Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/2/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1992 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Gary C. Wheeler James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION - Reverend Richard Speck Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of V.B. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS a. Bd. added scheduling of an evening meeting to revisit the subject of the Manatee Protection Plan, as Item 9 A.1, and changed Items 9•A.1 and 9A.2 to Item 9 A.2 and 9 A.3, respectively 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Appointments of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff Tim Dobeck: James Moran Quinn Harris Jeffrey S. Weber Aaron R. Freeman Robert T. Heath Mary Anne Anglin B. Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board: Fellsmere Water Control District Annual Budget for FY 92/93 C. Repeal of Chapter 8 - Firearms ( memorandum dated May 26, 1992) - D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 031 ( memorandum dated May 27, 1992 ) JUN � i JUN ®21992 1�ooK 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Permanent Barrier at 3rd Ave. and 16th Street ( memorandum dated May 27, 1992 ) 2. O'Haire Appeal of Krovocheck Wetland Resource Permit ( memorandum dated May 21, 1992 B. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 6k6 fr�1;E 5 4PM N 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Request to Set Night Board Meeting dates to Consider Administrative Rezonings ( memorandum dated May 22, 1992 ) B. EMERGENCY SERVICES Approval of Cooperative Capital Equipment Expenditure For Emergency Management/ Radio Amateur Civil Emer- gency Services ( RACES) -- Disaster Communications Radio ( memorandum dated May 26, 1992 ) C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS Proposed Jungle Club Road Race - Oct. 10, 1992 ( memorandum dated May 26, 1992 ) H. UTILITIES Agreement Between I.R.C. 8 Engineer for Pro- fessional Services, Engineering Study and Design of the Most Cost Effective Utilization of a West Regional Site for an Effluent Dis- posal System ( memorandum dated May 18, 1992 ) W W 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY Maintenance Agreement for County Road 512 Recreation Site ( memorandum dated May 27, 1992 ) 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT None C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT None 15. ADJOURNMENT 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. BOOK, u' ' E�•��F. � �� JUN 0 2 1092 Tuesday, June 2, 1992 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 2, 1992, at 9:00 o'clock A. M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Vice Chairman, Richard N. Bird, Gary C. Wheeler, and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Reverend Richard Speck of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Vero Beach gave the invocation, and Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Commissioner Bird requested the addition of a discussion regarding scheduling an evening meeting to revisit the subject of the Manatee Protection Plan. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously added the above item to the Agenda as Item 9.A.1., and changed Items 9.A.1. and 9.A.2. to 9.A.2. and 9.A.3., respectively. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Appointments of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff Tim Dobeck ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the following appointments of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff Tim Dobeck: UN 0-21992 r 2 X9,)2 James Moran Quinn Harris Jeffrey S. Weber Aaron R. Freeman Robert T. Heath Mary Anne Anglin 6b f�,U � 0 B. Reports The following was received and placed on file in the office of Clerk to the Board: Fellsmere Water Control District Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 92/93. C Repeal of Chapter 8 - Firearms The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien dated May 26, 1992: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney ' '`i . DATE: May 26, 1992 RE: REPEAL OF CHAPTER 8 - FIREARMS This Chapter 8 has been preempted by Section 790.33, Florida Statutes. This section of the Florida Statutes has in .effect declared Chapter 8 null and void. The repeal, therefore, is more editorial than substantive. A public hearing date of June 30, 1992 is suggested. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously scheduled a public hearing on June 30, 1992 to discuss the repeal of Chapter 8 - Firearms, as recommended by staff. D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 031 The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated May 27, 1992: F, I TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 27, 1992 SUBJECT: MISCELIANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 031 - CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment is for the following: 1. Close the Library Construction Fund and transfer the remaining money to the General Fund for the shortfall in the Library Grant and other library needs. 2. Allocates donations given to the Main Library RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment 031, as recommended by staff: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 031 DATE: May 27, 1992 3 BOOK JUN 021992 L - JIJN C12 1992 Exp1•nation: MAIN LIBRARY 066.41 CLSI AGREEMENT $22,169 066.51 CATHCO (PARKING LOT) $33,266 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY $5,000 TOTAL $60,435 NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY 066.41 CLSI (ADDITIONAL) $3,416 TWO (2) PC WORKSTATIONS $5,000 ONE (1) FILMSTRIP PROJECTOR $550 ONE (1) LARGE T.V. $1,000 TWO (2) COMPACT DISC STORAGE UNITS $1,200 ONE (1) OPAC TABLE TO COMPLY W/ADA $700 ONE (1) OPAQUE PROJECTOR $300 FIVE (5) STAFF CHAIRS $1,000 PORTABLE STAGE $750 066.63 SHELVING FOR REFERENCE AREA $4,000 TOTAL $17,916 n PUBLIC DISCUSSION MANATEE PROTECTION SPEED ZONE DISCUSSION Commissioner Bird read aloud his memo dated May 29, 1992: TO: Board of County DATE: May 29, 1992 FILE: Commissioners SUBJECT: Manatee Protection Plan FROM: Richard N. Bird e-6 REFERENCES: County Commissioner At next Tuesday's Board of County Commission meeting, under my matters, I would like to add a discussion regarding the County Commission reconsidering our recent action concerning the compromise manatee protection plan that was recommended to us by the MANWAC committee. I had an opportunity this week to attend the public hearing that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) held on this subject and after seeing the tremendous amount of response from the boaters in the area and hearing their comments, I feel that the County Commission should hold an evening public hearing to discuss these regulations before we give our final recommendation to the DNR to be passed on to the Governor and Cabinet. The boaters of the County that I have talked with feel that they were not given enough opportunity to express their opinions to the Board of County Commission 'prior to our action of last Tuesday. They would very much like to have the opportunity to be heard and I agree with them. Commissioner Bird further commented that the entire boating industry in the county would be affected by the proposed regulations. He noted that there were interested people in the audience. He reported that during recent telephone conversations, Dale Patchett of Department of Natural Resources indicated that he would attempt to attend the proposed meeting because DNR staff wants a plan that everybody can live with to present to the governor and cabinet. By having another evening public hearing we could get the input necessary to make decisions as to our recommendations. Commissioner Scurlock agreed. He also felt it is important to send someone to speak for Indian River County when DNR meets with the governor and the cabinet. There was general consensus that everybody who is interested should attend that meeting in Tallahassee. 5 JUN 0 2 1992 r 7 Commissioner Bowman pointed out that at the previous meeting on the subject of manatee protection there was a positive suggestion that boater education and licensing of boat operators should be seriously considered. There was further discussion about time and location. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously scheduled a public hearing at 7:00 P. M., June 16, 1992, at the Vero Beach Community Center to discuss the Manatee Protection Speed Zone. PERMANENT BARRIER AT 3RD AVENUE AND 16TH STREET The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis dated May 27, 1992: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Permanent Barrier at 3rd Avenue and 16th Street REF. LETTER: Letter to Board of County Commissioners dated May 27, 1992 DATE: May 27, 1992 FILE: rockbarr.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County has received a petition from the property owners in the Rockridge Subdivision requesting that a permanent barrier and landscaping be placed at the intersection of 16th Street and 3rd Avenue. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Staff has no objection to the barrier or landscaping being placed at the location requested. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING The Public Works Department recommends the excavation of asphalt, the planting of trees and shrubs and the placement of a permanent barrier at 16th Street and 3rd Avenue. Funding in the amount of approximately $3,000 be from 111-214-541 Road and Bridge Funds. 6 Public Works Director Jim Davis distributed photographs depicting the area and pointed out that in the past this barrier was created by using some guardrail that was available. He felt that the guardrail is necessary because there are water bodies in that area. He cautioned against the County taking small isolated areas where streets end and trying to beautify them with vegetation and having crews maintain all these small areas because there could be a proliferation of requests which may get out of control. Commissioner Bird suggested natural vegetation, and concerned citizen William Nelson agreed and pointed out that on adjacent property there are many oak trees, one of which could be placed in the center of this area. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the permanent barrier and landscaping at the intersection of 16th Street and 3rd Avenue, as set out in staff's recommendation. O'HAIRE APPEAL OF KROVOCHECK WETLAND RESOURCE PERMIT Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois made the following presentation: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: I Obert Keati q, AI Community Developmen Director -to FROM: Roland M. DeBlois;'AICP Chief, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement DATE: May 21, 1992 RE: O'Haire Appeal of Krovocheck Wetland Resource Permit #91050151-001 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 2, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This matter is being presented to the Board as an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission decision to uphold county staff's issuance of a wetland resource permit for the Krovocheck property at 565 S. Highway AlA (hereinafter referred to as the subject property). Michael O'Haire, the abutting property owner north of 7 JUN 02 1992 BOOK �'riuC I UN 021992 the subject property, has submitted the appeal property owner, in accordance with the provisions the County Code relating to appeal procedures. soca 8�(_j F�A,E b4' as an affected of Chapter 902 of On February 4, 1992, county environmental planning staff issued a wetland resource permit authorizing Mr. R. Jack Krovocheck to fill approximately 0.28 acres of wetlands/deepwater habitat on his property, requiring mitigation which entails: the planting of ± 0.19 acres of littoral zone vegetation; the dredging of silt submerged bottomlands for improved tidal exchange; the removal of nuisance exotic vegetation; and the establishment of conservation easement restrictions over a + 1.17 acre private lagoon, including restrictions on boat size and draft. A condition of the permit is that wetland alteration may not occur until and unless all state and federal regulatory permits are obtained. On February 19, 1992, Mr. O'Haire filed a letter of appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding staff's administrative decision to issue the wetland resource permit, contending that the permit was issued contrary to comprehensive plan policies and the regulations of Chapter 928, Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Protection, of the County Code. At their meeting of March 26, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to uphold staff's issuance sof the Krovocheck wetland resource permit. On April 24, 1992, Mr. O'Haire submitted a second letter appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission decision to the Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with the procedures of County Code Chapter 902. Existing Conditions of the Subject Property The Xrovocheck property is approximately 6 acres in size (total), 'including approximately one acre of privately owned submerged bottomlands within a "lagoon". A 1943 aerial of the property depicts the private lagoon area as a wetland, with some open water. Between 1943 and 1951, the area was dredged to create a more formalized canal/basin. A single-family dwelling exists on the property and is situated adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon. Approximately 1/2 acre of cleared/landscaped yard area occurs in the vicinity of the home. The remainder of the +5 acre upland of the parcel, except for an unpaved driveway access, consists largely of dense "nuisance exotic" Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. The north shoreline fringe vegetation of the private lagoon is mostly Brazilian pepper and Australian pine, although mangroves exist in a few isolated clumps. A portion of the private lagoon shoreline is "bulkheaded" with a wooden retaining wall in the area adjacent to the home. The south shoreline of the lagoon consists of a solid vegetative border which is a mixture of mangroves and Brazilian pepper. Mr. Krovocheck's property boundary extends approximately 10 feet south of the private lagoon's southern shoreline. However, a small basin -extension of the lagoon, located on the Luther property (south of the subject property), connects to the south edge of the Krovocheck-owned portion of the lagoon. A submerged bottomlands survey of the lagoon indicates that the bottomland consists largely of silt. The lagoon has been maintenance -dredged several times in the past. 8 Summary of Mr. O'Haire's Points of Appeal As previously referenced, Mr. O'Haire has submitted two letters of appeal: a February 19, 1992 letter (appealing to the Planning and Zoning Commission), and an April 24, 1992 letter (appealing to the Board). The letters contain overlapping but different points of appeal. Following is a summary of the points in Mr. O'Haire's combined letters. 1. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Policies 1.5, 1.31, and Conservation Policy 5.1: Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit conflicts with Land Use Policy 1.5 which provides that "no residential development in C-2 or C-3 areas shall occur unless such development is approved as a planned development." 2. Comprehensive Plan Conservation Policy 2.8: Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit conflicts with Conservation Policy 2.8 which provides that "excavation of any existing canal shall not be for the purpose of obtaining fill." 3. Comprehensive Plan Conservation Policy 7.2: Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit conflicts with Conservation Policy 7.21 which states: "for developments on property known to support endangered or threatened species of plants or animals, or on property expected to significantly contribute to such species' habitat needs, the developer shall be required to notify the GFC and the USFWS and provide proper protection to the extent feasible, to the satisfaction of the county and wildlife agencies." 4. Comprehensive Plan Conservation Policy 2.1(d): Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit contravenes Conservation Policy 2.1(d) which prohibits shoreline alteration for "development in or adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve... unless it is in the public interest, repairs erosion damage or provides reasonable access to the water, and does not adversely impact water quality, natural habitat or adjacent shoreline uses". 5. LDR Section 928.05(1): Mr. O'Haire contends that the proposed wetland and deepwater habitat alteration fails to satisfy any one of the three parameters that would allow for alteration, -those parameters being: (1) the elimination of a public hazard; (2) the provision of public benefits dictated by a public need; or (3) the alteration of a degraded habitat whereby preservation of the habitat is not in the public interest (paraphrased). 6. LDR Subsections 928.01(2) and 928.06(1)(b): Mr. O'Haire contends that the proposed wetland/deepwater habitat alteration is not the development alternative of least impact, and therefore the permit should not have been issued. 7. LDR Subsection 930.07(2)(d): Mr. O'Haire contends that the issued permit does not address the replacement of flood plain storage capacity, contrary to LDR Subsection 930.07(2)(d). LDR Chapter 902 Appeal Review Parameters Section 902.07(5) of the County Code, relating to appeals of planning and zoning commission actions, provides that "the board of county commissioners may, in conformity with the provisions of law and [these] land development regulations, uphold, amend, or reverse wholly or partly, the decision of the planning and zoning commission which is being appealed." Moreover, Section 902.07(4) provides that findings must be made in the following areas: 9 JUR 02 199 J JUN 02 1992 :irF° --,I X00 Cel • Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? • Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? • Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare? • Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The focus of Mr. O'Haire's appeal is the contention that environmental planning staff ("the reviewing official") failed to evaluate the application with respect to the county comprehensive plan and land development regulations. It is staff's position that the Krovocheck wetland resource permit was reviewed and issued in an appropriate manner in accordance with the comprehensive plan and county land development regulations, taking into consideration public health, safety and welfare. In this section, Mr. O'Haire's points of appeal are analyzed along with an explanation of staff's permit review findings. Future Land Use Policies 1.5, 1.31, and Conservation Policy 5.1: requirement of planned development for residential development in C-2. The referenced comprehensive plan policies provide that all estuarine wetlands and deepwater habitat are "environmentally sensitive", having a C-2 conservation land use designation. Moreover, Land Use Policy 1.5 sets forth that no residential development shall occur within C-2 areas unless approved as a planned development. Staff interpret the planned development requirement of Policy 1.5 as applying to development where principal structures are proposed in C-2 areas, which is not the case here. The wetland resource permit as issued necessitates that any proposed principal residential structures will be located outside of the existing location of the C-2 area, due to required yard setbacks, drainage easement width, and wetland edge buffer. The main reason for the requirement of planned development in C-2 areas is to provide a mechanism for the transfer of dwelling unit density from sensitive wetlands to non -sensitive uplands. Application of the planned development requirement to categories of residential development other than principal structures in C-2 is not practical. Otherwise, common structures such as single family docks would trigger the planned development requirement, whereby a literal interpretation of the policy would have each waterfront property in the county subject to planned development site plan review and requirements, which is not practical nor the intent of the provision. 10 onservation Policy 2.8: excavation of or the purpose of obtaining fill. canals shall not be The dredging permitted under the issued permit is contained to a defined area at the east end of the Krovocheck private lagoon. The purpose of,the dredging is to remove silt submerged bottomlands for improvement of tidal exchange. As such, the purpose of the excavation is not to obtain fill; Policy 2.8 does not apply. ervation Policy 7.2: satisfaction of wildlife irements relating to endangered or threatened specie. Conservation Policy 7.2 applies to property known to support endangered or threatened species of plants or animals, or property expected to significantly contribute to such species habitat needs. The existing private lagoon is significantly degraded due to reduced tidal exchange, siltation, and absence of littoral vegetation. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) letter dated July 20, 1990 indicates that snook, red drum and manatee may pass through the area; however, the present condition does not provide significant habitat for these species. As such, the affected property does not support or contribute to threatened or endangered species habitat. Therefore, Conservation Policy 7.2 does not apply. 'onservation Pi or adjacent Lcy 2.1(d) : prc ie Indian Rive; Ltion of shoreline alteration i on Aquatic Preserve. Conservation Policy 2.1(d) pertains to the prohibition of shoreline alteration (except in certain circumstances) for "development in or adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve." Policy 2.1 does not apply to the Krovocheck permit because the proposed alteration does not affect the shoreline of the aquatic preserve. Rather, the alteration entails the filling of privately owned bottomlands not within or adjacent to the aquatic preserve. If Mr. Krovocheck proposed to alter his west property boundary shoreline (fronting the Indian River Lagoon), then Policy 2.1 would apply. Moreover, Policy 2.1 has been adopted specifically to serve the objective of surface water quality protection and enhancement. The alteration as proposed will result in a net improvement to water quality within the private lagoon, and indirectly to water quality within the aquatic preserve,.thus serving public interest. LDR Section 928.05(1): allowance of alteration with mitigation. As previously referenced, LDR Section 928.05(1) sets forth three cases in which wetland and/or deepwater habitat alteration may ,occur,, -with mitigation. County staff concluded that the proposed, alteration qualifies for alteration allowance under subsection 928.05(1)(c), which allows alteration of: "wetlands or deepwater habitats in which the functions and values currently provided are significantly less than those typically associated with such habitats and cannot be reasonably restored, and preservation of the habitat -is not in the public interest." 11 ',SON U,2 1992 BOOK. 8, Ft,uC�e�e,"r Degraded Habitat: Mr. Krovocheck was required to submit an environmental assessment of site conditions with his application; the submitted assessment included a benthic (submerged bottomlands) survey conducted by Biological Services, Inc. Based on review of submitted information, coupled with site inspections, and applying the functional assessment criteria of LDR Subsection 928.04(4), staff found the habitat to be significantly degraded due to reduced tidal exchange, siltation, absence of littoral (shoreline) vegetation, and invasion of exotic species (along the wetland edge of the private lagoon). These conditions have also contributed to a lack of species diversity in the private lagoon. The existing private lagoon is utilized by fiddler crabs, mullet and killifish. Snook, red drum, and manatee may pass through the lagoon; the present lagoon condition does not provide significant habitat for these species. Littoral zone plantings such as cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) would contribute significantly to fish breeding and juvenile stage habitat. Reasonable Restoration: The purpose.and intent of Chapter -928 is to "discourage development activities ... that may adversely affect wetlands and deepwater habitats, and to encourage restoration of already degraded or destroyed systems" (ref. LDR Sec. 928.01(2)). Habitat restoration of degraded systems cannot reasonably be expected to occur absent an incentive for the private landowner to undertake restoration; the allowance of limited filling is such an incentive. Public Interest: It is in the public interest to preserve viable wetlands and deepwater habitat, and to encourage the restoration of degraded wetland and deepwater habitat. In weighing the public benefits of the present unaltered degraded condition of the site vs. restoration with limited filling, staff concluded that the benefits of a restored (though areally reduced) wetland and deepwater habitat are in the public interest. section 928 06(1)(b) and 928.01(2): alternative of least ordinance intent. LDR Section 928.06(1) pertains to information required in association with a wetland resource permit application. Subsection 928.06(1)(b) requires "a wetland/deepwater habitat functional value assessment ... justifying the proposal as the development alternative of least impact." It is Mr. O'Haire's position that the proposed development of the property, as it affects wetland and deepwater habitat, is not the "development alternative of least impact", because the overall property could be subdivided and developed without the need for dredge and fill. Staff reviewed this matter closely, and do not contest Mr. O'Haire's point that the property could conceivably be subdivided and developed without dredge of fill. However, keeping in mind the intent of LDR Chapter 928 (Sec. 928.01(2)) and comprehensive plan 12 � 1 conservation element policies to encourage restoration of degraded wetland and deepwater habitat, staff concluded the public benefits of the development proposal with habitat restoration outweigh the public benefits of fewer lots and an unrestored degraded habitat. Under this premise, staff proceeded to require minimized filling associated with proposed lots to the north of Mr. Krovocheck's private lagoon. Through the application review process, Mr. Krovocheck was required to modify his original proposal of creating +125 foot deep lots by reducing lot depths to +117 feet, and was required to provide more mitigation than was originally proposed. The +117 foot lot depth was arrived at after scrutiny of county regulatory requirements such as minimum yard setbacks, drainage easement width, upland edge buffer requirements, building "envelope" width, and slope width for fill stabilization. Staff concluded that the overall revised plan reasonably minimized filling and provided appropriate mitigation. Subsection 930.07(2)(d): flood plain storage capaci isation. LDR Subsection 930.07(2)(d) provides that "an equal volume of storage capacity must be created for any volume of the base flood that would be displaced by fill or structures", unless a waiver is granted by the Board of County Commissioners. Environmental planning staff have coordinated with county engineering staff and Mr. Krovocheck's engineer on this issue. The applicant's engineer has indicated that he plans to file for a cut and fill waiver with the Board, in association with the submittal of a proposed subdivision plat for the subject property. While the need for a cut and fill waiver prior to wetland filling is not an explicit condition on the issued wetland resource permit, the applicant has been informed that this Assue must be addressed prior to wetland alteration. Conclusion As reflected in the analysis provided herein, staff: followed appropriate review procedures; did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner; adequately considered the effects of the proposed development to public health, safety and welfare; and appropriately evaluated the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny Mr. O'Haire's appeal. L_ 13 NOK GENERAL NOTES: LOT FILL CALCULTIONS ARE TAKEN FROM (OF OF REVF?MENT. ALL VOLUMES AND AREAS DEPICTED ON TIIIS PLAN ARE ESTIMATES AND SHOULu BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. 2. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY L. „A".,,-aT„]N TABLE THE OWNER AS PREPARED BY 7UILLEN-VELASCO ENGINEERS AND IPT!'_N AREA (S.F.) QUANTITY SURVEYORS. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM. CONTACT SURVEYOR FOR BENCH MARK. VE M.H.W rENHANCEMENT 12000 1200 1 1. M.N.G. N/A 700 3. M.H.W. AND M.L.W. INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY D.N.R. DEPARTMENT OF SURVEYAND MAPPING. REFERENCE M.H.W. FILE #610. M.L.W.REFERENCE NITIGATIQN FILL 8,060 400 TIDAL STATION 672-2125. L 20,600 2,300 4. THIS DRAWING IS A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION AND SHOULD NOT BE SYSTEM RESTORATION/CONTERVAT ION SLI00 N/A SCALED. EASEMEN5. TH15 DRAMING HAS KEN PRODUCED FOR PERMIT USE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BIE USED AS A CONSTRUCTION DRAINING. PROPOSED AREA TO BE N. 88' 26' 46' 'd. FILLED (SEE TABLE) ?64.35' - p ��' rxoroxn :c qn STORMWATER FJ NOT INCLUDED , - - -- - - - - - - - -�- - - --� MANAGEMENT `\ TRACT ►� EXISTING LIGHT VEGETATION, MANGROVE � 0 O AND SEEDLINGS. TO BE MITIGATED �• � y 1 0� Z EXISTING �--,IC , A TOP OF BANK ' C> O3 \ \\ \ 1 t:jI / AND JURISDICTION UNE r y ` ►� ?-�_� — _ , 6r:sna; J ` xs[ - TEXOP OF BANK - J' JURISDICTION LINE - - A- 1 Z' ' r-��ALONG TOP OF BANK - - Z L I �- -I --H r. `. EXISTING ti f (DETERMINATION MADE BY S.J.R.V.M.D. L A.C.O.EJ SEAWALL l� ,I� U M�5«' EXISTING LAGOON C fTl D,% v Y 10 1 _�. at - - a6* c6 46' E. f EXISTING Na 68' 26' 46' V L VEGETATION UNC SEE CROSS SECTIONS SEE FOR DREDGING c ' (RE40VEVE EXEXISrNG DREDGED AREA [YO'nC F�F'TATI(1N1 z r_` C' Ty - Ca ' CJ -1 CTI A M M T- . \\ 9 1 Ix 1 13 14 16 MCOVE \\� COVE \ GOV. LOT I SUBJECT SITE --*.21;1 S 4 S 8 7 6 91rr-- I 12 7 4 S 6 7 6 9 uv 1 10 1. R 1! 14 1S 16 T— 1 rnv t nT.-I �1 GOV. LOT 2 1 A� \ I \ GOV. LOT 3 N \ 4 � S 6 7. 8 •_ cuv� _nalv_E ': -41x� x1x�ror'� RS -3 J _ 1 G. L. 3 I SEAGROVE WEST Commissioner Scurlock questioned the wetland mitigation recommendation of .19 acre against filling approximately .28 acre. He understood that the requirement is 2 to 1. Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois responded that ordinarily the requirement is 2 to 1 when creating a wetland from non -wetland area, which allows for some failure. The critical factor in evaluating mitigation is the net improvement in the functions and value of the wetland. Since this is a proposal for mitigation to enhance an existing wetland, the ordinance allows for some discretion, and staff determined the mitigation offset as recommended is net improvement. 15 JUN 021992 MOK JON Uri A92 Commissioner Scurlock questioned procedure and asked whether the Board was limited to considering the 7 points raised before the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z). County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the P&Z ruling is presumed correct. It is up to Mr. O'Haire to show otherwise, and he is not limited to the record before P&Z. He can introduce whatever he wants to the Board, except it must go to the facts of our ordinance. His written appeal has done that and staff is giving their answer to the appeal. Therefore, the Board should consider the 7 points plus anything else presented. In response to Mr. O'Haire's first allegation, that the issued permit conflicts with Land Use Policy 1.5, Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that Land Use Policy 1.5 was never intended to require single family docks go through the planned development process. Regarding Conservation Policy 2.8, Commissioner Bowman argued that this is a dead-end canal and there could be no tidal exchange unless there is a strong west wind. Commissioner Scurlock asked, and Mr. DeBlois confirmed that'a benefit of the dredge and fill permit will be a deeper lagoon, but the intent is not to obtain fill for the upland development. He expected Mr. Krovocheck's engineer to elaborate on that point. Regarding Conservation Policy 7.2, Commissioner Scurlock felt the critical phrase was "support or contribute to threatened or endangered species habitat." Mr. DeBlois stated that staff determined that the property neither supports nor contributes to the habitat of threatened or endangered species, even though they may occasionally come into the area. Mr. DeBlois directed the Board's attention to two letters from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in which they said there was a small but measurable loss, and recommended denial of the permit. This recommendation was taken into consideration by the Army Corps of Engineers and the County. Commissioner Bowman thought this lagoon is in the aquatic preserve, and Director Keating agreed that it is adjacent and it is public access, but the Department of Natural Resources reviewed it and they concluded it does not fall under their purview under the aquatic preserve. Chairman Eggert led discussion regarding the procedure for granting various permits, and stated she was not in favor of granting conditional permits. Director Keating explained that we usually approve projects contingent upon the applicant getting all other local and state or regional permits because state and regional permitting requirements 16 are more costly and cumbersome and the applicant needs to know he can get local approval before spending a lot of time and effort. The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:05 A. M. and the Board reconvened at 10:15 A. M. with all members present. Attorney Ralph Evans, representing Michael and Shirley O'Haire, came before the Board to address some of the conclusions reached by staff in making their determination that this permit should be issued. Mr. Evans recounted the history of this matter and reminded the Board that the minutes of a BCC meeting in August of 1991 reflected representations from staff that the lagoon would not be filled. In essence, this is not a permit to fill the lagoon but only a permit to fill a portion of it. However, if the representation of not filling the lagoon had some impact on the Board's decision against the rezoning, that should be addressed. Attorney Evans contended that the subject permit is designed to create two additional lots in a proposed subdivision which is not allowed. He pointed out that there was conversation about the state of degradation in the lagoon and of serving the public interest, and he felt there has been an effort to characterize this as a public interest when in fact it is nothing more than a private interest. Attorney Evans referred to a letter staff wrote to the applicant suggesting that he consider planned development. The applicant's response, in a letter from their representative, Peterson and Votapka, dated December 11, 1991, was, in part, "because of the following reasons it was determined that the planned development concept would not only minimize the amount of filling of the lagoon that we deem necessary for reasonable development of the lot, it would also mandate unnecessary requirements that would be adverse and in excess of the design concept of the project." Attorney Evans called that private interest. Attorney Evans noted that the applicant stated he would not be removing fill but removing silt, and would bring fill from some other location for the lots. He read from the application received by the Central Florida District to the DER, date-stamped March, 1991, "Item Ten, Description of Work: Dredge 952 cubic yards of clean material from a man-made lagoon to fill an area of 18,560 square feet; with the fill provide buildable single family lots for the proposed subdivision." He directed the Board's attention to a letter from USFWS which recommended denial of the application based on a small but 17 JUN � ' measurable loss to the resources of the Indian River Lagoon, because mitigation included in the project does not compensate for the time lost for the shoreline to reestablish a community of organisms. He conceded that staff made the point that the USFWS letter came out prior to some changes in the mitigation; nonetheless, Fish and Wildlife has recommended denial of the permit. Whether there are snook, reds, and manatee that pass through the area but do not necessarily make it their habitat, there is some reason for them to be there and maybe that reason is because they live on juvenile mullet that are found there. Maybe it's not that at all, but Fish and Wildlife has announced that there is a reason not to do that. Mr. Evans reported two great horned owls seen in the area and thought the Commissioners should consider that the exotic and nuisance vegetation that is proposed to be removed may be the habitat for those owls and should be taken into consideration. Attorney Evans addressed the prohibition against alteration of a shoreline which is adjacent to the aquatic preserve and "adjacent" calls for interpretation by the Board in deciding whether to issue the permit. Mr. Evans argued that if the Commissioners reach the conclusion that this lagoon is adjacent to the aquatic preserve, the permit should not be issued because of the tidal movement in the lagoon. The lagoon was determined to be in a dtate of degradation and apparently is grandfathered in to that state of degradation. Mr. Evans felt the lagoon is not being dredged to satisfy the public interest but to satisfy a private interest, and that private interest is satisfied by creating homesites. He contended that the homesites will impact more greatly the recently restored lagoon than probably impacted it in the forty years since it was dredged. Mr. Evans addressed the issue of alternative of least impact. The only way to justify not taking the alternative of least impact is by reaching the conclusion that the public interest is served by curing the lagoon which has suffered degradation, but Mr. Evans argued that a subdivision that allows more living area, more people, more nutrients, contemplation of boats, fuel, soap, water run off, and making a lagoon deeper will have a greater impact. He described the project as dredging a lagoon and putting some dirt up there so the private land owner can create a lot high enough to build homes. Even without a structure in that exact spot and calling it a yard, we have more land. The policy of staff to allow a private land owner whose lagoon is grandfathered in to a state of degradation to cure that state of 18 degradation by dredging and filling that lagoon and impact that wetland and call it the public interest is an incentive for others to do so. Mr. Evans predicted that if this goes through, next year the Board will see ads in the yellow pages for Consultants on Degradation reading, "Let me show you how to let your lagoon slip into a state of degradation and go to the state and county and they will allow you to construct more lots on your property." He described this as a trade-off and the trade-off uses the public interest when there is no public interest. Mr. Evans thought we should figure out how to persuade an owner to improve a wetland that has fallen into a state of degradation without adding two more lots. Mr. Evans contended that this permit is based on private interest only and that the issue of these two lots has to do with marketing. A marketing expert would look at this piece of property and tell you that the lot closest to AlA is worth X, the next one is worth X+1, the next one is worth X+2 and so on. Mr. Evans questioned why the floodplain issue is not being addressed. Mr. Evans concluded that staff's decisions were well thought out but they reasoned arbitrarily. He urged the Board to decide in the interest of conservation and in the interest of the environment and in accordance with USFWS, who serve the public interest. Attorney Steve Henderson, representing Mr. Jack Krovocheck, came before the Board and agreed that it would be nice if government could find a way to force land owners to clean up degraded wetlands, but land owners are not inclined to clean up or improve wetlands just for the sake of improving the environment. That is why, over the course of the last 15 or 20 years, the concept of mitigation has come into play in permitting law. Attorney Henderson recounted that when Mr. Krovocheck was forced to defend his property from rezoning, the subject plan was laid out and the Board was informed of the intended improvement of 2 lots by some filling of the lagoon. Mr. Krovocheck at that time asked for the opportunity to jump through the hoops and the opportunity to show sufficient mitigation to allow his ultimate proposal and has spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on this project. Staff has been put to time and effort in defending their position in recommending the issuance of the permit. The easy thing in this case is to deny the permit and everybody can just go home. Mr. O'Haire is challenging permit issuance at every level and is likely to continue the challenge at the local level and perhaps through litigation under chapter 163. Attorney Henderson objected to Mr. O'Haire's appeal because he does not have property which adjoins the lagoon. Mr. Luther, another 19 JUN 0 21992 BOOK � FACE �`:� JUR 62 M2 BOOK 66 PM..i1i bo1 neighbor, was involved during the P&Z process but is not present. Chairman Eggert announced that John Luther had sent a letter to the Commission saying that he agreed with Michael O'Haire on this matter. Attorney Henderson also objected to the procedure because this is an appeal from a decision by the Planning & Zoning Board under Section 902. There are some appellate concepts in play here and one of them is that the decision of the county official is presumed correct, and the decision of the P&Z Board is presumed correct. There must be a clear showing by Mr. O'Haire and his attorney that the P&Z decision is wrong and error was committed. Other appellate fundamentals are that you should only look at the issues that were presented before the P&Z. Mr. Henderson realized that the County Attorney advised the Board otherwise and was raising the points for the record. He felt it is not appropriate to consider matters not raised before the P&Z. Attorney Vitunac explained that the County Commission decided to allow the widest possible opportunity for interested parties to become involved. He also responded to Mr. Henderson's argument regarding Mr. O'Haire's position by stating that our code has the power to define "substantial interest" and does that in a more lax manner than the State would. In his opinion the Board is on sound ground to hear the matter as it is being presented and to make a decision based on the evidence with the one proviso that the motion must conform to the reasons given in the code. Commissioner Scurlock led discussion regarding the correspondence from USFWS in which they recommended denial of the permit. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the subject permit is conditional on the applicant getting all these other permits. Discussion continued along this line with Director Keating clarifying staff's actions to the present time. Attorney Henderson pointed out that staff's findings were based on the four areas set forth in 902.07. While Mr. Evans feels that staff have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, there has been no submission of any scientific or technical evidence that would tend to show that they have acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Mr. Krovocheck has submitted substantial technical and scientific studies and information to staff and their decision on that information has not been challenged. Staff has found that the fill proposal is reasonable and appropriate and is more than offset by the substantial environmental enhancement which is achieved through mitigation. Mitigation is the key word here. Applicant Jack Krovocheck came before the Board and described his investment of time and funds in defending his property rights. He reminded the Board of the failed attempts by Mr. O'Haire and Mr. Luther to persuade the County to consider rezoning his property. At that time County staff determined the zoning was consistent with the master land use plan. Mr. Krovocheck stated that a year ago he began his project and was made aware which permits would be necessary for this project. At his direction, marine engineers, a civil engineer and a biologist gathered the required data to determine the criteria for permitting, resulting in a conditional permit from Indian River County for dredge and fill. His next step is to obtain permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and St. Johns River Water Management District. Mr. Krovocheck stated that he has produced for these three permitting agencies scientific and biological findings by independent laboratories, while Mr. O'Haire has produced nothing to refute that data. He accused Mr. O'Haire of harassment and hoped the Commission would set up a procedure where harassment would not be further tolerated because it wastes not only the applicant's time and money but also that of the County staff, P&Z, and the County Commission. Mr. Krovocheck felt the subject of the dredging permit needed clarification and stated it was instigated and required by the St. Johns River Water Management District because they felt that the tidal flow would be better and because the drainage coming from AlA had caused the lagoon to be silted in. Regarding the aquatic preserve, he directed the Board's attention to a document from the Department of Natural Resources outlining the aquatic preserve which shows the subject property is outside that area. Mr. Krovocheck described the dimensions of his 6 -acre property and stated that by dredging the lagoon he will gain 32 feet out of that water area, but he emphasized that even without the dredging he can develop the lots. He stressed that the dredging is not to create two new real estate lots. He pointed out that the waterway which cuts into the little spill lagoon on Mr. Luther's property, which is about 15 feet wide, is an open waterway and Mr. Luther will be able to go out of there with a'boat without any problem. Mr. Krovocheck stressed that he simply wants his property rights and the opportunity to pursue the permits and if that plan fails, he will develop it another way. Todd Smith, Registered Florida Engineer with Peterson and Votapka, representing Mr. Krovocheck, came before the Board and stated he did the civil engineering work on the project. He explained that the Army Corps of Engineers demanded proof that they were not creating lots. He pointed out that the lots do not exist as platted lots, but regardless of the wetland permit, the proposed• 21 JUN U2 N92 boor OU lots could be platted under current laws. That was sufficient justification to the Army Corps of Engineers to show that this dredging is not being done to create "fast land." Mr. Smith addressed the Fish and Wildlife Service letter and reported that USFWS is a supporting agency to the Army Corps of Engineers and makes recommendations to the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers' position is that having considered the USFWS comments as well as those of the National Marine Fisheries, which has recommended approval, they intend to permit. They have thrown the ball back in Fish and Wildlife's court saying that this letter was not notification enough to the Army Corps of Engineers to deny the permit and it is up to USFWS if they want to appeal to Washington, D.C. Mr. Smith answered Commissioner Bowman's concern about storm water management by describing the type of system to be used and noting that the system has been accepted by Public Works. Mr. Smith said that St. Johns River Water Management District recommended dredging the silt from the lagoon because the continued silt accumulation deters the diversity of fauna and smothers oxygen supplies. He assured the Board that the silt which will be 'dredged will be hauled away and not used because it is not a suitable soil for structural foundations. He also mentioned that the removal of exotic and nuisance vegetation is required by County code. Mr. Smith addressed the issue of the alternative of least impact. In his opinion it is better to put up six homes and restore the lagoon than to put up six homes and not do any restoration. He felt doing nothing to the lagoon was not the alternative of least impact and that the public will gain by Mr. Krovocheck's project. Ralph Evans returned to the microphone and stressed that Mr. O'Haire's position was that scientific evidence is not required to interpret the Statutes. He stated that the definition of "adjacent" and the question of the public interest would be decided by the Board. Mr. Evans pointed out that Mr. Krovocheck and Mr. Smith stated they did not need to dredge and fill the lagoon to accomplish their purpose. He felt that was clear indication that they can complete the development without impacting the lagoon. Commissioner Bird asked whether the information that was presented to the Board is basically the same information presented to Planning & Zoning Commission. Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois responded that it is basically the same information. The additional points raised before the Board was the planned development requirement in C-2, the threat to endangered species, and the issue of addressing the cut and fill waiver. 22 Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that the planned development issue is a narrow issue relating to wetland resource and is not the consideration here. Commissioner Bird recalled that during the discussion on the rezoning he supported Mr. Krovocheck's position and had not expected Mr. Krovocheck to proceed with the project. However, Mr. Krovocheck is going through the process, and our Planning & Zoning Commission has approved the issuance of the permit. Commissioner Bird felt the P&Z's decision should be upheld unless we have additional information which they did not have benefit of or if staff was erroneous in their conclusions and in their reviewing the application. He could not find that either of these two situations are in effect and felt the Board should uphold the P&Z decision. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to deny the appeal based on the following: The official did follow appropriate review procedures; the official did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner; the official did consider adequately the effect of the proposed development upon surrounding properties; and the reviewing official did evaluate the application with respect to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock agreed with Commissioner Bird that there has not been any additional information to override the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He felt that the other agencies which are comprised of environmentalists and scientists acting independently will represent the public interest. Commissioner Bowman thought that while they are not creating lots they are enhancing the real estate that is there, and they are asking to convert wetland for non -water related purposes, which contravenes EPA regulations. She also thought staff failed to evaluate the application with respect to the Comp Plan and Land Development Regulations of Indian River County by contravening the Conservation Policy 2.1(d), which prohibits shoreline alteration adjacent to the Indian River Aquatic Preserve. In her opinion, the subject water body is within the aquatic preserve. Commissioner Scurlock felt confident that the Army Corps of Engineers would make that determination, and Director Keating advised that the Army Corps of Engineers did make the determination that this lagoon is not in the aquatic preserve. 23 EOOK b5, JIJV ru 2 1992 aJ0 FFA,;E acs Mr. DeBlois pointed out that during this process Mr. O'Haire raised the question of the description of the property which was sent to DNR. Mr. DeBlois stated that staff relied on the description as attached to the application. The appellant, Michael O'Haire, came before the Board and contended that the deed attached to the application which was sent to DNR described the property called Little Harbor Subdivision and not Mr. Krovocheck's property. The Board members agreed that was substantial new information and discussion ensued regarding the property description. Todd Smith clarified that DNR originally determined this lagoon was not in the aquatic preserve. After Mr. O'Haire raised the issue which is now being discussed, DNR reviewed the application a second time with the same result, and Mr. Smith felt confident DNR fulfilled their responsibility in reviewing the application. Director Keating advised that staff's position was that Policy 2.1 did not apply because it is not in the aquatic preserve, but even if it were, it would meet the requirements. Commissioner Scurlock felt this information presented new circumstances and wished to amend his motion, and Chairman Eggert requested he.restate his motion. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to deny the appeal contingent on a determination that the lagoon is found not adjacent to or part of the Indian River Aquatic Preserve and based on the following: The official did follow appropriate review procedures; the official did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner; the official did consider adequately the effect of the proposed development upon surrounding properties; and the reviewing official did evaluate the application with respect to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Community Development Director Bob Keating explained staff's interpretation of adjacent means the shoreline under consideration has to border the aquatic preserve, and since Mr. Krovocheck is proposing to alter his east and south property line, it is not adjacent to the aquatic preserve. The original intent of the comp plan was not to include finger canals or other protrusions from the aquatic preserve. That was the criteria and that is how staff constantly applied it. 24 Bill Koolage, 11 Vista Gardens Trail, came before the Board and requested that the Board change their procedure and take roll call votes because he cannot always hear the aye or nay votes. Commissioner Bowman understood his point but clarified that silence is assent, and Chairman Eggert commented that if we do not hear a voice, it is assumed to be a vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Bird thought that since a voice vote has been used for 12 years, he saw no reason to change now, and he suggested that all Commissioners speak louder and more clearly. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4-1, Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition. REQUEST TO SET NIGHT BOARD MEETING DATES TO CONSIDER ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan Rohani dated May 22, 1992: TO: James Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. 4 Kea ingr ICP Community Develoodent Director FROM: Sasan Rohani <3 -b? Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: May 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Request to set Night Board Meeting Dates to Consider Administrative Rezonings It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 2, 1992. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 not only requires that each local government in the state prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; it also mandates that within one year of submission of its plan each jurisdiction must "adopt or amend end enforce land development regulations that are consistent with and implement their adopted comprehensive plan". 25 JUN 021992 P,00K 66- -SUN U2A92 I �r, d P �� [A, E By adopting its land development regulations on September 11, 1990, Indian River County achieved substantial compliance with the Act's implementation requirement. One aspect of making the land development regulations consistent, however, was not undertaken at that time. That aspect involves the administrative rezoning of property to make the zoning designation of each parcel in the county consistent with its land use plan designation. On February 18, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate the administrative rezoning process to make zoning of county lands consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Map. In response to that directive, the staff initiated the administrative rezoning process. As part of that process, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 28, 1992. At that meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed administrative rezoning and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the rezoning request. Accordingly, the Board of County Commissioners must now take action on this proposed administrative rezoning. Because this rezoning involves 5 percent or more of the total land area of the county, the rezoning procedure is as follows: The Board of County Commissioners shall hold two advertised public hearings on the proposed ordinance or resolution. Both hearings shall be held after 5 p.m. on a weekday, and the first shall be held approximately 7 days after the day that the first advertisement is published. The second hearing shall be held approximately 2 weeks after the first hearing and shall be advertised approximately.5 days prior to the public hearing. The day, time, and place at which the second public hearing will be held shall be announced at the first public hearing. To proceed with this process, the Board must now set dates and times for the two required night hearings. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS According to state law, the county must rezone those properties where the current zoning and land use plan designations are inconsistent. Based upon its analysis, staff has determined that approximately 1,924 parcels will need to be administratively rezoned. While that represents only about two percent of all parcels in the county, the acreage amount is more substantial. Staff estimates that approximately 210,364 of the county's 318,000 acres will be affected by the administrative rezonings. Most of the acreage and slightly more than half of the parcels involved are situated west of I-95. This occurred because the county's adopted land use plan assigns almost all land west of I-95 to designations with densities of either 1 unit/per 10 acres, 1 unit/20 acres, or no density (conservation areas owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District), whereas the lowest density residential zoning district applied to these areas has been 1 unit/five acres. Given the amount of land and the number of parcels included in this administrative rezoning, staff anticipates great public interest. Consequently, the hearings will probably be long. One set of meeting dates which would comply with state requirements is: 26 MEETING DATE TIME 1. 2. The board may requirements. RECOMMENDATION Wednesday, July 8, 1992 5:01 PM Wednesday, July 22, 1992 5:01 PM establish any other dates that meet state 0 Staff recommends that the board establish meeting dates for two night public hearings required to adopt the ordinance amending the county's zoning atlas. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously scheduled Night Board Meetings to consider Administrative Rezonings at 5:01 P. M. on Wednesday, July 8 and at 5:01 P. M. on Tuesday, July 21, 1992. APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURE FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTJRADIO AMATEUR CIVIL EMERGENCY SERVICES (RACES) - DISASTER COMMUNICATIONS RADIO The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Management Coordinator John King dated May 26, 1992: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director Emergency Management Services FROM: John King, Emergency Management Coordinator Division of Emergency Management DATE: May 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Approval of Cooperative Capital Equipment Expenditure for Emergency Management/Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services (RACES) --Disaster Communications Radio 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: The Department of Emergency Services, Division of Emergency Management, is continually striving to upgrade and improve this community's response to and recovery from man-made and natural disasters. Staff fully recognizes that during these emergency conditions that volunteer agencies are necessary to assist in the safe evacuation and sheltering of displaced residents. For more than 25 years, the Vero Beach Amateur Radio Club has assisted the " Division of Emergency. Management by providing 27 LOOK a jo';�--' JUN U 2 W92 j d 992 BOOK 6-) q , � , r; 9 0 F�,,,E ads essential secondary emergency communications. Under emergency conditions, the FCC -licensed operators voluntarily provide emergency communications under the direction of the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services (RACES) regulations. The RACES members have on numerous occasions provided emergency communications during disaster drills and actual emergencies. RACES volunteers have accepted the task of coordinating operational communications with Red Cross shelters and providing backup communications when primary communications circuits become inoperable. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The Board of County Commissioners approved the Division of Emergency Management's FY 91-92 budget request to purchase a 2 - meter amateur radio to be used in the Emergency Operation Center's communications room by staff and RACES radio operators. The purpose of this radio is to coordinate operations with disaster shelter managers, non-governmental relief agencies, and incident command sites during recovery operations. The approved capital item was budgeted at $650 to purchase a low cost functional radio. The Vero Beach Amateur Radio Club has approached staff requesting consideration be given to the purchase of an amateur radio with more capabilities than the approved capital item. The Amateur Radio Club recommends the purchase of radio manufactured by Standard Amateur Products model number C5608DA. The Amateur Radio Club recognizes that the requested radio exceeds the approved funding by $214.95 and is offering to pay the additional costs from the club's private account. No additional funds are being requested above that prior approved by the Board for this communications equipment. A check from the Vero Beach Amateur Radio Club in the amount of $214.95 has been submitted contingent upon Board approval for the excess. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners accept the funds from the Vero Beach Amateur Radio Club. Staff also recommends approval of the necessary budget amendment for the additional funds to purchase of the transceiver recommended by the RACES members. ATTACHMENTS: Copy of check received from the Vero Beach Amateur Radio Club and a memorandum forwarding that check to the Office of Management and Budget ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted the check in the amount of $214.95 from the Vero Beach Amateur Radio Club and approved Budget Amendment No. 038 as follows: 28 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 038 DATE: July 16. 1992 ,GENERAL FUND i i i i r,a-1ke� z nnnati ons !001-000-366-090.001$ 215!$ _ _ _ _ 0 GENERAL FUND/EMS PROPOSED JUNGLE CLUB ROAD RACE The Board reviewed memo from Dudeck dated May 26, 1992: County Traffic Engineer Michael TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, Public Works Director FROM: Michael S. Dudeck Jr. County Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Jungle Club Road Race October 10, 1992 DATE: May 26, 1992 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Vero Beach Jungle Club has requested permission from the Board of County Commissioners to hold a 5k road race on State, County and City roadways at 8:30 am October 10, 1992 for the benefit of the "March of Dimes" fund. The entire race, from start to finish, is projected to take 40 to 45 minutes with all participants being in a "moving envelope" of official Sheriff's Department Vehicles. The race will start, and end, at the Jungle Club on 6th Avenue and utilize short segments of 6th Avenue, 17th Street, Indian River Boulevard and 8th Street. Since this race will take place along short segments of State, County and City roads, insurance coverage holding the Florida Department of Transportation, Indian River County, and the City of Vero Beach harmless must be in hand prior to receiving final permits for this event. Given the proposed time, short duration of the event, and Uniformed Officer, (Deputy), control of the envelope, the race can be accomplished in a safe and efficient manner. 29 JUN 02 1992 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Alternative No. 1 yi BOOK PA;E i The Board of County Commissioners refuse to Authorize this 5k race and it will not be held. Alternative No. 2 The Board of County Commissioners approve this request subject to the following conditions: a) Hold Harmless Insurance Documents carrying Indian River County, Florida Department of Transportation, the City of Vero Beach be delivered to the County Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the required permit. b) The course of the race be run in accordance with the route as specified by the Jungle Club, namely start at the Jungle Club north on 6th Avenue to 17th Street (SR 656), then east along the south side of eastbound 17th Street to Indian River Boulevard, thence south to 8th Street along the west side of Indian River Boulevard, thence on 8th Street to 6th Avenue, then north to the finish line at the Jungle Club. c:) Proper Uniformed Deputy Vehicular control of the racers be adopted and provided for by the Jungle Club. (As directed by the Sherif fs Department and the County Traffic Engineer. d) All required roadway and race permits will be secured. e) Barricades, etc. will be secured from and returned to the Traffic Engineering Division by the Jungle Club. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 2 be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. There will be no direct cost to the County if this alternative is approved except for the minimal time required of the County Traffic Engineer in assuring the proper permits are secured. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the request for the 5K road race for the benefit of the March of Dimes fund as set out in staff's recommended Alternative No. 2. 30 AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MASTELLER AND MOLER, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, ENGINEERING STUDY AND DESIGN OF THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF A WEST REGIONAL SITE FOR AN EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SYSTEM The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry Pinto dated May 18, 1992: DATE: MAY 18, 1992 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES PREPARED ROBERT 0. WISEMEN, P.E�6W AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND ENGINEER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, ENGINEERING STUDY AND DESIGN OF THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF A WEST REGIONAL SITE FOR AN EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SYSTEM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -92 -03 -ED BACKGROUND On February 25, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the Department of Utility Services to conduct negotiations and to proceed with an agreement with Masteller and Moler, Inc., for the above -referenced project based upon the outcome of the negotiations. (See attached agenda item.) ANALYSIS Negotiations with Masteller and Moler, Inc., for professional services have been completed, and a standard form of agreement between owner and engineer for professional services, with Work Authorization No. 1, were submitted to the County for approval. (See Exhibit A.) Work Authorization No. 1 consists of existing data survey, field data collection and feasibility report. The consultant will investigate and study the following alternative methods of effluent disposal: 1. Wetland treatment and disposal 2. Percolation ponds with underdrain 3. Hyacinth pond treatment 4. Spray irrigation 5. Deep lake and wetland system (with no discharge) Based on the authorization study, the consultant will recommend the most efficient, cost effective and permittable system in utilizing the West Regional site for an effluent disposal system. 31 JUN 02 1992 I JUN U 2 992 _I a00'r Q� �C � fi [ rrr1LL.AAA Fh� �J 1, The following are services to be performed on a not -to -exceed basis: 1. Basic engineering services fee; includes subconsultants 2. Meeting with regulatory agencies 3. Additional services in connection with the study as needed, but unanticipated; to be authorized in writing by the Director of Utility Services 4. Direct cost in permitting fee, chemical analysis, printing, postage $105,892.00 1,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 $121,892.00 Funding for the study will be from the sewer impact fee fund. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends execution of the agreement with Masteller and Moler, Inc., and approval for Work Authorization No. 1. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the agreement with Masteller and Moler, Inc., for Investigative /Feasibility Study of Effluent Disposal Options at West County Wastewater Treatment Plant, and approved Work Authorization No. 1., as recommended by staff. SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY ROAD 512 RECREATION SITE The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac dated May 27, 1992: 32 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: May 27, 1992 RE: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY ROAD 512 RECREATION SITE Commissioner Bird and Jim Davis and officials from the St. Johns River Water Management District have been working for some time to develop an agreement between the District and the County for the construction of a recreation site to the west of County Road 512, which site would provide boating access to the District's water storage areas to the west. The site would include a boat ramp, parking, fencing, a picnic area, and other attendant facilities and structures. The attached agreement calls for the District to provide the labor and funds for the construction of the facilities, and for the County, at the County's sole cost and expense, to provide maintenance and repair of the facilities during the term of the agreement. The agreement would be effective for 20 years, but could be terminated by either party on 60 days written notice for good cause. The County would operate the facility in coordination with the District and would not violate any rules or regulations adopted by the District including those regulations restricting motorboats to a certain horse- power rating. Attached to the agreement is a map showing the location of the site and a proposed master plan of the area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved a Maintenance Agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District for County Road 512 Recreation Site, as recommended by staff. SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 33 )3 ?OOK.i� Al 0, M92 I _I BOOK 86 F', (UE 5 l,5 There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 12:00 o'clock Noon. ATTEST J. arton, Clerk Carol K. Egge01 r Chairman 34