Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/4/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1991 5:01 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Carolyn K. Eggert Don C. Scurlock, Jr. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5:01 P.M. James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "THIRD ROUND" AMENDMENTS TO THE LDRS: CHANGES INITIATED BY STAFF AND THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (memorandum dated November 25, 1991) ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. DEC 04 199 DOrK PAGE a1- *** SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, December 4, 1991 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, December 4, 1991, at 5:01 o'clock P. M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Margaret C. Bowman and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. The hour of 5:01 o'clock P. M. having passed, the Deputy County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: DEC 0 4 1991 BOOK MA, P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER STATE OF FLORIDA 13rc o 3ournat 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 newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that A display ad measuring 33" lv "Notice of Establishment or Change" billedto Indian River County Planning Dept. was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of Monday, November 25, 1991 on Page 4A Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th (SEAL) day of December Am 1991 690401.4...4192 Business Manager N1are►Y Public, State of Florida My Commtaslen Exp June 29, 1993 NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT OR CHANGE OF A REGULATION(S) AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners proposes to adopt or change a regulation(s) affecting the use of land for the area shown in the map in this advertisement. Two public hearings on the regulation(s) affecting the use of land will be held, one on Wednesday, November 20, 1991, at 7 p.m. and one on Wednesday, December 4, 1991, at 5:01 p.m. In the County Commission Chambers in the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Proposd changes to the land development regulations (LDRs) effec- tive in the unicorporated area of the county include changes to the follow- ing LDR chapters: • Chapter 901, Definitions; • Chapter 910, Concurrency Management Systems; • Chapter 911, Zoning; • Chapter 912, Single Family Development • Chapter 913, Subdivisions and Plats; • Chapter 914, Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures; • Chapter 926, Landscape and Buffer Regulations; • Chapter 927, Tree Protection and Land Clearing;. • Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection; • Chapter 930, Stormwater Management and Floodplain Protection; • Chapter 931, Wepfletd and Aquifer Protection; • Chapter 932, Coastal Management; • Ohapter 934, Excavation and Mining; • Chapter 952, Traffic; • Chapter 954, Off -Street Parking; • Chapter 971, Regulations for Specific Land Use Criteria. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY- UNINCORPORATED AREA A copy of the proposed Ordinance will be available at the Planning Divi- sion Office on the second floor of the County Administration Building beginning November 12, 1991. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need,to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed- ings is made, .which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s- RICHARD BIRD, CHAIRMAN F Planning Director Stan Boling presented the following staff recommendation dated November 25, 1991: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D ON HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keatin Community Develo FROM: Stan Boling, ICP Planning Director DATE: November 25, 1991 AI ent irector SUBJECT: "THIRD ROUND" AMENDMENTS TO THE LDRS: CHANGES INITIATED BY STAFF AND THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PSAC) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special meeting of December 4, 1991. BACKGROUND: At its special meeting of November 20, 1991 the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the proposed ordinance, which now contains 89 amendments to the LDRs, and directed staff to make several changes. Staff has now made those changes and has revised the proposed ordinance pursuant to the Board's direction. The Board is to now give final consideration to adopting the ordinance. ANALYSIS: All revisions made by staff since the November 20th meeting are contained on the ordinance pages included with this report. For purposes of the December 4th meeting presentation, all additions to the November 20th ordinance are shown in SMALL CAPS TYPE (see attachments). The revisions made to the November 20th ordinance version include the following: - Section 3: the "live aboard vessels" definition was revised to better specify that daily findings are to be made in regards to determining whether or not a vessel is inhabited. Section 12: was revised to include advisory information regarding the 'ability to delineate the Con -3 district boundaries on a site by site basis by environmental survey. - Section 26: was revised to add a cross reference to identify additional applicable requirements found elsewhere in the LDRs. Section 48: was revised to delete all reference to discharge(s) from swimming pools. Section 49: was revised to include a cut and fill balance exemption for single family residence construction within the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit area. 3 DEC 04 t99i BOOK 85 PAGE G4 EC (44 ,;'991' - Section 53 was revised to: BOOK 6b PAGE U5 * Clearly prohibit the parking or storage of automobiles, trailers, motor homes and RVs seaward of the dune stabilization setback line (DSSL). * Allow only boats to be parked or stored seaward of the DSSL if the dune and associated vegetation is not disturbed or destroyed by such action. * Include a cross-reference to the general provisions section which limits the number of unenclosed boats and RVs on any single family lot. In addition to these Board -directed changes, planning staff is now proposing one additional section (to be section 89 of the ordinance) which will amend section 929.07(1) of the Upland Habitat Protection chapter of the LDRs. This proposed section merely provides an advisory statement that cross-references the new Con -3 district provisions contained in sections 12 and 26 of the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ,proposed ordinance containing 89 amendments to the land development regulations (LDRs). Section 3: (Section 901.03 of Definition) Planning Director Stan Boling said, in addition to the revisions made to the November 20 version Deputy County Attorney Will Collins suggested the following revision in Section 3: "A person shall be deemed to be inhabiting or living upon a vessel during a given day if he or she is present aboard A DOCKED OR MOORED vessel for a continuous period of more than two hours between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during that day." That clarifies the definition of live -aboard vessel. This proposed language would allow us to overlook people who fish several days in a row during the wee hours of. the morning. Section 12 (c): (Section 911.05[3]) This section needed clarification that in the Con -3 areas we can do an environmental survey on a site -by -site basis because there are some areas on the comprehensive plan that do not qualify as Con -3. Section reference to construction. November 20 m 26: (Section 911.12[4]) A paragraph was added as a the next paragraph and would apply to single-family That was a suggestion by Attorney Warren Dill at the eeting. Section 48: (930.05[3]) This section prohibits illegally discharging fluids from a washing machine or any mechanical device into a stormwater management system and references to swimming pools was deleted. 4 N IB Section 49: (Section 930.07[2][d]) Upon direction at the November 20 meeting, the following paragraph was added to this section to include exemptions from the single-family cut and fill requirement: Development located within the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit as referenced in Ordinance No. 84- 81, for which a cut and fill waiver has been granted by the Board of County Commissioners, the Board of County Commissioners may, in its discretion, grant a waiver from the provisions of this subsection upon the affirmative showing of the applicant, by means of a competent engineering study, that the development project, as designed, will meet all other requirements of the stormwater management and flood protection chapter and will not create a material adverse impact on flood protection. Section 53: (Section 932.06[4]) Mr. Boling handed out the following revision to this section: "Storage of boats is also subject to the requirements of Section 911.15(7), except that the provisions of Section 911.15(7)(b)1 shall not preclude a lot owner from authorizing a third party to store a boat on the owner's lot." Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois explained that this revision was to clarify a somewhat vague reference to another section and it is specific to boats only. Also, there is reference to Section 911.15(7)(b)1, which was discussed at the November 20 meeting, which has reference to general limitations on the storage of recreational vehicles including boats on lots in general. It limits the number of boats that could be stored on any particular lot to one boat except for an additional boat not to exceed two weeks in any continuous time period or six weeks in any one-year period; that cross reference is important. Mr. DeBlois referred to the additional handout with language which Deputy County Attorney Will Collins suggested, and it reads as follows: "Storage of boats is also subject to the requirements of Section 911.15(7), except that the provisions of Section 911.15(7)(b)1 shall not preclude a lot owner from authorizing a third party to store a boat on the owner's lot." Commissioner Eggert asked if that could say "house owner's lot," and Commissioner Scurlock noted that it says "lot" because it does not have to have a house on it. Mr. DeBlois addressed another issue which applies to the storage of boats generally, in that it is an accessory use. In the code there is another section under accessory uses that the boat storage cannot be there prior to the principal use. In other words, if someone has a vacant oceanfront lot, another section of the code prohibits boat storage until that principal use is established. 5 OEC 04 (991 L_ Boa 85 PAIL (� PEC 14 1991 BOOK. PACE 07 Commissioner Eggert thought it would be easier to understand if the referenced section were inserted here. It could be assumed that a house would be on the lot because it says, "a lot owner authorizing storage on the owner's lot." It would not be legal for a lot owner to authorize storage on his vacant lot. Storage is an accessory use. Attorney Collins felt it could be clarified by the wording, "except that the provisions of Section 911.15(7)(b)1 shall not preclude a developed -lot owner from authorizing a third party to store a boat on the owner's lot." Commissioner Scurlock asked about situations where someone has two contiguous lots, one with a residence and one without. Mr. DeBlois said it would begin with the specific principal use, and storage or use of a vacant contiguous lot can be considered accessory to that adjacent lot. Commissioner Eggert recalled that we have had to resolve many accessory use problems. Chairman Bird summarized, and Community Development Director Bob Keating concurred, that with the recommended changes boat storage in the appropriate legal place on the beach would be allowable on an oceanfront lot that had a residence on that lot for either the owner of that residence or their designee and there would be no storage of boats on unoccupied vacant oceanfront lots. Chairman Bird understood that staff is concerned with consistency and we do not allow a vacant lot to be used for storage in any part of the County. He asked if there is a way to differentiate, because riparian rights and the public's use of the beach on portions of the property come into play. Commissioner Scurlock suggested we except it by calling it a special situation. Attorney Collins said the Board is addressing this section partly because we are addressing this exception in a new section of the code which talks about keeping boats on the beach. The general prohibition in the ordinance that deals with unenclosed storage in other places still says "owner -occupied." He felt they are not the same. Commissioner Eggert noted that by allowing them to authorize a designee we are giving people something they would not have if they were storing something on another lot. Discussion ensued regarding storage of boats on vacant riverfront lots. Attorney Collins advised that while you cannot build a dock or store a boat on a vacant riverfront lot, you could pull a canoe up on your lot in an exercise of riparian rights. 6 Mr. DeBlois said the difference is casual use on a daily outing versus storage on a continuous regular basis. Commissioner Wheeler thought there was no problem with boats on the beach. In his experience of flying over the shoreline he saw very, very few boats. He felt an individual should have some right to bring a boat up on his beach. Commissioner Scurlock felt the question is whether the Commission wants to allow a boat to be stored on a vacant lot. Commissioner Eggert felt problems occur with unsupervised storage and an absentee owner. Commissioner Wheeler felt it was not a problem. Commissioner Eggert wanted consistency throughout our ordinances; accessory use is associated with something being on the lot. Commissioner Wheeler asked if that section could be created without setting a county -wide precedent. Commissioner Scurlock suggested making it specific to oceanfront lots. Attorney Collins advised that Section 53 says, "Boats may be stored seaward of the dune stabilization setback line in a manner that does not disturb the vegetation." Maybe that last sentence should be specific to storage seaward of the dune by the wording, "Such storage of boats is also subject to the requirement of Section 911.15(7), except that the provisions of Section 911.15(7)(b)1 shall not preclude a lot owner from authorizing a third party to store a boat on the owner's lot." But this would not allow storage on a vacant lot. Commissioner Wheeler asked how many complaints have been filed. Mr. DeBlois replied that, as far as boat storage on the beach, we had six complaints. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney William Stewart, representing Robert Cigala, wished to comment on the ordinance. While he thought the basic text is fine, he had a problem with the last sentence and suggested a solution. He noted that the assumption had been made in the draft that all subdivision lots on the ocean run to the mean high water mark. That, in fact, is not the case. Some of the subdivision lots have an eastern boundary which is somewhere above the bluff line, and the property that lies between their property line and the mean high-water mark is left somewhere in limbo. Sooner or later we will have a situation where somebody comes on the beach, stores a catamaran and is not on a lot because that particular lot 7 DEC 04 199� L•Qa65, PkGE on 04 1991 FOOK FAGE 09 does not extend down to the mean high water mark. The whole concept of accessory use is going to be inapplicable to that situation. Mr. Stewart thought it would be easier to get rid of that lot concept and simply say in the broadest terms that if you are going to store a catamaran on the beach within the requirements of the proposed ordinance that it be with the permission of the upland owner. Now, once you get upland owner concept into the ordinance you are not so concerned whether it is sitting on the lot or if it is in the area between the lot line and the mean high water mark; the situation would be covered. Mr. Stewart also felt we should not worry about whether the upland property is developed or not. He felt the beach is unusual because no matter who owns the upland property, the public does have some rather significant rights of the beach which nobody can affect. Mr. Stewart also felt, and assumed the Board felt, that there is no point regulating something where there does not seem to be a problem. Chairman Bird asked for clarification as far as deed restrictions. He said he had been told the deed restrictions in Ocean Ridge Subdivision prohibit having a boat stored on the beach. He asked if deed restrictions supersede County ordinances. Attorney Stewart responded that it would depend on the circumstances. If the deed restrictions allow something that is prohibited by the County ordinance, certainly the Ordinance would prevail. Under the laws of the State of Florida the Supreme Court has decided the public does have certain rights to use the beach in certain reasonable ways. If a deed restriction contradicts those rights that the Supreme Court has recognized, those rights are going to prevail over the deed restrictions. Attorney Stewart offered the following language for the ordinance: "Boats stored in accordance with the requirements of this section, by or with the permission of the upland owner, shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 911.15(7)(b)1." Deputy County Attorney Collins felt that language would be appropriate if it is acceptable to the Board. Ellen Walker addressed the Board, supporting Mr. Stewart's position, and stated she was brought up in a family of sailors who always had non -motorized boats and who care for the environment and want the right to take their boats to the beach and use them. Doug Moss, 9435 Periwinkle Drive, came before the Board supporting Mr. Stewart's position. He recounted his 17 years of using the beaches in Indian River County. He said that he caused one of the six complaints about a boat being on the beach. The complaint was filed by someone from another country and law 8 enforcement officers were called who explained to the tourist the laws of Florida permitting use of the beach. He urged the Board to retain the quality and integrity of tourism in Indian River County and not take away the fun of using the beach. Commissioner Wheeler did not want to restrict the rights of using the beach where there is no real problem. Attorney Collins explained that the reason for the amendment to the ordinance is because the ordinance prohibited anything seaward of the dune, and we are trying to allow these boats seaward of the dune line as long as the public interest and preservation of the vegetation and prevention of erosion are accomplished. The result would be a less restrictive ordinance. Commissioner Wheeler felt the current ordinance is unclear and there was some misunderstanding about using the beach, and that is another reason we are working on it. Commissioner Eggert suggested we need to remove the line that says storage of boats is subject to Section 911.15(7). Deputy County Attorney Collins said if we use Mr. Stewart's language it would take care of the problem. Robert Cigala said he supported Mr. Stewart's position as his representative. Ray Collee, resident of Seagrove, has his friend's catamaran on the beach in front of his home. He said most comments have been favorable; his oceanfront neighbors enjoy seeing the boat on the beach. Mr. Collee would like to continue to keep that catamaran out there. Len Zanca lives in Ocean Ridge and is in favor of catamarans on the beach. He felt this problem started when one neighbor became angry at him for other reasons, and complained about the boat on the beach. Harry Robinson, 1990 Ocean Ridge Circle, was concerned that by amending the ordinance we would also be changing Sections 911.15 and 912.17, since those two sections pertain to storage of boats on any lot in the county. Attorney Collins explained that this would only apply to storage of boats seaward of the dune. Therefore, it would not change Sections 911.15 or 912.17, but rather would call out an exception to those sections. The amendment would not affect storage of vehicles or boats on lots in any other place in the county. Mr. Robinson noted that by ordinance boats are not allowed to be parked in front yards or side yards and asked the reasoning behind that rule. 9 DEC U4 i991 BOOK 85 PAGE 1 BOOK; PAGE 11 Community Development Director Keating said we are dealing mainly with aesthetics because residents do not want their neighborhoods overrun with a lot of vehicles parked there. Mr. Robinson felt his oceanfront "back yard" is a special exception and does not like to look at boats in, essentially, his front yard. Mr. Robinson also asked how many boats are now going to be allowed to be parked on the beach. Mr. DeBlois clarified that you are allowed one boat, as the owner, and a second boat for a defined duration in a given year. Mr. Robinson felt it would detract from his aesthetics by having boats parked on the beach. He also felt the Board is considering allowing a boat to be parked on a vacant lot, which is not allowed anywhere else in the county. Mr. Collins said that is an issue which has not been thoroughly discussed yet. Commissioner Wheeler felt it would be wrong to store a boat in a vacant lot. Chairman Bird stressed it is allowed only seaward of the dune vegetation line. Commissioner Eggert further clarified by describing the upland part as grass and the part east of the dune stabilization line as the storage area; nothing can be put on the grass or vegetation but it can be put east of the dune stabilization line even if the upland lot is vacant, with proper permission. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously revised the last sentence of Section 53 to read: "Boats stored in accordance with the requirement of this section by or upland land requirement with the permission of the abutting owner shall be exempt from of 912.17(3) (B)1." Section 911.15(7) (b)1 the and Chairman Bird asked if anyone else wished to discuss any other proposed LDR changes. Attorney Warren Dill came before the Board and wanted to clarify his comments from the November 20 meeting. He is concerned about Section 26 which talks about setbacks in Con -2 and Con -3 districts. Mr. Dill indicated this was found on pages 27 and 28 of the ordinance. Mr. Dill's recollection was that the Con -3 district with the 100 -foot buffer was suggested by Mr. Coraci and was for developments in a cluster concept and was not appropriate for 10 smaller platted lots. He felt it was not fair to apply this use designation to areas east of the Sebastian River unless it is for environmental concerns. He was not sure whether this use applies to areas along the Indian River; he did not know if there is any xeric scrub along the Indian River. He stated that by making this amendment to the ordinance the Con -3 district is applicable county- wide. Roland DeBlois disagreed with Mr. Dill's comments. He said prior to Coraci's participation in the hearings, the designation was Con -2 with specific reference to the areas of xeric scrub adjacent to the Sebastian River, including the scrub on the east side up to the general boundary of Roseland Road; so it was not new material. As far as the 100 -foot buffer, there is a clause in the ordinance that does account for nonconforming lots of record that are undersized. The clause reads, "In no case, however, with reference to existing parcels or lots of record which existed prior to June 18, 1991, shall the buffer be required to exceed twenty (20) percent of the parcel or lot depth perpendicular to the applicable waterway." Mr. DeBlois felt there is no conflict. Attorney Dill argued that there are lots along the Sebastian River which are 500 to 700 feet in length and 20 percent would be 140 -foot setback. In addition, there are homes built within 50 feet or even 20 feet of the river and these homes would not be allowed expansion because of the setback requirement. Community Development Director Keating explained that first you have to determine where you will be expanding your house. If it had the soil and vegetation characteristics and was in the area designation of C-3, and if you have sod in your back yard, you can expand your house. It is only prohibited where there are undisturbed sand pine communities. It does not apply if there is a single sand pine tree in the yard. Mr. Keating felt there was no confusion. Mr. Dill stressed that there are lots of record where the homes are within the 100 -foot setback and would not be allowed to expand toward the river. He felt it was never intended to do that. He thought the wording should be changed to read, "For single family construction and alterations on such lots of record the provision of the site and dimension Criteria of 911.12(6) apply," and just delete the 20 percent requirement criteria. Discussion ensued regarding previous ordinance amendments and application of and exceptions to the 100 -foot setback. Deputy County Attorney Collins suggested the following language in Section 26, Paragraph 4, Uses, the last sentence: "For single family construction and alterations on such lots of record, 11 � fIEC 041991 BOOK 85 PAd lid DEC 0 991 BOOK b [AGE IC) the provisions of 911.12(4)(E) shall not apply," referring to the 100 -foot setback. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously revised Section 26, Paragraph 4, Uses, to read: "For single family construction and alterations on such lots of record, the provisions of 911.12(4)(E) shall not apply." Attorney Dill suggested staff may want to strike some lines in 911.12(4)(E) because they no longer make sense after the last amendment. Chairman Bird assured Mr. Dill it would be examined. Administrator Chandler stated Ms. Sandra Roberts wished to address the Board regarding the following: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request by Ms. Sandra Roberts, Vero Lakes Estates For County to Supply Fill and Trees Due to Flood Plain Cut/Fill Balance DASTE: December 2, 1991 This morning, I spoke with Ms. Roberts regarding her request for the County to supply her with some fill and trees to replace those that were removed due to the County's cut and fill balance requirement in the 100 Year Flood Plain portion of Vero Lakes Estates. Ms. Roberts stated that this requirement was applied only to her property and others in Vero Lakes Estates were not required to comply. In investigating her complaint, only two applications for construction on one acre lots in Vero Lakes Estates were received for property within the 100 Year Flood Plain in 1991 (Ms. Roberts and Mrs. Manning). All others, to our knowledge, were for lots under acre and were exempt. Prior to 1991, staff was not enforcing this requirement. New FEMA maps came out in 1989 and better defined the 100 Year Flood Plain. When the new L.D.R.'s were approved; staff began to enforce this requirement. At this time, staff does not recommend supplying fill and trees for this property since the County Code requires the cut and fill balance. It appears that the code contains an appeal and variance procedure if the property owner objected to the County requirement. Please contact me if you have any questions. If you concur I will write Ms. Roberts a letter to that effect. Ms. Roberts informed me that she would attend the special Board of County Commissioners meeting on Wednesday evening, December the 4th, to reiterate her request before the Board. 12 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to deny the request for the County to supply fill and trees to Mr. and Mrs. Roberts. Under discussion, Mrs. Sandra Roberts, resident of Vero Lake Estates, came before the Board and recounted her experience in planning and building her house. She said she was never told she had the right to come before the Board to appeal the cut and fill balance requirement. She further stated that in only two instances were residents required to do this cut and fill balance in Vero Lake Estates and that hers was the only instance where the cut and fill balance requirement was enforced. She described her lot which was specifically chosen to accommodate their country -style house with a large front porch. The lot had many trees and it was not until after they had arranged financing and were ready to break ground that the matter of cut and fill balance was brought to their attention. County Administrator Jim Chandler pointed out that the change in the provision on cut and fill for single family homes from a half acre to an acre not only affects Vero Lake Estates but the entire County. So any action by the Board in this case would set a county -wide precedent. Commissioner Scurlock agreed and added that we do change ordinances from time to time and we cannot undo situations like this one, or repair damage or make improvements. Mrs. Roberts questioned whether this requirement was correctly enforced since Vero Lake Estates has drainage and -it had never been enforced previously. Commissioner Wheeler assured her it was enforceable and still is, until the ordinance is amended. In other words, if she were just beginning construction, she would have the same requirements. Commissioner Bowman said Mrs. Roberts could plant cypress trees in the lowest area and red maple on the edges and with the proper shrubbery she could have a forest in her back yard. Mrs. Roberts asked why this requirement had never been enforced before. Public Works Director Davis responded that the Land Development Regulations were established just one year ago, so this was a new regulation and was effective throughout the County and was enforced on lots one-half acre or larger. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. 13 DEC 04 99 BOOK DEC 04 1991 BOOK .e.) NAGE 15 Mrs. Manning, resident of Vero Lake Estates, asked for clarification on the new wording. She asked if each case would have to be approved by the Board. Mr. Boling responded that it will be handled exactly as in the other cut and fill balance waiver process; it would be presented to the Board, with engineering reports for backup and the Public Works Department would be involved. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved and adopted Ordinance 91-48 amending the following Chapters of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs): Chapter 901, Definitions; Chapter 910, Concurrency Management System; Chapter 911, Zoning; Chapter 912, Single Family Development; Chapter 913, Subdivisions and Plats; Chapter 914, Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures, Chapter 926, Landscape and Buffer Regulations; Chapter 927, Tree Protection and Land Clearing; Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection; Chapter 930, Stormwater Management and Flood Protection; Chapter 931, Wellfield and Aquifer Protection; Chapter 932, Coastal Management; Chapter 934, Excavation and Mining; Chapter 952, Traffic; Chapter 954, Off -Street Parking; Chapter 971, Regulations for Specific Land Use Criteria; and providing for repeal of conflicting provisions, codification, severability and effective date. ORDINANCE 91-48, IN ITS ENTIRETY, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 14 ORDINANCE NO. 91-48 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER 910, CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; CHAPTER 911, ZONING; CHAPTER 912, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT; CHAPTER 913, SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS; CHAPTER 914, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES; CHAPTER 926, LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REGULATIONS; CHAPTER 927, TREE PROTECTION AND LAND CLEARING; CHAPTER 929, UPLAND HABITAT PROTECTION; CHAPTER 930, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION; CHAPTER 931, WELLFIELD AND AQUIFER PROTECTION; CHAPTER, 932, COASTAL MANAGEMENT; CHAPTER 934, EXCAVATION AND MINING; CHAPTER 952, TRAFFIC; CHAPTER 954, OFF-STREET PARKING; CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USE CRITERIA; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. OMB Director Joe Baird confirmed a special meeting on December 20, 1991 at 9:00 o'clock A. M. to discuss Escambia County Single Family Bond Program. There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 o'clock P. M. ATTEST: J. arton, Clerk 15 DEC 0 4 J991 Richard N. Bird, Chairman POOK 85 ()Au 16