Wabasso Bridge Road
on the peninsula northerly to the Sebastian lnlet;in
Drevnrdcounty.•_(Chap.-151;15, Acts 1931; Chnp.•17315, ..
=ts 19:1_.) '
j Road No. 253: That certain highway now existing
' in Indian River county and known as North Gifford
and South Gifford roads from a point where each of
said roads intersect road in said county known as
lateral A and fluence east to the point where said roads
'intersect IEoad No. 4_(Chap. 15618, Acts 1931.)
Road No. 25-1: From intersection with Road No. 4,
and existing hhllway; thence in a westerly direction to
the village of Roseland. (Chap. 15618, Acts 1931.)
69
r 41 ,66 tiou 77 P,� c N 7
'JUS s ���_.�� BooK 77 P,. E208
LAWS OF FLORIDA
C"Pwr 21279 Section 86. That the following named and described road is
n«Is�.tma hereby declared, designated and established as a State Road, Kith t,k
aut.soads all rights and privileges of designated State Roads:
(Indian Riva
Count,). All of that certain road known as Lateral "A" Road and whiet
runs North and South in Indian itiver County.
Section 87. That the following named and described road is
hereby declared, designated and established as a State Road, with
all rights and privileges of designated State Roads:
That certain public road running due West from Lateral "A"
Road to the center point of Section 19, Township 31 South, Range/
39 East. �/
Section 88. That the following named and described road is
hereby declared, designated and established as a State Road, with
all rights and privileges of designated State Roads:
That certain road which runs from State Road No. 4 due West
to the center point of Section 20, Township 31 South, Range 39ve-1-
East.
Section 89. That the following named and described road is .P
hereby declared, designated and established as a State Road, with
a�
all rights and privileges of dasignated State Roads: vete
That certain road on the Peninsula lying between the Atlantic
Ocean and the Indian River, and which road is known as the r
Peninsula Road and runs from the North line of Indian Rivet'✓
County in a Southeasterly direction to the South line of Indian
River County.
Section .90. That the following named and described road is
hereby declared, designated and established as a State Road, with .FAT -e 4-G
all rights and privileges of designated State Roads: Xae p`
That certain road beginninfi at the Northeast corner of Gov- J <
ernment lot 1, in Sectioin 23, Township 31 South, Range 39 East,/ V
and running thence West to the Wabasso Bridge across the Indian <
River. and thence across said bridge and thence in a Southwest- 5 X01
erly direction to the Northeast corner of Government lot 5, See-h�
tion 28 Township 31 South, Range 39 East, thence due West to_
Lateral "A" Road.
Section 91. That the following named and described road is
hereby declared, designated and established BE a State Road, with
all rights and privileges of designated State Roads:
LAWS OF FLORIDA 297
tion 34, Township 32 South, Range 39 East and runs thence cb•vt� so
North along the East line of said Section a distance of 1/2 mile.
Section 133. Each and every one of the roads described in sa ate:
the foregoing Sections are situate in Indian River CountyIndian River
County).(
Florida.
Section 134. The iState-Road Department of the State of
Florida is hereby vested with authority to determine .and fix
the lines and locatioins of the toads hereby designated between
tie points herein named, such lines and locations to be as near
as may be practicable to the present locations of said roads, streets
and highways.,
Section 135. The State Road Department of the State of
Florida is herewith authorized and empowered to assign appropri.
ate numbers to any or all of the said roads, streets and highways
herewith designated.
Section 136. All laws or parts of laps in conflict herewith
by, and the same are, hereby repealed.
Section 137. This Act shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and approval by the Governor or upon its becoming a
laic without such approval.
Vetoed by the Governor 1939.
Passed over Veto 1941.
Filed in Office Secretary of State Alay 12, 1941.
70
Attorney Doty further.noted that the 1936 General Highway
and Transportation Map prepared by the federal works agency PWA
shows Jungle Trail in its current alignment and designates it as
State Road 252, and there is also a 1946 road map of the roadways
in Indian River County done by R.D.Carter, which designates
Jungle Trail in its present alignment and identifies it as A -1-A.
He stressed that the DOT cannot find evidence that this road was
ever conveyed back to the county . There is no proof of abandon-
ment by the state, and he believed this needs to be determined.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how we can designate it historic
if it is not a county road.
Attorney Collins stated that it is a county road and we can
answer this right now. We don't dispute its status in the past,
but it is a question of do we have good legal claim to that road
which has been shown on maps as a state road. He then quoted
from FS 335.01 which declares all roads open and available for
use by the public and dedicated to public use to be established
as public roads. It also says that the public roads shall be
divided into 4 systems, one of which is the county road system.
Attorney Collins next cited FS 335.04 which says the DOT has the
responsibility of functionally classifying all public roads in
the state and assigning them to the appropriate road system.
This statute sets out basic functional categories, and the county
road system is defined as all collector roads in the unincor-
porated area and all extensions into and through any incorporated
areas. Therefore, whether this was once on the state road system
or not, the state DOT functionally classifies roads and notifies
governments of a transfer in responsibility for the maintenance,
and obviously since the County has just filed a maintenance map
and we know we have records of maintenance for 4 years, at some
point in the past it was classified as a collector road in the
county system, and the issue of a deed by the state is really
moot.
71
JUN 2 poor j _ {cr � In
n
J
Al 2 o?
190
BOOK
77
F,1GE 21
Attorney Doty
noted that while Attorney Collins
may be
correct in his analysis, he also could be wrong. He stressed
that he felt he has raised some rather substantial issues and
believed deferring this decision today is still a good idea.
Attorney Doty next wished to talk about their position on
the recommendations they have made. He referred to his memo to
the P6Z dated June 8, 1989, Page 26 of the backup, and to his
letter of June 20th to Chief Planner Stan Boling, which is as
follows:
ROBIN A. BLANTON
STEVE l.. HENDERSON
THOMAS A. KOVAL
CLINTON W. LANIER
ROBIN A. LLOYD. SR.
GEORGE H. MOSS
EVERETT J. VAN GAASBECK
Moss, HENDERSON & LLOYD. P.A.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
817 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD
P.O. BOX 3406 ((��
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32964.3406��'��i.72o /4eoa
(407) 231.1900
GROUP 3 FAX PHONE
4072314387
Mr. Stan Boling 1
Chief, Current Development
Indian River County Administration Building
1840 = 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Jungle Trail
Dear Stan:
i
J�/U��rui 198%
COMIAMM
DOW -0-09M
H.R. BRENNAN
OLIVIA DEVONMILLE
KEVIN S. DOTY
DONALD E.FEUERBACH
ELIZABETH A. JACKSON
FRED L. KRETSCHMER. JR.
�RLA S. MATTHEWS
SAN A VASSINDER
OF COUNSEL
.LIAM G. HALL. JR.
June 20, 1989
In accordance with our meeting Wednesday afternoon, June 14, I am enclos-
ing for your review the Historial Society's comments relative to the
realignment of Jungle Trail. Please keep in mind that the Historial
'Society*- submits these recommendations as An'alternative position. The
Historial Society's first and foremost position remains that the realign-
ment cannot be accomplished using the present procedure; i.e., that a comp
plan amendment is necessary. Additionally, any realignment will adversely
impact if not destroy historial integrity and is contrary to the 1982 Comp
Plan, the 1985 Ordinance, and the 1989 Management Plan. With that in
mind, the following recommendations are submitted in hopes that they will
buttress and enhance your recommendations to -further mitigate any adverse
impact caused by the realignment. .
In elaborating on the following recommendations, I will attempt to refer-
ence your recommendations as contained in your June 1, 1989, memorandum.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Of foremost importance is the issue of abandonment. There can be no
abandonment of the present Trail until the question of the impact of the
realignment and abandonment is resolved. There does not exist substantial
competent evidence sufficient to justify the realignment. If the realign-
ment and/or abandonment will jeopardize or destroy the historical
integrity of the Trail, the entire management plan together with the
comprehensive plan, and ordinance are defeated. It may be possible to
consider a temporary closing at the developer's risk pending the outcome
of this threshold question. If closed, the Trail must remain in its
present configuration accessible to the public until such time as this
question is answered.
72
2. (Corresponds to your current recommendation #1.) Regardless of
whether abandonment or closing is determined to be an acceptable avenue,
we are in agreement that your current #1 is appropriate. The Historial
Society suggests that your recommendations in #1 be expanded to include
all legal arrangements, including easements, realignment, etc., be
reviewed by the County attorney's office, which we believe is the intent
of your recommendation #1-
3. (Corresponds to your current recommendation #2.) The Historial
Society agrees with your recommendation #2. If the realignment is
it is imperative that the developer dedicate the right of way
the development entrance to ensure Jungle
adopted;
for Jungle Trail through
Trail's continuity. In other words, the entrance to the development
cannot take legal priority for right of way over the Trail.
ority
Additionally, for the inra the entrances roadnmustsstoriyieldlintegrity,
right oft
ay to
development traffic g
the traffic on Jungle Trail.
4. (Corresponds to your current recommendation #3.) Your current #3
is acceptable to the Historial Society.
5. (Corresponds with your current recommendation #4 and relates in
part to your paragraph #1 in your June 12, 1989, letter.) The
Historial Society is in agreement with that recommendation.
6. (Corresponds to your current recommendation #5 and paragraph #3
of your June 12, 1989, letter.) As we have discussed, let us
an be made safe and accessible to
recognize that any realignment c
vehicular traffic including machinery and trucks servicing the groves
to the north of the proposed development. of critical importance,
however, is the developer's stated intent of offering ny as theaccnod uid pro
quo for realignment
cannote be at the expenenicallse of the enhanced
quality.
for traffic
7. (Corresponds with your current recommendation #6.) The
Historical Society agrees that a 5 foot wide limited access easement
is.a good idea. However, as stated above in #3 above, the 5 foot wide
limited access easement must run the entire length of the Trail and
not except the entrance road.
8. (Corresponds with your current recommendation #7.) As we have
discussed, the entire route of the portion of Jungle Trail that will
be closed must remain marked and accessible to the public. As we have
previously pointed out, visual access is unacceptable because there is
no way that you realigned portion. can adequately and completelyvisually access the
Trail from the Any historical information and
alignment markers must be done in a professional manner. The
Historical Society recommends that the County retain the services of a
professional consultant, at the expense of the developer, to
accomplish the objectives outlined in your recommendation V.
9. (Corresponds with your current recommendation #8.) The Historical
Society agrees in principle with the recommendations outlined in As your
paragraph #8. However, there remains certain traffic concerns.
you
know, the developer is touting the elimination of two 90 degree turns.
Please direct your attention to the northern most turn where the
realignment meets torsi than Trail.
the two 90s point,
it turns that thears tthe turn
developer
proposed there is .
seeks to eliminate.
What follows are the Historical Society's additional concerns and they
will be numbered consecutively for ease of reference.
7377 F, 911
� UI N i `�sbzy �na�
-1
JUNE 2 mJ 1989
Boor 77 F,4GE 212
10 Before any realignment can be undertaken, the County Attorney's
office should make a determination and issue nofopinion
as to to whether
hey
the management plan is enforceable in the town
realignment or abandonment.
11. One of staff's concerns that the Historical Society agrees with
is whether the developer owns both sides of the entire alignment. It
appears from the record that the developer does not own sufficient
land on its northern boundary to enforce the 30 foot building setback.
That would mean that the County could not enforce the 30 foot,building
setback as to that property owner. It is axiomatic that the agreement
between this applicant and the County would not be enforceable against
a third party.
12. Any abandoned or closed portion of the Trail must remain free of
anyencroachment by private property interests. Essentially, the
Trail must remain in its present alignment unencumbered by lot lines,
improvement encroachments, etc.
13. Stop signs and yield signs and that sort of thing must be placed
in such a manner as to allow the continuous and uninterrupted flow of
traffic on Jungle Trail. In other words, any traffic crossing the
Trail including at the development's entrance must yield right of way
to the through traffic on the historically significant Trail.
14. The Trail needs to be protected at all costs from inappropriate
light sources including residential, security lighting, etc. All
light sources near the Trail need to be shielded or eliminated so that
the Trail does not suffer from light pollution.
15. The developer has expressed an
This portion of the plan needs
integrity, historial character, and
it remain in its unpaved status.
intent to pave a portion of the Trail.
to be eliminated. The historical
continuity of the Trail dictate that
16. The developer must be prohibited from building of any kind in the
Oak Hammock, whether that portion is dedicated to the County or not.
The developer is justifying their request on the increased scenic
enhancement of the Trail. If building is allowing to occur in the Oak
Hammock, obviously the enhanced scenic quality is diminished and the
rationalization and justification for the realignment is defeated.
-I-, am attaching once again for your ease of reference, a copy of
r William Thurston's May 180. 1989, letter to me. As relates to public
access, the strongest evidence in the record clearly indicates that an
abandonment and denial of public access could result in jeopardizing
the historical integrity of the Trail. It is the Historial Society's
position that any closed or abandoned portion be left available to the
public in its original alignment. If the developer has legitimate
security concerns (which I point out are not criteria on which to
justify realignment), then and in that event, the developer can take
additional security measures. As an example, perhaps the developer
could enforce daylight traffic only, etc.
After you have had an opportunity to review these comments and
recommendations-, please call me if you have any questions. Thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely,
MOSS, HENDERSON & LLOYD, P.A.
By: o
Kevin S. Doty, Esq
74
Attorney Doty wished to point out that the previous recom-
mendation passed on to the Board by the P&Z was that written
verification of no objection from the grove owners along the
Trail be obtained, and that provision was deleted by staff. He
felt that is a critical point and that the P&Z recommendation
should be left intact. He then went over the various recommen-
dations set out in his letter of June 20th in detail, contending
among other things that the portion of the Trail that crosses the
entrance to the development should not be paved, and there
shouldn't be a fire station in the oak hammock. Attorney Doty
felt the 500' the developer alluded to at the entrance should be
viewed as a red herring and not even discussed and also stated
that if the entire length of the Trail is unpaved, that portion
at the entrance should remain unpaved also. He further felt it
would not be proper for the Board to consider deviations from
what has been recommended to them and stressed that the
developer's request to be able to build in the 30' setback has to
be very closely monitored. He also contended that Mr. McQueen's
offer of 25' instead of 20' results in no net gain to the county
because he has trimmed the buffer by 51.
Attorney Doty concluded his presentation by requesting that
the Board reject the application, or at least temporarily deny
it, and if the Board absolutely must go with either one of the
developer's requests, he would ask for serious consideration of
their recommendations just reviewed, which he felt are well
founded.
Ruth Stanbridge, 4835 66th Avenue, spoke of the research
that she has been conducting for some year on Jungle Trail. She
contended that the Trail was not an old grove road. The old 1920
description everyone keeps referring to was just a paper road and
it took almost 10 years to put it on the ground. In that time
there were 2 realignments, but that was over 50 years ago, and 50
years is the historical significance in Florida. Mrs. Stanbridge
personally felt that what is proposed will negate any opportunity
75
JUN 2i 1989
BOOK
to get the Trail on the National Register. She stated that was
our A -1-A until the new road was completed in the 19601s; that
taxes were paid on the property on either side of the road, but
the 50' was not taxed; and that for six decades this public road
has been funded by the public. Mrs. Stanbridge continued to
speak in detail of the documentation she has done, stressing that
there is evidence that this needs further research, and the
County probably has more right to a 50' R/W than they obviously
feel they do.
Rose Gaines, 1901 33rd Avenue, resident since 1982, spoke of
her enjoyment of Jungle Trail. She did not really care about its
getting on the National Register, but believed it does have a
value to this community. Mrs. Gaines noted that she has been to
places where they have a historic marker and also has seen a
trail to the west where they keep the old wagon ruts visible, and
there is no comparison. She urged that when the Board considers
these plans, they remember that this is a place that speaks to
the history of our county, and if we change it, it is gone.
The Board recessed at 1:40 P.M. for lunch, and reconvened at
2:40 P.M. with the same members present.
Beulah Law, 2072 Cortez Avenue, came before the Board on
behalf of the Democratic Executive Committee of Indian River
County and read aloud a Resolution unanimously endorsing the
efforts of the Historical Society to preserve Jungle Trail in its
present alignment and stating that to abandon and realign and
deny public access will destroy.the historical integrity.
Mrs. Law noted that she owns property in Ambersand Beach and
occasionally travels on Jungle Trail going to Vero Beach. She is
interested in keeping the Trail like it is, and it seems to her
with all the development we are having on the island that this
road will be necessary because A -1-A will become crowded, and she
would like to see it maintained as a two lane paved road.
76
Gordon Michael, 2655 69th Street, did not understand how
this matter has gotten this far without all the criteria required
by the PBZ being met. He told them that Mr. McQueen had not
contacted all of the grove owners, and he asked Planning why he
was not contacted.
Planner Boling explained that there was discussion that not
everyone had been contacted. The reason staff had that require-
ment in there was that we wanted statements from grove owners who
would be affected by that segment of the Trail. We did get some
responses, and it has been demonstrated to Public Works Director
Davis that the realignment would accommodate and, in some cases,
be better than the maneuvering difficultiesthat are there now.
Mr. Michael believed staff had stated this would not be
passed on to the County Commission until such letters were
physically in their hands. He pointed out that when you are
talking about one, two or three property owners in this area, you
are talking about people representing a lot of property. Pryor
wrote a letter of no objection, but he does not own any property
because he sold it to the Polo Club; John Morrison owns a small
piece on the south and is more into real estate; and everyone is
aware that the Lier family is in favor of the realignment. He
continued to stress that staff made recommendations that have not
been met, and the grove owners feel strongly about it. Mr.
Michael emphasized that we are talking about the moving of
150-200,000 boxes.of fruit, and it has been strongly recommended
not to go on A -1-A with tractors, etc. He believed there is no
way in the world you can move a tractor through the proposed
realignment safely and contended that the 900 turns will make it
very difficult to move the fruit. He confirmed that Earring
Point Groves does not have an entrance to Jungle Trail and the
reason they don't is that some years ago they agreed with the
Liers that since they had an entrance, they would use that for
security reasons. They started using A -1-A some years ago.
77
JUN 2 V 1909nu '1 7
I
JUN
2'i
1989
BOOK
77
Commissioner Eggert asked
if staff had meant for
the
Michaels to quit using their A -1-A exit and go back on Jungle
Trail, and Planner Boling stated they had not.
Commissioner Bird believed the Michaels do not use Jungle
Trail, but Gordon Michael believed they will have to use it soon
because of the growing traffic on A -1-A.
Mr. Michael advised that he is speaking for the Kennedys,
and the other grove owners, besides the Liers, feel there are a
lot of concerns. He did not see why the public should have to
change the road just to suit a few and have their golf course
where they want it and extra houses. His grandfather was
originally a Commissioner and was founder of Everglades National
Park. He believed it has been said that there have been so many
compromises made that it is killing that park. He would
certainly hope the Board would not compromise with this but
rather leave the road where it is and let the developer work some
way out to get around it.
Commissioner Bird believed that all the Commissioners are
concerned about the ability of the citrus growers to use that
road and get their product to market; however, our Public Works
Director feels the proposed road will be an improvement.
Mr. Michael noted that he does not have the Public Works
Director's experience, but the Director does not have his
experience with citrus, and he is telling the Board that it won't
work. He also again contended that this area is not at all as
shown in the pictures presented today.
Chairman Wheeler commented that the only construction he has
seen when he has been there lately is to the west of Jungle
Trail, and he did not see anything cleared on either side of the
proposed realignment, and Mr. Michael noted that obviously the
Chairman sees it differently than he does.
Jean Bertram of 1264 George St., Sebastian, came before the
Board to read a letter written by Vicki Nichols who was out of
town. Ms. Nichol's letter emphasized that the Commission has
78
� e s
been handed a recommendation by the PSZ that goes against public
opinion; urged the Commissioners to end this flagrant disregard
of the wishes of the public; and reminded the Board that they had
promised that the historic integrity of Jungle Trail would be
protected.
Arline Westfahl, Rolling Hill Dr., Sebastian, expressed her
great concern about what can happen to one of our community
treasures and begged the Commission not to "sell our birthright
for a mess of pottage."
Cora Sembler Sadler, President of the Sebastian River Area
Historical Society, presented the following and asked that the
Board vote No to the developers for everyone's benefit:
eJPI�C%1�CfG/l .At.ve%x
JO r� .141."r /?4.P • 7Plii�/inti. .//r'���ii/ii 3,2.'/.i.Y• I.iCii f''
i
June 8, 1989 I
To M= it May Concern:
on June 6, 1989, the Board of Directors of the ane -hundred and fifty
member Sebastian River Area Historical Society, Inc. voted unanimously to
support the Indian River county Historical Society's position regarding
Jungle Trail. It passed a resolution asking that the proposed abandonment
of Jungle Trail not be approved until the applicant addresses the historical
integrity of the original alignment of Jungle Trail.
This is a cultural heritage that needs to be preserved for future generations.
It is the position of this Society that -history cannot be compromised or altered
for convenience.
Sincerely.
Board of Directors of the Sebastian River Area Historical Society, Inc.
Cora Sembler Sadler, President
Maysie Beller
Jean Bertram
Phil Darnell
Lorraine Doody
Doris Jorgensen
Will Jorgensen
79
George Reyes
Dot Judah
Jane Lambert
Ruth Riker
Paul Warwick
Arline Westfahl
ROOF
l .
Boos F42 18
A lady representing the Sebastian Junior Women's Club
reaffirmed the Club's endorsement of the Jungle Trail Management
Plan and implored the Board to vote against the proposal and
leave Jungle Trail in its pristine state.
Mrs. Hazel Crews, 20th Avenue, noted that she attended all
the workshops and strongly supported the Management Plan,
believing that it would preserve and protect our historical
trail. She felt it is important to know exactly what we own
before the Board gives it away.
Ann Michael, 1 Earring Point, informed the Board that she
had been asked to present the following from the City of Vero
Beach and City of Sebastian:
City of Vero Beach
1053 -20th PLACE - P. O. BOX 1389
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32961-1389
Tkkphons: 567-5151
O►►Ioe OF Ties
MAYOR
June 269 1989 Pr?1iP,�CJtI� w
coar,��ss�o� � vi'4
Chairman Gary Wheeler and ll616�1�
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners:
The City of Vero Beach, on April 49 1989, by official action
endorsed the Jungle Trail Plan as a means of preserving a unique
part of our County's history.
Maintaining vehicular access to the entire historical parts of
Jungle Trail, both north and south as proposed by the Historical
Society's Jungle Trail Conceptual Plan, would greatly benefit all
County residents.
We reiterate these feelings to you and trust you would take no
action that would now or in the future jeopardize the trail.
Sinc rely
Kenneth R. Macht
Mayor
80
RESOLUTION NO. g 9 -:34
A RE90LUTION OF THE CITY ODUNCIL OF T11E CITY OF SEBASTIAN,
STATING T11E POSITION OF TILE (XUNCIL IN RF GARD TO JLMIZ TR
THE BARRIER ISI.,AND IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, 11ORIUA; AND PIR
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The City of .1 Sebastian has passed Resolution No. R-89-18
W r r 1./
AAI
on April 5, 1989, stating its position of the Council in regard to Jungle
Trail; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sebastian recognizes the significance and
historical value of the existing alignment of Jungle Trail; and
WH REAS, the City of Sebastian concurs with the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan, which states thAt "Historic and scenic areas will
be designated and protected from adverse development impacts",
NOMI, 711EREFORE, BE IT RE90LVED BY TIIE CITY O"CIL OF .TILE CITY
OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, that we do publicly declare our endorsement of
the following in respect to the current alignment of Jungle Trail:
1) That we support the current alignment of this road for preservation
of its historical integrity and continuity of its present
route in relation to its natural and historical surroundings.'
2) That we do not support allowance of the developer to realign
a portion of the road thereby setting an undesirable precedent
for additional realignments in the future.
3) That we support the public interest in maintenance of the
existing route in lieu of private interests intent to alter
it for self-serving purposes.
0
r
This Resolution. shall be effective upon final passage by the City
Council.
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
_b077:
Administrator
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA
Attorney
Personnel
Public Worksby:
"?� �2
Al
Community Dev.
Richard B. Votapka, Mayor
Utilities
Finance
Other
*-Y
• ATTEST:
dvc.
Kathryn #.
O'Halloran,
City Clbfrk
n
Passed by. Sebastian City Council at Regular Meeting on June 14, 1989.
il�
81 p�q
UN 2 ? 1989 ROOK 77
JUN 2
GOOK
77
PAGE 220
Mrs.
Michael, president of Earring Point Groves,
Inc.,
expressed their strong opposition to the proposed realignment of
Jungle Trail and further advised that Mrs. Sermon who owns about
500 acres along the Trail north of the Polo Club property author-
ized her to inform the Board that she has not been contacted by
the applicant, and she most certainly does object to the
realignment.
Julie Lier, 2 Michael Creek Drive., read the following
statement for her mother-in-law, Jeannette•Lier, Sec./Treas. of
Lier Groves, Inc.:
June 27, 1989.
To: County Commissioners
Re, Realignment of North Jungle Trail
I am Jeannette Michael Lier, Sec.-Treas. of-Lier
Groves, Inc. residing at 1 Michael Creek Drive, Orchid
Island. I have.lived on Orchid Island in the vicinity
of the Wabasso bridgehead for seventy-six years. My
husband purchased a one-half interest in forty acres
of land along North Jungle Trail forty years ago, which
land he cleared and set in citrus. Subsequently, we ac-
quired part of an existing grove and more vacant land
which we cleared and planted. This makes us the long-
est continuous user of this road except for the Pryor
Family who preceeded us by many years. In the past, we
have paid to have certain sections of this road hedged
and have also filled in innumerable holes to keep this
road passable for our grove equipment -
As one of the -primary users of this road, we can
attest to the fact that nine -tenths of the traffic is
grove related. In fact, you could and still can go for
months at a time without seeing any vehicle that is not
related to citrus production. To re -enforce this state-
ment, several years ago after citrus canker was found in
the State of Florida, this North road was closed for
about one and one-half years to all traffic that was not
citrus related, and there was no hue and cry raised. Very
few people were even aware of this action.
If you will look at the map which shows the road
as proposed by the 1920 St. Lucie County Commission,
and then look at the existing North Jungle Trail, you
will see that there is a precedent for realigning this :s
82
road. Previous administrations accommodated the. land-
owners along this road by realigning it to facilitate
the development of their property. The map shows the
1920 road following the south and west side .of govt.
lot 3 in the Town of Orchid instead of the east and
north where the present road goes. This is a difference
of dcne-half mile.!Then, north of the city limits of
Orchid, the 1920 road goes north a distance of one-half
mile through govt. lots 8 and between lots 4 & 5, then
goes west for a distance of 990 feet. All of this adds
up to one mile and 990 feet out of a four -mile stretch
of road. Hardly minor! The proposed realignment will
not have a fraction of the impact that those previous re-
alignments had on the users of this road, but everybody
has managed to live with them for many, many years with-
out any apparent harm or detrimental effect.
Last but not least, this new alignment will have
all native vegetation on both sides of the road. This
is something the present section of road does not have.
Jeannette M. Lier
Charles MacConnell, 1927 21st Ave., county resident of 50
years, spoke of using Jungle Trail when it was the only access to
the Inlet. He stressed that he attended the workshops for the
Management Plan, and at no time in those workshops was anything
brought up about relocating the road when they talked about
realignment. He contended that the developers are using that
very Management Plan to turn it around and get what they want,
and he found all this very upsetting. The Commission pledged its
support to put this Trail on the National Register, but today
they have indicated just the opposite, and, in fact, he senses
tremendous resistance. Mr. MacConnell begged the Board to listen
to the people because he felt that it doesn't seem to be getting
through to them what the people want.
John Dean, concerned citizen and architect, next came before
the Board. He noted that early in the meeting, many hours ago,
it was said that the P&Z did vote on the realignment. His point
JUN �"".. �'�
7 198 8 3 mu � � F.�UE �,1
mor, 77 F.1 t222
was that at the time they voted, they were of the understanding
it was a 18-20' road R/W, and he wished to know if the research
does show there is a 50' R/W, whether there is a chance their
recommendation would be different.
Planner Boling noted that if you had a 50' R/W, you would
have some of that buffer, and you would also have some of the
citrus trees; so, you would have a tradeoff of potentially no
buffer with part of a buffer. He did believe that would make
some difference in the recommendation, but did not know at what
point in time you would be assured of that 50' R/W.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding the fact that the
County's attorneys earlier in the meeting pointed out the
difficulties involved in tracking back each owner along the 7
mile length of the Trail and determining if each joined in the
petition, whenever it was, for the county to build the road.and
also the possibility of someone claiming adverse possession so
that the likelihood of establishing a good case is doubtful.
Attorney Vitunac explained that in the 120s, roads were put
in by the posting and viewing method - markers were put out, and
people would have to come in and complain; otherwise, their
silence was acceptance. Most people were delighted to have the
road because land was cheap and the road was expensive, but title
was given only to the extent the road was built; therefore,
unless they gave some sort of deed, we would get title only to
what was actually built.
Mr. Dean then referred the Board to the Jungle Trail
Alignment Study he had prepared. (Copy of said study is on file
in the Office of Clerk to the Board.) He stressed that photo-
graphs are mi.sleading and show what the eye behind the camera
wants them to show. Drawings do that also. Mr. McQueen's
illustrations were fabulous, and they are drawn specifically to
prove the point the developer wants to make. It has been said
they may be willing to hand over 50' of R/W, but there are
strings attached to that offer and you often pay for decisions
84
made in haste. Mr. Dean appreciated the pressure on the
developer, noting that if you have gone as far as they have
without all the necessary approvals, that is a hard seat to sit
in; however, they did that themselves. He also appreciated the
value of the real estate that was mentioned, but there are some
things you can't put a money value on.
Mr. Dean wished to give a brief overview of his study, which
is subtitled "Does Jungle Trail Need to be Realigned for the
Orchid Island Golf and Beach Club?" He conjectured as to the
various things that could happen when another owners wants to be
able to do the same thing and stressed we are dealing with the
whole Barrier Island. Mr. Dean continued that the plan being
offered by the developer came about with the idea that Jungle
Trail would not be there. They were asked to design around it,
and they have chosen to move it. Mr. Dean claimed that the
development is crowding Jungle Trail because the developer is
creating the situation. They have plenty of land to look at
other alternatives, and the developer easily could shift his
project a little to the west. Their whole impetus, however, has
been security for their project and the continuity of their
development. All of this is taking place because of one design
approach and considering 400 new families rather than 87,000
people in the county.
Mr. Dean informed the Board that he has done three sketches
which not only are viable alternatives, but will give the
developer theAsame number of lots and same amount of golf course.
He believed the developer will take the alternative the Board
gives him and make the very best project he can because he has to
sell these lots.
Commissioner Bird commented that Mr. Dean's design eats up
the hammock we are trying to preserve.
Mr. Dean noted that his plans can be refined so that you can
get the same number of units and still preserve the hammock. It
appears the big concern is security, and as Commissioner Eggert
85
eoGr 7 7 F'A F 29
e� 2'd'089
r "l I
Jug 1989,r
pointed out earlier, you can get into any of these developments
from the ocean or the river. There are all types of security
gates, but he felt if you want to break into this place, you
probably are not going to ride down the main road to do it. Mr.
Dean pointed out that Grand Harbor has designed around a road
that isn't even there. To wrap up, Mr. Dean felt the Board
should either deny this request or table it, and if they were to
pass it - absolutely no abandonment.
Commissioner Bird believed that Mr. Dean obviously has done
a lot of work on his study, and he is also very intelligent and
asked that he reason along with him on this. We all want to be
able to preserve Jungle Trail and have it for future residents to
be able to enjoy; however, this is a very complex matter. If you
asked someone if he were opposed to closing Jungle Trail to
satisfy one developer, Commissioner Dean believed you could get a
thousand signatures in one Saturday morning. The problem is that
he believed the most we can be assured of is preserving our
ability to preserve 18-20' of Jungle Trail, and there is a
question as to whether the Town of Orchid will abide by our
setbacks, etc.. As to the 50' R/W, our staff has indicated it is
questionable under the law whether we can claim that 50.
Commissioner Bird continued that he, therefore, is trying to
weigh whether it is a viable tradeoff to take the 70' that has
been offered over 3 miles and balance that against the risk of
finding out we can control only 18-20' and then have people able
to built right up to the edge of the Trail. If the Commission
turns the applicant down today and limits ourselves to 18-20' and
they end up being able to build right up to the edge of the road,
people in the future will look at the Board as idiots. The
trade-off is to accept the offer and have a nice buffer. This is
not totally a one-sided question. Everyone refers to Jungle
Trail as being historic and scenic, but Commissioner Bird be-
lieved there is a question of trading off some historic for some
scenic values.
86
Mr. Dean agreed it is a sensitive issue and that it is not
an easy choice. He noted that he has faith in this developer and
is sure they will do a good job and he also has faith that if
other municipalities see how strongly the County feels on Jungle
Trail, they will cooperate to protect it. Mr. Dean continued to
stress that although it is a bit of a card game, he did -not think
the cards are stacked and there are alternatives.
Bud Kleckner, Chairman of the Indian River County Conserva-
tion Committee, a subcommittee of the Turtle Coast Sierra Club,
asked that the following letter be made a part of the record:
June 20, 1989
The Honorable Gary Wheeler
Chairman of the Board of County Commisioners
Indian River County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FI.32960
RE -Orchid Island Associates Proposal to Abandon and Realign a
Portion of Jungle Trail
Dear Gary,
I am writing on behalf of the members of the Indian River County
Conservation Committee which is a subcommittee of the Turtle
Coast Sierra Club. The committee supports the "Jungle Trail -
Scenic and Historic Corridor" conceptual plan as developed by the
Indian River County Historical Society. We note that the plan has
the support of the citizens and elected officials in the major
metropolitan areas of Indian River County. We strongly believe
that the historical integrity of the trail Is the critical
aspect of this plan.
We also strongly encourage the County to pursue the activity as
stated in the Management Plan, to "...Actively support the
historical society's efforts to obtain national register
designation for the trail".
The Comprehensive Plan designates the northern part of Jungle
Trail as a "subdivision collector" road . It carries heavy trunks
and equipment used by the citrus grove operators along the
trail. This heavy equipment should not use S.R. ALA. In addition,
as residential development increases on the northern parts of the
barrier island, the need for an alternate route, for use in case
there is an accident or other emergency on S.R. ALA, will become
necessary. The increased traffic on this portion of the trail is
envisioned in the Management Plan. The plan specifies that the
County may undertake the following:
" Make necessary alignment modifications to correct safety
problems on Jungle Trail. Where the public works director
identifies safety problems with the trail's alignment, the public
works depal�t aunt. will obtain a permit from the planning
department to remove vegetation and realign the traveled way
within the 40 foot maintenance area to promote safety...."
87 POGK 7 7f': ,:F 9"��
JUN 2? 199
F,
ROOK � 7 FnE 226
The Management Plan states that,"...The basis for the realignment
must be traffic safety related and/or enhancement of scenic
quality, without jeopardizing historic integrity". We recommend
that the County Commissioners deny the Orchid Island Associates
proposal to abandon and realign this portion of Jungle Trail,
for the following reasons:
(i) no traffic safety problem has been identified that could not
be better solved by following the Management Plan as quoted
above;
(2) the proposed realignment destroys the historic integrity of
Jungle Trail and thus could Jeopardize both its designation
In the National Register and the viability of the " Jungle
Trail- Scenic and Historic Corridor" conceptual plan 1
(3) we believe that the natural scenic quality of the trail has
already been degraded by the swath that was out through a
natural coastal hammock to indicate the proposed realignment.
In addition to the above, the Sierra Club recommends the
following general points regarding the northern portion of Jungle
Trailt
(1) that the historic alignment be maintained as indicated by
point 12 on the conceptual plan in order to provide a
vegetated buffer between the residential development and the
historic Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge;
(2) that the oak hammock at point ii and the tropical hammock at
point 16 be preserved as indicated in the plan.
Sincerly,
(3V
Z 0 / /4
C. C. Kleckner, Chairman
Indian River County Conservation Committee
Mr. Kleckner felt the historic aspect actually depends on
who you talk to, but from the safety aspect, he pointed out that
we are getting high density on the island and need another route
than A -1-A.
Commissioner Scurlock saw a natural conflict between pre-
serving the Trail and 4-laning it and having a second route.
Mr. Kleckner stated that he did not suggest 4 laning or
paving it, but just keep it open. We certainly do not want heavy
trucks going out on A -1-A. He emphasized that the Sierra Club is
concerned that if we tweak a little with the alignment here, we
will tweak a little more somewhere else, and it will be
completely out of the historic corridor. They are concerned
about hammocks being destroyed, and he urged that the Board not
rush to make an irreversible decision.
88
_I
r � �
Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock had some technical questions. He
wished to know the distance between the existing Trail and the
proposed realignment on the north, and Planner Boling felt it is
probably about 120' to the north of the existing road.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if anyone on our staff has
figured out the total acreage of the road as proposed versus what
the existing alignment is, and Mr. McQueen advised that they are
giving the County 17 acres over and above the amount they are
asking be abandoned.
Commissioner Scurlock questioned the safety of having their
intersection in the center of a curve, and Mr. McQueen explained
that will be a smooth curve linear alignment with a greater radii
than existing and they have talked with staff about making it
curve even more gently.
Commissioner Scurlock then asked why they don't go back
closer to the existing alignment on the north so they can stay
further away from the Polo Club property.
Mr. McQueen believed they probably can get back very close
to the existing alignment on about 900' of the 1320' segment.
Commissioner Bird discussed our various options, and be-
lieved what it all comes down to is how we roll the dice and what
we are willing to gamble with today or in the future.
Discussion ensued at length as to what.could happen with the
proposed buffer, etc., along the length of the Polo Club
property.
Mr. McQueen pointed out that the Polo Club has a conceptual
PRD in effect right now. He believed in that PRD the County has
made provisions for 50' from the centerline of Jungle Trail, and,
of course, in a PRD, you have a 25' setback along your borders;
so, he believed the County has pretty good protection in place
with.the Polo development already.
jUN
Boor I F,�:UE
Commissioner Scurlock made the point that Club Drive bisects
the Riomar Golf Course, and Mr. McQueen noted that was built back
in a time when people weren't thinking of security as much.
Chairman Wheeler believed what John Dean said made sense.
This is like a poker game. He noted that the biggest deciding
factor in his having to vote is that he feels what they are
offering as a developer is a plus. While he personally does not
have the emotional ties to Jungle Trail that a lot of people do,
he understands and respects their position; but the Commission is
here to represent the entire public. Quite frankly, if the Town
of Orchid did not exist, and if the developers, which in a sense
are the Town, would be interested in working with the county on
developing around Jungle Trail, he would be in favor of keeping
Jungle Trail the way it is and we would have the leverage to have
them subscribe to our Management Plan. He asked Mr. McQueen's
feelings about this.
Mr. McQueen noted that frankly they probably would not
recommend that the developers subscribe to the County's Manage-
ment Plan, but he was sure that they certainly would not go in
there and strip out the Trail if the Board doesn't approve this
plan. He stressed that if the Board does not approve this plan,
they do have some serious problems facing them because they do
not have a backup plan. A plan which possibly could have the
golf course placed so that golfers would be hitting over the
Trail, he did not feel was a desirable alternative. They could
certainly bridge over the Trail with their entrance road and
fence the Trail off through the development and have the security
taken care of. Mr. McQueen emphasized that this development is
tight; there is less than 400 acres for 400 units and a golf
course.
Chairman Wheeler noted that his concern is what our options
are depending on what we do.
Mr. McQueen pointed out that there are developers and
investors who have money in this, and they can override what he
90
� a �
personally would do. Any prudent developer who has the kind of
money they do in this plan will ignore the County plan and try to
make his development work.
Commissioner Eggert noted that her big struggle is wanting
to get as much buffer along that road as possible, and the
question is what is the best way to do,it - to assure it or to
take a chance?
Mr. McQueen commented that when you talk about the developer
and the Town and not being able to separate them, very shortly
five of the people will be the Town and not the developer.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that if our Legislative
Delegation had listened to us and abolished the Town, we would
not all be sitting here.
Discussion continued at length as to what the developer will
do and could do, and Chairman Wheeler expressed his belief that
they will do their very best to develop a product that will be
upscale. He noted that it is not beyond the realm of possibility
that they could put a wall down each easement line and hide that
wall with shrubbery on the inside and have two separate
developments and go over Jungle Trail. He did not think that
will happen, but it remains that it is possible you could end up
driving down a 20' wide road through two concrete walls, which,
of course, is a worst case scenario.
Mr. McQueen stressed that there has been a lot of work done
on their plan by many professionals. They looked at a bridge
over Jungle Trail, and they could span 50' of R/W, but he
believed that would do more to harm the integrity of the Trail
than what they are proposing with the realignment. He agreed
that if the Town opted out, there could be a worst case scenario.
He pointed out that they used the golf course holes to buffer the
Trail from the development; they know what the concerns are, and
he believe that they tried to address a lot of them.
Commissioner Bird agreed what has been presented is a good
layout with the golf holes on one side and citrus on the other.
/3 91
Pl
`196 �(7� � r
JUN �6 t uC y�
L
decide to go along with the alignment change, can we lock it in
legally so we have our setbacks and our buffers.
Asst. County Attorney Collins stated that we can lock it in.
The developer owns the land and can put restrictions on it that
will supersede anything the Town will permit.
Chairman Wheeler asked if the Polo Club annexes into the
Town is there anything to protect the rest of the Trail in the
future, and Attorney'Collins believed the Statute has changed
some on what can be done. We might have some leverage, but he
could not say that it would much at this point.
Mr. McQueen commented that there has been no indication that
the Polo Club wants to be annexed, and he felt the practicality
of that happening is very unlikely.
Commissioner Bowman stated that one of the many things that
bothers her about this is that the County will have no control
whatever over the buffer.
Mr. McQueen pointed out that under their proposal the
control is being given to the -County and the Town of Orchid
jointly.
Commissioner Bowman felt that is worthless since the Town
doesn't have the ordinances regarding tree protection, storm
water, etc., as the County does.
Mr. McQueen advised that the Town's ordinances almost
exactly track the County's ordinances, and they are in place.
Commissioner Bowman doubted that the Town's ordinances give
any protection to the 30 West Indian species, and Mr. McQueen
advised that the Town's tree protection ordinance simply says you
must get a permit and address what is in place. They did get a
permit from the Town of Orchid, and that permit exempted the
corridor along Jungle Trail until after this hearing. He stated
that he would have no problem with asking the Town to pass an
ordinance that would adopt this plan as the management plan.
92
Chairman Wheeler
asked the County Attorney if
we should
decide to go along with the alignment change, can we lock it in
legally so we have our setbacks and our buffers.
Asst. County Attorney Collins stated that we can lock it in.
The developer owns the land and can put restrictions on it that
will supersede anything the Town will permit.
Chairman Wheeler asked if the Polo Club annexes into the
Town is there anything to protect the rest of the Trail in the
future, and Attorney'Collins believed the Statute has changed
some on what can be done. We might have some leverage, but he
could not say that it would much at this point.
Mr. McQueen commented that there has been no indication that
the Polo Club wants to be annexed, and he felt the practicality
of that happening is very unlikely.
Commissioner Bowman stated that one of the many things that
bothers her about this is that the County will have no control
whatever over the buffer.
Mr. McQueen pointed out that under their proposal the
control is being given to the -County and the Town of Orchid
jointly.
Commissioner Bowman felt that is worthless since the Town
doesn't have the ordinances regarding tree protection, storm
water, etc., as the County does.
Mr. McQueen advised that the Town's ordinances almost
exactly track the County's ordinances, and they are in place.
Commissioner Bowman doubted that the Town's ordinances give
any protection to the 30 West Indian species, and Mr. McQueen
advised that the Town's tree protection ordinance simply says you
must get a permit and address what is in place. They did get a
permit from the Town of Orchid, and that permit exempted the
corridor along Jungle Trail until after this hearing. He stated
that he would have no problem with asking the Town to pass an
ordinance that would adopt this plan as the management plan.
92
Attorney Collins interjected that some questions were raised
about 6 hours ago that staff was supposed to respond to, and he
believed most have been answered adequately since then, but just
for the record, he would like to answer the question that was
posed as to whether any realignment would require a Comprehensive
Plan amendment. Re cited FS 163.3194, subsection 3(a), and
advised that the opinion we have is that if the Board makes
findings that the criteria for realignment are met, then our
objectives are consistent with our Plan. It would only be if the
Board found the criteria for realignment are not met, that we
could not make such a realignment without amending the Comprehen-
sive Plan. He just wished to get that on the record.
Commissioner Bird referred back to the question Mr. McQueen
had regarding the 30' habitable setback and asked to have that
clarified.
Mr. McQueen explained that staff had asked that they set up
a 20' buffer and the 30' building setback as a total buffer area,
or 501, which is 20' more than the county ordinances presently
ask for. They did agree to the additional 10' into the building
setback before you could build a fence, and that is as strict as
the county's ordinance now. Where they are asking to build a
fence, in the county you could build a building, and they are
saying they would go 20' before they would have that residential
building. He asked that the Board keep in mind that this only
occurs in 15 lots throughout the whole development.
Commissioner Bird wished further clarification about the
500' they are talking about along A -1-A at their entranceway.
Mr. McQueen believed Mr. Doty was of the opinion that they
wanted to eliminate a 500' strip of Jungle Trail, and that was
not so. What staff had asked is that outside this 30' setback,
they dedicate all the R/W between that and A -1-A as a conserva-
tion easement to protect the vegetation in there. They had
proposed to do that for all but that 500' portion at their
entrance. Mr. McQueen explained it is not that they are going to
93
Prs� k�
condition that they do not remove protected trees in that area,
they will accept that. They just wish to control the landscaping
at their entrance.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the developer could submit a
plan of that for our later approval, and Mr. McQueen indicated
they would have no problem doing that.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK OFFERED A MOTION to approve staff
recommendation as set out in their memo; to clarify
Section 3 of that recommendation to have the developer
submit a plan of their landscaping and handling of the
200' at their entranceway for the Board's approval;
to have legal staff add whatever language is necessary
to indicate that the Town and/or developer will mutually
work with the County to adopt ordinances that are at
least as restrictive as our County ordinances, especially
those re tree protection and landscaping, etc.
Board members had various questions and suggestions about
conditions to be included in the Motion, and it was agreed:
To include that they are going to give us 25' from the center
line of the R/W in fee simple absolute.
To include recommendation by Public Works Director Davis to widen
the roadway to 20' minimum where minimum 120' radii and other
horizontal curves are proposed..
To require that the buffer is going to be consistent with the
Jungle Trail Management Plan or what they have proposed today,
whichever is to the greater benefit of the County.
To stay with staff's recommendation #3 re the conservation tract
and buffer areas between the proposed new Trail and A -1-A except
for a 200' area around the entrance road and have a landscaping
plan submitted for that.
To stay with staff's recommendation #4 re the 30' "habitable
building setback" being granted to the County as a buffer area
to be used only as set out; and
To stay with the condition that we do not want the existing
alignment of Jungle Trail to be built upon.
94
989
BOOK
77 Fm,,E 232
take anything
out of there, and if the Board wished
to put in a
condition that they do not remove protected trees in that area,
they will accept that. They just wish to control the landscaping
at their entrance.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the developer could submit a
plan of that for our later approval, and Mr. McQueen indicated
they would have no problem doing that.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK OFFERED A MOTION to approve staff
recommendation as set out in their memo; to clarify
Section 3 of that recommendation to have the developer
submit a plan of their landscaping and handling of the
200' at their entranceway for the Board's approval;
to have legal staff add whatever language is necessary
to indicate that the Town and/or developer will mutually
work with the County to adopt ordinances that are at
least as restrictive as our County ordinances, especially
those re tree protection and landscaping, etc.
Board members had various questions and suggestions about
conditions to be included in the Motion, and it was agreed:
To include that they are going to give us 25' from the center
line of the R/W in fee simple absolute.
To include recommendation by Public Works Director Davis to widen
the roadway to 20' minimum where minimum 120' radii and other
horizontal curves are proposed..
To require that the buffer is going to be consistent with the
Jungle Trail Management Plan or what they have proposed today,
whichever is to the greater benefit of the County.
To stay with staff's recommendation #3 re the conservation tract
and buffer areas between the proposed new Trail and A -1-A except
for a 200' area around the entrance road and have a landscaping
plan submitted for that.
To stay with staff's recommendation #4 re the 30' "habitable
building setback" being granted to the County as a buffer area
to be used only as set out; and
To stay with the condition that we do not want the existing
alignment of Jungle Trail to be built upon.
94
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REWORDED HIS MOTION to adopt
Resolution 89-66 as recommended by staff, subject
to the County Attorney structuring the language to
contain all the conditions and clarifications set
out above.
MOTION WAS SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition.
(RESOLUTION WILL BE PUT ON FILE WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED)
COMPUTER RECOMMENDATION
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 21, 1989 FILE:
` SUBJECT:
FROM' mes E. Chandler
County Administrator REFERENCES:
As requested by the Commission, during the last several weeks I have
undertaken an analysis of the organizational computer needs. In the process
have attempted to evaluate short and long range needs, in an effort to
develop an overall coordinated approach. Factors weighted included such
areas as pending requests, departmental needs, systems capability and
compatibility, organizational structure, efficiency, present and future
applications, cost, etc. As the analysis progressed, it appeared to me that
four specific areas needed to be addressed: Clerk of the Court, Utilities,
Geographic Information System ( GIS) and Personal Computers (PC) . Although
the four areas are interrelated and there are any number of sub -elements of
each, it is my opinion that by addressing these areas a frame work can be
established within which to make future decisions at the appropriate time.
The following summary is my conclusions and will be elaborated on at the
Commission meeting.
The Clerk currently has an IBM 3800 acquired in 1980. Since that time there
have been several upgrades. The normal life is 7 to .10 years. Currently,
the 3800 is at or near capacity. The system can be expanded and upgraded -_
for approximately $30,000. However, the expenditure will only "buy" about
957
E�UG r
°1 1989
`JUN 2 11 �•�,�
TOOK l � Fflk ���
one years additional life before acquisition of a new system is required. For
that time frame I do not believe it would be cost effective. The Clerk has
proposed purchasing a System 400 Model 60 which he projects will meet the
needs for 7 to 10 years. The cost, including system operating software, is
$440,000 if purchased outright or $522,000 by lease purchase agreement. The
Clerk is mandated to be responsible for certain functions and as will be
elaborated on later I do not anticipate the need for a separate BCC data
processing section in the near future. As a result, I recommend that the
$343,000 allocated earlier this year for future computer needs be applied to
outright purchase of the system. The balance would be funded by the Clerk
from current sources. Long range the expense would be less than lease
purchase and the $104,000 proposed by the Clerk for that purpose in next
years budget would be eliminated. If approved the Clerk indicated the
system would be operational by the end of the fiscal year.
A total of $150,000 is budgeted in Utilities this year for a new billing system,
including hardware and software. Also budgeted is funding for a hand held
meter reading system and computer aided drafting system (CAD) in Utilities
and landfill scale computer in the Solid Waste District. The meter reading
system and landfill scale computer are I believe warranted and although
related to the overall system are not in my opinion the major issue. The CAD
proposal will be addressed later in conjunction with GIS. The most
significant question I believe is utility billing and primarily hardware. There
is no question concerning the problems with the current billing program and
the need for new software. A low bid of $45,800 has been received and it is
recommended that we proceed with :award. for the new software. In
conjunction with the new billing program and to integrate other departmental
programs the Utilities Director has recommended acquisition of a system 400
Model 30 at a cost of $109,000. If approved he has indicated no additional
personnel will be required for the system. Annual maintenance would range
from $2,200 to $5,100. The Clerk is still responsible for certain functions,
such as accounting, and, if approved, the Clerk's new computer can
accommodate the proposed billing program. However, approximately $45,000
additional would be needed to handle the program. Therefore, the net
expense differential is $64,000 if Utilities acquires a 400. However, in
considering such factors as interdepartmental priorities, intradepartmental
needs, demand on the clerk computer capacity, potential future system
expansion, and departmental control I believe it is justified.
Considering the projected BCC departmental needs, the Clerk's responsibility
for certain functions and computer capability, I do not anticipate the need for
a BCC data processing section in the near future. Additionally, in the
future should that need arise, I do not believe Utilities would be the proper
organizational unit to provide the service. The Utility Director concurs.
A total of $125,000 is budgeted this year for a CIS and CAD system for
Community Development, Public Works and Utilities. The funding is for
program development and implementation including software and hardware.
Implementation is anticipated to be in phases over a period of time. Such a
program can be a valuable resource to the County. However, these systems
can vary considerably depending on, among other things, priorities, scope,
and configuration. As a result, cost can, likewise, vary considerably,
ranging from several hundred thousand dollars to in excess of a million. The
hardware is generally a mini computer or mini computers with work stations.
Considering the variables and magnitude of such a system I believe technical
assistance in the form of a consultant is required. Such assistance was
anticipated and included in budgeted funding.
Utilization of personal computers and programs is becoming more common in
most of the departments. The value has been demonstrated in meeting
individual departmental needs. Acquisition is currently considered on a
individual basis. Factors considered are priority, duplication, cost, need to
be satisfied and actual utilization. I b(alieve this is the proper approach and
should continue.
96
Commissioner Scurlock commented that he has been supportive
of going ahead and acquiring the system for the Clerk and would
support the Administrator's total recommendation, but the only
question he has is whether the Administrator is really confident
that a Model 30 is the right model for Utilities.
Administrator Chandler stated that in terms of all the
discussion he has had with everyone, he was. He believed
considering where we may be headed in the future, and some of
that being unknown, we need the capability of a 30 versus a 20.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to approve the Administrator's
recommendation as set out in the above memo in toto.
Commissioner Bird found the memo hard to read, and he wished
clarification as to just how many machines we are buying for who.
at what price, and where the money is coming from.
Administrator Chandler explained that $440,000 is for the
purchase of the IBM 400-60 for the Clerk. A few months ago when
we discussed allocation of year end funding, it was proposed that
we set aside some $350,000 for future computer needs, and he felt
comfortable in recommending the allocation of $343,000 towards
the acquisition of the system for the Clerk. The Clerk has
Indicated he -would fund the balance, which is $104,000, through
his budget. Secondly, in Utilities where we have $150,000
budgeted for a,utility billing system, that was for both hardware
and software, and his recommendation is to acquire the software
and the hardware within the funds we have budgeted. Thirdly, we
have $125,000 budgeted for a GIS and CAD system for Community
Development, Public Works and Utilities, and that is where he
feels, because of the potential complexity, that we need experts
to come in and guide us as to what type of system and specifica-
tions we would need, etc., and bring that back to the Board
because when we start down that road it can be quite expensive.
92 "/7
A E 9•,�
U� d
I� �� � Y OIFOd'trJ P'mJF"'� P,�r 0 2 .
E�UGK T1 ,UE 36
Chairman Wheeler asked if consideration has been given to
what we owe on the current computer.
Administrator Chandler advised that $26,000 is owed on the
current 3800. He believed there is $40,000 or so in an account
for that purpose, but if we proceed now, that is a part of where
he assumes they are going to pick up that difference of $104,000.
Chairman Wheeler asked if we can sell that computer, and
Administrator Chandler advised they have indicated to him there
may be.a possibility of doing that and accruing some funds over a
period of time, but we can't place a specific dollar amount on it
now.
Clerk Barton informed the Board that we can't determine a
price on what the old system is worth, whether it is going to be
sold as a piece or sold as a package, but that is where some of
the other money would be coming from to make up the $104,000
difference.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
(COPY OF AGREEMENT W/H.T.E. INC. FOR UTILITY BILLING (SOFT WARE)
COPY ON FILE IN THE OFFICE. OF CLERK TO BOARD
DATES FOR BUDGET WORKSHOPS
Administrator Chandler noted that some months ago, he
submitted a possible schedule for the budget workshops some
months ago, but he understood there is some conflict on the July
21st date. He had proposed starting on Wednesday, July 19th and
taking whatever days are necessary to complete, anticipating
finishing on the following Tuesday. Another thing that happened
last week is that we received the Tentative Roll; so, we need to
have the tentative millage rate by Thursday, July 27th.
Discussion followed as to conflicts the Commissioners had
with various dates, and the following schedule was agreed upon:
98
1:00 P.M. Tuesday, July 18th
1:00 P.M. Wednesday, July 19th
9:00 A.M. Thursday, July 20th
Omit Friday
9:00 A.M. Monday, July 24th
1:00 P.M. Tuesday, July 25th, if necessary
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the above schedule for the budget workshops.
ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE AGREEMENT W/SEBASTIAN FOR USE OF BUILDING FOR
EMS ALS SERVICE
The Board reviewed memo from EMS Director Doug Wright:
T0
------
:J----ames--Chandl--------er-------------D---ATE---June------19----1989------------------
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Approval of Assignment of Lease
Agreement with City of Sebastian for Use
of Building for Indian River County EMS
Advanced Life Support Service
FROM: Doug Wrigk, Director
Emergency Management Services
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On April 18, 1989, the Indian River County.Board of County
Commissioners approved the staff recommendation whereby paid
professional paramedics would be employed for the Sebastian area to
staff the emergency response vehicles operated by the Indian River
County Advanced Life Support Service.
Part of the recommendation approved by the Board was to authorize
staff to contact municipal officials in Sebastian regarding
utilization of the existing structure for the EMS service as an
operations base. This has been accomplished in the form of the
attached Assignment of Lease Agreement prepared and agreed to by the
respective attorneys representing the County and the City of
Sebastian. The document is now before the Board of County
Commissioners for approval and execution.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The structure described in the legal documents is the same building
that was previously utilized by volunteer ambulance organizations.
Its central site provides quick response to various locations in the
Sebastian and surrounding areas. The Sebastian municipal officials
were quick to agree to allow the County use of the building and
service has continued without interruption to citizens in they
northern part of the County.
99
pp r�n�
C 00 7 7 f ,. 6 C 2,
r
i UR 2 d 1989
r F^� riE 23�S''
(�il0i F,1�
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Assignment of Lease Agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute
the legal documents wherein the premises will be occupied and
utilized by the Indian River County Advanced Life Support Service
for EMS service in the north county area.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis -
Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the assignment
of lease as described above and authorized the Chairman
to execute the appropriate legal documents for utilization
of the premises by the EMS ALS Service.
SAID ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE AGREEMENT WILL BE PUT ON FILE WHEN FULLY
EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
AUTOMATION SYSTEM COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM
Commissioner Eggert commented that she always wants to go
out to bid, but after much discussion with staff, review of the
computer study, and talking with the County Attorney, she has
been convinced of the worth of staff's recommendation to go with
one vendor as a "vendor of choice," and she would like staff to
explain just what is unique about this situation.
Lynn William s,Project Manager Library Construction, made the
staff presentation, as follows:
100
r
DATE: JUNE 16, 1989
TO: JAMES CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
FROM: LYNN WILLIAMS LYNN WALSH MARYO L
PROJEC AGE NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY MAIN LIBRARY
LIBRAR UCTION DIRECTOR DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AUTOMATION SYSTEM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM
BACKGROUND:
RMG Consultants of Chicago, Ill., provided a report titled Plans and
Recommendations for Automated System and Services for the Indian River
County Library System. This report submitted prior to the
Library Bond issue and the subsequent update received in March
1989, outlined the benefits, costs and impacts Indian River
County could expect from automating library services.
The reports essentially established a budget amount of $300,000 included
in the September 1986 Bond referendum.passed by the voters of
Indian River County.
Several scenarios were set forth in the orginal report as to size,
configuration, location and timing. These possibilities were eventually
narrowed to a final recommendation endorsed and supported by the staff
(highlighted below).
1) Purchase an automated system sufficient in size to
serve both new libraries.
2) The system should be easily expandable to allow
for growth within the library system.
3) The system should be purchased from a "turn key
vendor" capable of'providing a "total system."
4) The system should be installed in -the existing
Main Library and serve the North County Community
Library via telecommunications network.
5) The system should be relocated to the New Main
Library upon its completion.
6) The system should be operable for the opening of
the new facilities.
It is obvious from the "highlights" listed above, that automation is a
significant undertaking when coupled with the construction and reloca-
tion of two library facilities. Upon my involvement in the design
process for the new libraries, questions concerning automation and its
impact were raised. Planning for the cabling and power requirements are
proceeding in a generic state within the designs. The impact to
the design is not considered an insurmountable problem.
However, staff has a major concern with the projected time required to
obtain automation equipment, software and convert the card catalog
information to useable format for an automated library. RMG Consultants
has projected a time frame of approximately eighteen (18) months for
1 0
,JUN 2 d `n
this process. This was predicated upon an RFP process, evaluation and
selection. The cost for an RMG Consultants prepared RFP would be
approximately $10,000 plus travel expense and would consume six.to nine
months time. Staff feels that with the established time lines for
construction of the libraries there is not sufficient time to allow for
an RFP process.
An optimistic projection of the time required to make the data conver-
sion necessary, train employees, set the necessary local parameters, and
insure proper operation is ten (10) to eleven (11) months. It will take
the time from this date to the opening date of the North County Communi-
ty Library to accomplish automation.
Included in the back-up material is Schedule B (Delivery and
Implementation) of the CLSI Proposal. This outlines the
necessary steps required to complete automation.
This clearly shows that the early delivery and installation of
the main-frame is critical to data conversion and to total
automation.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Brevard County recently spent approximately one (1) year issuing an RFP,
evaluating the results and eventually selecting a vendor.
Both Volusia and Lake counties bypassed the RFP process, opting for
staff review of available systems, evaluations of the offerings and
selection. Volusia County's system was an outright purchase whereas
Lake County entered into a lease agreement.
In each case CLSI was selected as the automation vendor.
CLSI is a "turn -key" vendor. Both Librarians have reviewed the system
offered by CLSI and have found the system to meet all requirements set
forth by RMG Consultants.
Additionally, pricing as proposed is competitive (low bidder in Brevard)
and well within the $300,00 budget for automation. Maintenance and
repair will be handled by two field service engineers stationed in
Florida. Although, no firm commitment has been set forth by CLSI,
there has been discussion concerning a service engineer stationed on
Florida's East Coast to serve this area. Staff feels this provides
adequate response as presently structured, with the possibility of
enhanced service if a dedicated engineer is added.
Staff feels that the advantage of what would become a four county
contiguous area served by this vendor would be significant. This
would allow networking with the northern counties if desired.
The exchange or information between the users is viewed as a
major advantage for our library system.
Considering the factors of the time before opening the libraries, the
fact that CLSI can provide the needed system and software and that
bidding and evaluation of similar systems has taken place in our imme-
diate area staff felt it appropriate to offer CLSI as a vendor of choice
and request permission to purchase direct without an RFP process. In
discussion with the County Attorney's office it was found that there is
nothing in Florida Statutes to prevent this approach. Existing
County Purchasing guidelines allow for negotiations of a purchase
if it is felt to be in the COunty's best interest.
At the May 3, 1989 Public Library Advisory Board meeting, a presentation
was held of the circulation and on-line public access catalog systems
offered by CLSI. The Public Library Advisory Board endorsed
staff's recommendation that CLSI be considered the vendor of
102
choice for library automation system and services for the Indian
River County Library System.
Staff is in receipt of a purchase proposal, maintenance agreement and
pricing for data conversion services from CLSI.
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDING:
Staff recommends that CLSI be declared as vendor of choice and that
staff be authorized to negotiate the proposals provided by CLSI for
automation system and services for the Indian River County Library
System. The final proposal and costs would be forwarded to the commis-
sion for approval and funding upon completion. No funding is required
by this action.
Project Manager Williams further advised that the RMG
Consultants report showed that there are about 4 main vendors in
the country that provide "turn -key" systems, and of those, there
are really only two that have any installations in Florida at all
- Dynex and CLSI. Of those two, CLSI is the only one with more
than one installation in Florida. They have been in library
automation for 17 years, and they have field technicians located
in Florida. The RMG report essentially showed that the 4
companies provide systems and software in the same general
ballpark on price. Mr. Williams noted that staff also knew that
Volusia County had chosen CLSI as a sole source vendor without an
RFP. Lake County did also, but went with lease/purchase rather
than direct purchase. In addition, CLSI offered a 6% discount
for direct purchase as opposed to going through the RFP process.
He noted that Administrator Chandler asked if we were not under
such a time frame, etc., whether we would make the same decision,
and staff does believe CLSI has the stability both financially.
and experiencewise and is best suited in any event.
Commissioner Scurlock had many questions as to how many
installations both Dynex and CLSI had nationwide, whether they
were IBM compatible and whether both vendors were asked about a
discount.
Project Manager Williams answered that Dynex has one
installation in Florida and part of another; nationwide they have
roughly 300. CLSI has about 330 installations nationwide. As
far
as running
IBM software or working on
IBM hardware,
neither
� C
JUN
2 t
� �
1 03
a Tti
POOK 1
f -A F 941
�Ju
mu 77 FAU2 4
one can do that, but either one has the ability to talk to other
systems. They can interface with the state system. He confirmed
that they only talked about a discount with CLSI.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why they did not talk to both
vendors about a possible discount.
Administrator Chandler believed part of what staff looked at
was the fact that the total cost and the figures we received from
RMG on these systems were essentially the same, and that being
the same, we looked at the service that could be provided and the
benefit to us, and within the state there are better than 20
public libraries served by the CLSI system. They have a good
track record and background and a good record in servicing.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his concern is that there
has been a discussion with the one that is being recommended for
almost a year with the initial contact 6 months ago, and Librar-
ian Mary Powell clarified that while they knew about this firm
that long ago, they did not contact CLSI until 6 weeks ago.
This was confirmed by Commissioner Eggert.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if it would not be appropriate,
if there are two that are in the same ballpark, to at least enter
into some dialogue with those two vendors.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she was told that staff went
and looked at both systems, and one of the main things told to
her is that the system they are proposing now was much more "user
friendly" and had a much greater success rate than the other
system which they were having problems with.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that was not set out in
the staff recommendation. He then addressed the amount included
in the budget for computers, noting that you could buy a lot of
books for $300,000 and wished to know how much is budgeted for
new books.
Lynn Walsh, North County Librarian, informed the Board that
they have about 25,000 volumes right now. The new facility in
the North County will hold 65,000. They have been open 6 years
104
� � r
and have accumulated the 25,000 during that time. If they
continue acquiring books at that same rate, about 4,000 a year,
they will fill up that building in 10 years.
Librarian Mary Powell advised that they have close to
100,000 books at the Main Library. With the linear footage of
shelving planned for, the new library would -hold about twice
that. She noted that she held the line and did not increase her
book budget and will be adding about the same volume as they are
presently adding each year. She informed the Board that they add
6,000 items a month, but that includes microfish as well as
volumes, and she did not have that figure broken down now.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that to get the Clerk the
computer than he needs to handle the masses of information we
have in the County, including the Courts, we are spending about
$400,000, and he is having a hard time comparing that with
keeping track of books in two libraries.
Administrator Chandler pointed out that the $440,000 for the
Clerk's computer is primarily hardware; he has most of his
software established, The Library requires a combination of both
hardware and software.
Commissioner Bird asked if it will be necessary to hire
additional people to do the conversion, and Mrs. Powell noted
that they will need new people in any event as they could not
move into the new facility with the existing staff.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that he had heard a total
cost of $10,000 just to prepare an RFP for this, and now all of a
sudden it seems we are capable of doing this ourselves.
Administrator Chandler believed that RMG Consultants went
into a good deal of detail in their report. They established.the
basic configuration and the hardware and software and recommended
that we go a turn -key approach.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what role they will have in
drawing up the actual contract for scope of services, and Project
Manager Williams believed that is one advantage of using a
JUN 2 ? 689 105 7� 3
mor i Fa%c P,.O
BOOK 7 f.�Gt 4°
turn -key vendor. We do have the proposal and the model agreement
they submitted in front of us now. He believed we also have a
model from Seminole County.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that he couldn't
understand why staff would not track both systems and negotiate
with both which he felt would give us some advantage in
negotiations.
Mrs. Powell advised that they went to Volusia and Seminole
Counties and saw both systems; they have talked with other
libraries but only saw one system of each.
Commissioner Bird noted that the Libraries do not have a
computer system now and everything is done manually. He wished
to know what the computer system actually will do for them.
Mrs. Powell explained that the computer system will handle
inventory control - check-in and check-out items - record's
management - administration - acquisition, etc. It will track
everything they order to avoid duplication and have serials
control, which is magazines and newspapers, and that is a massive
job. It also will keep track of overdue books and fines.
Commissioner Bird asked if the people on the desk will be
able to use the system, and Commissioner Eggert assured him that
it is so "user friendly" even she can use it.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he is trying to be
consistent. He just spent 8 weeks trying to get a computer for
Utilities that was approved in the budget and that an RFP went
out for, and we finally approved it today. Now, we are making a
purchase of a $240,000 computer that we have 2 firms where we
have only made 2 visitations and a couple of phone calls and we
are not doing an RFP that was going to cost $10,000 because it
seems we have the internal knowledge all of a sudden to make this
decision.
Administrator Chandler pointed out that we spent funds last
year to get a consultant on board to give us some recommendations
and guidance. RMG did not recommend a specific firm, but they
106
r�
did advise the type of configuration and system we need so it is
not as if staff';is just coming in blind.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that they recommended "turn-
key," and it appears there are at least two major firms that
provide that service that are in the same ballpark.
Commissioner Bowman asked if "turn -key" means that when they
turn the system over to you, the data has been entered.
Project Manager Williams advised that the dollar figure does
not include data conversion. That is entirely separate. Mrs.
Powell has grants from the state which will total $90,000 over 3
years towards data conversion costs. That cost will vary
depending on the number of items in an existing data base and how
much original records will have to be created. We are probably
talking about $100,000 to convert. Mr. Williams further noted
that the systemlis expandable. The consultant recommended
starting out the new libraries with automation and looked at
starting out with a 16 terminal station and then expanding to 49,
but the library';is going to be completed much sooner than
expected.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that he has absolutely no
problem with a sole source if that is what is recommended when
all the research is done, but it would make him feel a lot more
comfortable if staff would make another 5 or 10 phone calls to
each of these vendors to see how their system is working and then
suggest to firmiB that you are about ready to make a decision.
In this way we might get a better price.
Commissioner Eggert believed staff has delved into this a
lot more completely than they are really indicating here.
MOTION MADE by Commissioner Eggert to approve the
staff recommendation died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he wants to see more in
JUN27
g 1 0 7
® 1�00K F.hi re
r
ju
2y 1989
moK
77 P..UL 246
writing, and Commissioner Bird asked
if the alternative
would be
to delay this one week or so and come back with more information.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to delay
action until the next meeting so staff can do a brief
survey of additional installations by phone and provide
additional information in writing.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE FOR RISK MANAGER
The Board reviewed memo from Personnel Director Jack Price:
To: James Chandler,
County Administrator
Date: June 21, 1989
From: Jack Price, Personnel Sub: Relocation Assist-
ance for Risk Mgr.
P!4_9 - ---------------------
We are negotiating with an experienced Risk Manager, Elizabeth
Jordan, relative to our open position in Indian River County.
Relocation assistance would be attractive in this situation.
I recommend that we offer $1,000 in assistance for the purpose of
accomplishing her relocation to Indian River County. These funds
would be charged to the Risk Management account
#001-246-513-033.19 Outside Services -Other Professional.
Your approval and solicitation of same from the Board of County
Commissioners is appreciated. '
0
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to offer not -to -exceed $1,000
relocation assistance to proposed Risk Manager
Elizabeth Jordan.
108
s
Commissioner Bird asked if the Board has to approve things
such as this', and Administrator Chandler noted that is one of
those situations where there is no policy and no over all
criteria.
Commissioner Bird commented that he would like to adopt a
policy whereby the Administrator could handle things of this
nature.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ENGINEERING SER ICES FOR TREASURE SHORES PARK
The Board �eviewed memo from County Engineer James White:
---------------0---------------------------------------------------
TO: James',Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James!W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
FROM: JamesiD. White, P.E. n
County Engineer K/
SUBJECT: Engineering Services for Treasure Shores Park
DATE: June �5, 1989
--------------- --------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION ANDICONDITIONS
Staff is complekting final revisions of the Land Management Plan
for Treasure Shores Park. One of the requirements of land
acquired in co'peration with DNR and Save Our Shores Program is
to develop the first phase within 5 years. The proposed first
step to achieving this is to conduct needs and space planning,
conceptual design and cost estimates and submit grant
applications to!sources of available funding.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following alternates have been identified:
1. Begin engi Bering design of park improvements. This action
would include substantial expense. There is no source of
funds identified which could be used for this purpose.
H
2. Conduct needs analysis and plans, prepare preliminary cost
estimates and seek funding prior to starting detailed
design. This would involve less expense; to initially move
the project forward. Ai proposed request for qualifications
is attached which would begin the consultant selection
process.
1 0 9 r,.
JUN 2? 19'89 R[�OK � �' �a�;c P4 7
AN 1999
mor 17 F',1GE 24
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Alternative #2 as the best current
means of .advancing this project. Funding has been identified as
follows which can be used for this purpose.:
$13,500. Account #001-210-572-033.13 Parks Department Budget
2.500. Account #111-244-541-033.13 Engineering Division of
$16,000. TOTAL Public Works
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative #2 as recommended by staff.
FLUORIDATION PROJECTS FOR SO. COUNTY RO PLANT (HRS GRANT FUNDING)
The Board reviewed memo from Projects Engineer William
McCain:
DATE: JUNE 12, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY-ADMINISTRWYRVICES
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL
PREPARED &
STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
PROJECTS ENGINEER
kA
SUBJECT: FLUORIDATION PROJECT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT (HRS GRANT FUNDING)
IRC PROJECT NO.: UW -88 -01 -WC
BACKGROUND:
As part of our general construction contract at the South County
Reverse Osmosis Plant, we have included a fluoridation system for
the County's water supply. During this project, we have applied for
a State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
Grant to partially fund the fluoridation system.
ANALYSIS:
We have negotiated federal funding in the amounts of $2.2,335.00 from
the Florida Fluoridation Grant Fund. In order to receive the grant,
we must enter into an agreement with HRS (see attached agreements).
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approve the
execution of the attached contracts with HRS, and also the attached
letter requesting payment.
110
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
execution of the contract with HRS re the Florida
Fluoridation Grant Fund and attached letter re-
questing payment.
COPY OF LETTER AND __F.ULLY-' SIGNED CONTRACT ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE ON 14TH AVENUE NORTH OF 2ND STREET
DATE:
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities Director:
JUNE 12, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T SERVICES'
STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. Mc IN
PROJECTS ENGIN
0. FRED MERKEL
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS
SUBJECT: PROPOSED WATER SERVICE
ON 14TH AVENUE NORTH OF 2ND STREET
BACKGROUND:
The Department*of Utility Services wishes to set up an assessment
district to supply water to Indian River Heights in the near future.
However, there is a potential customer on 14th Avenue south of 2nd
Street, which will be in the proposed assessment district, who
`requires water service immediately. We want to enter into a
,.Developer's Agreement with this individual to -provide him with water
.service now.
ANALYSIS:
The property is located a distance of 1551 south of the right-of-way
line on 2nd Street. 'We are proposing to construct a 6" water line
from the water line in 2nd Street south to the southern limits of
his property. The property owner will reimburse the County for the
cost of the line from the south side of 2nd Street to the water main
and for the full 110' of line in front of his property. The cost of
the jack and bore across 2nd Street and the 155' of 6" line north of
the property will be added into the cost of the future assessment
district. (See attached agreement and map for details.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached Developer's Agreement.
111
�ao� 7 J 7F'ar,E 49`1
�? 1989
BOOK 77 F9:JE
250
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Developers Agreement with Anthony Oliver regarding
water line extension.
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
and
ANTHONY OLIVER
REIMBURSEMENTS FOR WATER LINE AS REQUIRED BY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
THIS AGREEMENT made this .y day of �L4 e , 1989, by and
between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political su v s on of the State of
Florida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, (County), and
Anthony Oliver,.185 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL, 32962, (Owner),
_WITNESSET-HI
WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to have a water line extended to
serve his property at 185 14th Avenues
WHEREASi the County is constructing this line to serve the
owner has
agreed to be directly utilizedSeforthe
the
County
Owner's
water services=
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and
other good 'and valuable consideration, the County and the Owner
agree as follows:
1. The -County shall construct the necessary
water line to serve the subject property
and surrounding area. The Owner agrees to
reimburse the County for construction costs
as outlined below:
.TEM TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT
Water Main $1,920.00
2. The Owner shall reimburse!' the County for
construction costs and impact fee over a
period of 5 years at 121 interest, and
shall pay the cost of the water meter
installation, deposit fee, and inspection
fee upon application for water service.
IN WITNESS.WHEREOF, the County and the Owner have caused these
presents to be executed in their names the day and year first above
written.
ANTHONY OLIVER
IJ��a
ner
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
he sand meal) BY �` ary
o C. wheeler
hayrman
4 112
_I
N
LIBRARY BOND RESOLUTION
Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
e -P& ~ (-k- �-�
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: June 21, 1989
RE LIBRARY BOND RESOLUTION
It is necessary that the attached bond resolution be passed
by the Board of County Commissioners for the County to
proceed with the sale of $5.9 million in bonds for the
construction of the two new libraries. The resolution was
prepared by our bond counsel, Charles Sieck, and it is
recommended for adoption.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Reso-
lution 89-62 providing for the issuance of 5.9 million
G.O. Bonds for expansion of the Public Library System.
INDIAN RIVER COMM, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 89-62
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS, SERIES 1989, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $5,900,000 TO FINANCE THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
TO AND EXPANSION OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM AND
SERVICES IN THE COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN
PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO SAID BONDS AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolution is adopted
pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes (1988), and other applicable.provisions
of law.
SECTION 2.. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall have the following
meanings in this Resolution, unless the context otherwise clearly requires:
RESOLUTION 89-62 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY.
113
HOK
Jum 2 7 I 89
nor 77 Fact 252
RESOLUTION TO PROHIBIT THE DESECRATION OF THE AMERICAN FLAG
Chairman Wheeler informed the Board that because of the hue
and cry raised by the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the
burning of the American Flag, he had asked County Attorney
Vitunac to prepare a Resolution encouraging adoption of a Consti-
tutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of the American
Flag.
Discussion ensued as to how this should be done, and Chair-
man Wheeler noted that he would like to ask the Florida Legisla-
ture to initiate the necessary procedures and send copies to our
State Senators and the proper federal officials.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
89-67 encouraging adoption of a Constitutional amend-
ment to prohibit the desecration of the American Flag.
114
RESOLUTION NO. 89-67
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, TO THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA ENCOURAGING ADOPTION OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT
THE DESECRATION OF THE AMERICAN FLAG.
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States
recently ruled that it Js not against the Constitution of
the United States for an individual to burn an American flag
when such burning is part of that individual's exercise of
tlfe right of free speech protected by the First Amendment;
and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court made this ruling on only a
five -to -four majority, which Is an indication of,how closely
divided the court was; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County believes that desecration
of the American flag is an abominable act and should be
unworthy of Constitutional protection; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County believes that the United
States Constitution should be amended to prohibit such flag
" desecration,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
Board respectfully requests the Florida Legislature to
Initiate the procedures necessary to amend the United States
Constitution to prohibit desecration of the American flag.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Bird and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Eggert and, upon being- put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 27th day of June, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By r ,/I,, (:-&/01�.
Attest
Ga r y�(:. �Gfi a eTe r
Cha Oman
op
yKle— t3a r t o lrTer
.e.
,271999 115
POOK �
1 `•1�i.'e„
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Commissioner Bowman referred to the following excerpt from
Board Minutes of April 25th:
TRI -COUNTY COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ,
Commissioner Bowman reported that Okeechobee County has
accepted the Invitation to join the Tri -County Council of Local
Governments, and the Council Is -asking for approval to change
their name to Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by•
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the name change to Treasure Coast Council of Local
Governments.
Commissioner Bowman asked the Board to approve a Resolution
which will allow amendment of the agreement to establish the
Tri -County Council of Local Governments so the name can be
changed to Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-68 as described above.
SAID RESOLUTION 89-68 AND AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE
MINUTES WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
The Chai.rman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board will reconvene sitting as the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the South County Fire District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
116
BOOB.
��KI Fa1F 254
RESOLUTION
AMENDING AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH TRI -COUNTY
COUNCIL OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Commissioner Bowman referred to the following excerpt from
Board Minutes of April 25th:
TRI -COUNTY COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ,
Commissioner Bowman reported that Okeechobee County has
accepted the Invitation to join the Tri -County Council of Local
Governments, and the Council Is -asking for approval to change
their name to Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by•
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the name change to Treasure Coast Council of Local
Governments.
Commissioner Bowman asked the Board to approve a Resolution
which will allow amendment of the agreement to establish the
Tri -County Council of Local Governments so the name can be
changed to Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-68 as described above.
SAID RESOLUTION 89-68 AND AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE
MINUTES WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
The Chai.rman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board will reconvene sitting as the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the South County Fire District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
116
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of
the South County Fire District, the Board will reconvene sitting
as the District Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste
Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:20 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Chairman
JUN �� `d
117 sooK %��6 �,,,,� 255