Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/2/1993 (2)� MINUTEoMATTACHED� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1993 5:01 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman (Dist. 5) John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 4) Fran B. Adams (Dist. 1) Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 ) Kenneth R. Macht ( Dist. 3 ) 5:01 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board First Hearing: Airport Zoning Ordinance and Other Proposed Land Development Regulations (LDR ) Amendments ( memorandum dated February 23, 1993 ) Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Attachment 9 Attachment 10 Attachment 11 Attachment 12 Attachment 13 Attachment 14 Attachment 15 Attachment 16 pages 11 - 18 pages 19 - 29 pages 30 - 43 pages 44 - 53 pages 54 - 55 pages 56 - 61 page 62 pages 63 - 70 pages 71 - 75 pages 76 - 94 pages 95 - 96 pages 97 - 99 pages 100 - 101 pages 102 - 106 pages 107 - 108 page 109 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. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING. -"0MAR ®2 10 Tuesday, March 2, 1993 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 Tuesday, March 2, 1993 at 5:01 P. M. Present were John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Kenneth R. Macht. Absent was Richard N. Bird who was in Tallahassee on County business. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk. The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order. PUBLIC HEARING The hour of 5:01 P. M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a dally newspaper published at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a %'CU in the matter in the Court, was pub- lished In said newspaper In the issues of i�,'4 i Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mall matter at the post office In Vero Beach. In said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before r thi % r �' /1 �. -• ' (Bush s Manager) r � if p 71 - (SEAL) (SEAL (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) Nrlmy 1.�,. a i!�:It4t lel' 10WRIISSIN &pies Jane 29.1 MAR - 2 1993 NOTICE ISHEREBY�PUWC #Wthe of Id�shall hokl� haft at n Rim .In In - WW and dtizene shall have an to be heard, In the Courtly CAn4tis n 25th Street Vero located at o18 p' damn P_�t� bpBcoraider the ad* � INC CHAPTERS OF THE L�DEV ME_ U REGULATIONS MRs): CFtgpTER LUCTING TIONS; CHAPTER 911, ION. AND PROMWCI FOREPEAL OF PROVISIONS, CODIFICAATE. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE Sddarnendineftrelate to dte proposed A= s narce Will be �aveila* Who 'my at the eno posed the County a vision an b89 the second flow a 23 1991 Build- _ ^yarrebe mal t this wish wiansure ll n ate whicha Includes record of .the proc�gs is ' the bbased ftwW and evlderce X011 loh A F��f'f�NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA- COUNTY'S AMERICANS WM DISASWES ACT' MEETING MUST CONTACT THE M� COORDINATOR AT 567-80W X408 AT g� 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF. THE MEET_, Feb. 17, BOARD � COUNTY a 8v I N ^ ONERS 978855 1 BOOK 88 r.S r MAR m 2 1993 BOOK 88 F,,GE 9's2 Planning Director Stan Boling commented from the following: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D ON HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Rea i , AI Community D��eJJv��el men irector FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: February 23, 1993 SUBJECT: First Hearing: Airport Zoning Ordinance and Other Proposed Land Development Regulations (LDR) Amendments It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special meeting of March 2, 1993. BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS: *Background Over the past several months, various LDR amendment proposals have been initiated by private parties, Founty staff, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC), and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC). All -of the proposed amendments have been reviewed by county staff; all but one amendment has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and most of the amendments have been formally reviewed by the PSAC. Those amendments not formally reviewed by the PSAC or by the Planning and Zoning Commission are indicated in the analysis section of this report. *Two Ordinances The proposed. LDR amendments are presented as two separate ordinance Proposals. One proposed ordinance addresses only airport zoning, while the other proposed ordinance addresses a set of various LDR amendments unrelated to the Airport Zoning Ordinance. The Airport Zoning Ordinance was first considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission (sitting as the county's Airport Zoning Commission) at a public workshop held January 21, 1993 [see attachment #i]. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Airport Zoning Commission next considered a revised Airport Zoning Ordinance at its February 11, 1993 meeting, and at that time recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the ordinance with certain modifications to be made by staff as directed at the February 11th meeting [see attachment #2]. The Airport Zoning Ordinance attached to this report (see attachment #3) contains all of the revisions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission/Airport Zoning Commission and is the same ordinance recently transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners as the Airport Zoning Commission's "final report". The second ordinance now to be considered by the Board was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its January 14, 1993 public hearing. At its meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Board adopt the proposed LDR amendments with 2 certain modifications to be made by staff as directed at the January 14th meeting. The second ordinance attached to this report (see attachment #10) is the revised ordinance recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, with some subsequent grammatical and minor changes made by staff. •Board Consideration The Board is now to conduct the first of two public hearings to consider adoption of the two proposed ordinances. [The second public hearing is scheduled for 5:01 p.m. on Thursday, March 18, 1993.] At this first hearing, the Board is to consider the proposed ordinances and direct staff to make any changes to the ordinances which the Board feels should be made prior to final action. ANALYSIS •Airport Zoning Ordinance eImpetus for the Airport Zoning Ordinance Florida Statutes Chapter 333 (see attachment #4) requires local governments in the state to adopt special airport zoning regulations that address land use and land development issues for properties that surround publicly licensed airports. Chapter 333 sets -out various requirements for the content and substance of such zoning regulations, procedural requirements for their consideration and legal requirements for their adoption. The regulations are required to address noise and nuisance impacts, height and obstruction limitations, and operational safety issues - all in the context of compatibility between what is developed around an airport and normal airport operations. In addition to the FS 333 mandates, policies of the Comprehensive Plan's "Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities" element require adoption of an airport zoning ordinance (see attachment #5). The state's purpose in requiring local governments to adopt airport zoning ordinances is to ensure that local LDRs and development procedures require compliance with state and federal procedures and regulations related to airports and aviation. The state and federal government's method of enforcing the ordinance adoption requirement includes the threat of cutting -off funding and participation in government programs, and even restricting or shutting -down airport operations. Therefore, adoption of an airport zoning ordinance is necessary in order to ensure the continued operation of the county's publicly licensed airports. The state requirement for the adoption of a local airport zoning ordinance applies to the City of Sebastian and the City of Vero Beach, as well as to the county. The City of Sebastian adopted its airport zoning ordinance in 1992. City of Vero Beach staff have indicated that they will initiate consideration of a city ordinance after the county's ordinance is adopted. In addition to adopting airport zoning ordinances, the County, Vero Beach, and Sebastian will need to enter into an inter -local agreement in order to satisfy FS 333 requirements. The county attorney's office is handling the development and execution of an inter -local agreement which will satisfy FS 333 requirements. *Geographic Scope The proposed ordinance would area of the county and to new publicly licensed airports. county: Vero Beach Municipal and the New Hibiscus Airport. show the general location and apply only within the unincorporated development on properties surrounding There are three such airports in the Airport, Sebastian Municipal Airport, The maps included in attachment #6 vicinity around these three airports. 3 .BAR - 2 1993 �coK MAR m 2 1993 BOOK 88 PnF 984 •Ordinance Development, Review & Adoption Process Over the past two years, planning staff have coordinated with various agencies and parties to develop the proposed ordinance. These agencies and parties include the authorities in charge of the three publicly licensed airports, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC), and interested private landowners. In February 1992, the PSAC reviewed an earlier version of the proposed ordinance. Comments and suggestions made by the PSAC were incorporated into the ordinance. In December 1992, staff updated the PSAC with a new version of the ordinance; no additional PSAC comments were received. In September 1992, staff presented a revised version of the proposed ordinance to the Vero Beach Airport Commission. The Commission voted 4-1 to support the ordinance in concept. Afterwards, based upon concerns expressed by owners of property adjacent to the New Hibiscus Airport, staff made further revisions to the ordinance. At a public workshop held on January 21, 1993 and at a public hearing held on February 11, .1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission/Airport Zoning Commission received public input and considered the ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission/Airport Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. Al Roberts, FDOT Land Use Planning Aviation Office Manager, has stated FDOTTIs support for the ordinance and has indicated that FDOT would consider the ordinance to meet the FS 333 requirements. The process for consideration and adoption of the proposed ordinance is as follows: Auth-- °rim (1) Airport Zoning Commission (AZC) (2) AZC & Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) (3) Staff (4) BCC (5) BCC •Ordinance Format Action/Date Action Workshop 1/23/93 Made "preliminary report" on ordinance; directed staff to delineate more alternatives and make changes. Hearing 2/11/93 AZC made "final report" on ordinance; PZC made recommendation to BCC to adopt the ordinance as a part of the LDRs. Transmittal 2/15/93 Staff transmitted the "final report" to BCC. Hearing 3/2/93 Directs staff to make any recommended changes. Hearing 3/18/93 Adopts ordinance County staff's proposed ordinance seeks to establish overlay airport zone boundaries on the existing zoning map, with accompanying regulations for each overlay zone. Thus, the ordinance is written as a land development regulation rather than as a highly technical aviation regulation document. The ordinance establishes three overlay zones which cover geographical areas in the unincorporated area of the county around the three publicly licensed airports. These three overlay zones are: (1) The Airport Height Notification Zone (consists of two "subzones", A & B) (2) The Airport Overflight Zone (3) The Airport Noise Impact Zone N The airport zoning ordinance will be incorporated into the LDRs as a section of Chapter 911, Zoning. •Section By Section Analysis SECTION 1: Airport Zoning Ordinance Chapter 911 Section A. The Title, and Purpose and Intent sections are introductory in nature, referencing the need and authority to regulate the uses of land near the traffic patterns of publicly licensed airports. The Definitions section refers to Chapter 901, Definitions. Definitions of new words used in the ordinance are proposed in Section 2 of the ordinance and are to be incorporated into Chapter 901, Definitions. B. The Airport Zones of Influence introductory section establishes the three overlay zones (previously described) as regulatory zones on the county's official zoning atlas. The section states that an amendment to the zone boundaries can be accomplished only via a zoning atlas (map) amendment. Each overlay zone has the effect of applying special airport zoning regulations on certain properties in addition to normal zoning district regulations. Thus, a property currently zoned RS -6 which also is within an overlay zone will be regulated by both the RS -6 and the overlay -zone requirements. Also, the section states that overlay zones affect only the portion of a property covered by the zone and that accessory uses such as parking lots, stormwater tracts, and buffer areas are generally allowed within all of the zones. C. The Airport Height Notification Zone and Regulations incorporates into the ordinance existing federal and state requirements and procedures relating to the height of new structures placed in proximity to the three publicly licensed airports. The section establishes "Subzone All and "Subzone B". The boundary of these subzones consists of an imaginary surface that extends outward from the ends of active runways at an elevation above ground level that increases on a slope of 1' vertical to 100' horizontal (see attachment #7). Thus, the elevation of the zone boundary above the ground increases as the distance from the end of a runway increases. This boundary forms the threshold of an existing "notification zone" whereby anyone proposing to build a structure that would project above the zone boundary is required to notify the FAA. The FAA then reviews the proposal to determine if the building of the structure would be allowable (anticipated not to pose a threat to aircraft operations) under either of the following scenarios: Scenario 1. The proposed structure(s) would not exceed federal obstructions standards set -forth in a federal document known as 1114 CFR Part 77". Scenario 2. The proposed structure(s) would exceed the 14 CFR Part 77 obstruction standards but is determined by the FAA not to be a hazard to air navigation. [Note: marking and lighting conditions can be placed on the approval of such structure(s).] Under Scenario 1., no permit for construction could be issued by the county without an FAA determination of approvability and the granting of an "Airport Construction Waiver" by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Under Scenario 2., no permit for construction could be issued by the county without an FAA determination of approvability and the granting of an "Airport Obstruction Variance" by the Board of Adjustment. 5 MAR - 21993 BOOK Ft�GF 195-55- -7 BOOK 88 R IE9 6 D. The Airport Overflight Zone and Regulations section establishes overflight zones extending -out from the ends of active runways within which the probability of aircraft accidents are higher, according to aviation safety experts (see attachment #8). Due to the higher probability of aircraft accidents, development of certain types of uses within the zones is prohibited in order to decrease the potential loss of life and property in the event of an aircraft accident. Although not directly referenced in FS 333, the FDOT strongly recommends overflight zones or other types of special safety zones to be included in airport zoning ordinances (see attachment #9). Based upon alternatives discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commibsion/Airport Zoning Commission meetings, two sets of overflight zones are proposed: 1. A New Hibiscus Airport overflight zone which is smaller in area (equal to the "clear zone" area), closer to the ends of the runway and more restrictive in terms of allowable uses. Uses prohibited include: schools and child-care, hospitals, places of worship, hotels/motels, gas stations, and uses covering a site (within the zone) with more than 30% habitable building area. [Note: because this overflight zone represents the airport "clear zone", FS 333 requires special use restrictions within this zone.] 2. A Vero Beach Municipal and Sebastian Municipal Airport overflight zone which is larger in area, farther away from the ends of active runways, and less restrictive in terms of allowable uses. Uses prohibited include: schools and child-care, hospitals, and places of worship. [Note: because this zone extends beyond the "clear zone" areas, FS 333 does not require special use restrictions within this zone.] Although the development of certain uses is prohibited within overflight zones, in no case would the prohibitions greatly reduce the number of uses otherwise allowed on individual properties by normal zoning district regulations. E. The Airport Noise Impact- Zone and Regulations Section incorporates existing federal and state requirements and procedures related to noise impacts on new development. In accordance with federal requirements, the area of each noise zone is established based upon the length of the longest active runway of the subject airport. Thus, the size of each noise zone is related to the size of the airport it surrounds. Within the noise zones, special noise reduction building requirements are placed on uses such as schools and hospitals which have users and functions that are noise sensitive. Owners of new child care, school, hospital, hotel/motel, and residential developments within noise impact zones will be required to either verify that certain noise level reduction (NLR) construction materials and techniques will be used in the development or will be required to grant an "avigation easement" in favor of the appropriate airport authority. Such an easement is a legal document that grants the airport owner/authority the right to continue normal airport operations regardless of possible noise -related impacts and nuisances. F• The Special Requirements Applicable Throughout the Unincorporated Area of the County Section incorporates existing federal and state requirements relating to the regulation of uses that can pose special hazards for airport 6 s � � operations. These special requirements include restrictions on landfill operations and uses that could be located in close proximity -to airports and that produce smoke and other visual hazards to safe airport operations. SECTION 2 This section adds definitions of the various new terms used in Section 1 of the proposed ordinance. These definitions are to be added to LDR Chapter 901, Definitions. SECTION 3 This section proposes an addition to an existing LDR section that .addresses allowable encroachments into (above) the county's general 35' height limitation. The proposed additional language provides a caution that no structures are allowed to be erected into any FAA established airport approach path. This prohibition reflects existing federal regulations regarding structures and approach paths. •Conclusion The proposed ordinance is designed to fit into the existing LMR and zoning atlas format, has been accepted by FDOT staff as meeting the mandates of FS 333, and has been recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission/Airport Zoning Commission. In staff's opinion, the Board of County Commissioners should adopt the proposed Airport Zoning Ordinance. •LDR Amendments Ordinance This second proposed ordinance contains 36 sections (see attachment #10). Sections 1 - 32 contain actual proposed LDR amendments. Sections 33 - 36 contain standard legal requirements included in all county LDR ordinances. A brief description of each section follows. SECTION 1: This proposed LDR change is the result of an amendment request filed by Attorney Bruce Barkett on behalf of Erbe Wold, owner of the Southgate Mobile Home Park (see attachment #11). The amendment relates to setbacks for open carport and open carport/storage shed additions to mobile homes located in old, nonconforming mobile home parks. The amendment recognizes and allows reduced setbacks (minimum of 31) between accessory carport or carport/storage shed structures and adjacent mobile home structures. Although the 3' setback allowance is "tight", it would apply only to old mobile home parks where many similar "tight" setback situations are already grandfathered -in. <11 SECTION 2 (A,B, & C): This three-part section is the result of an amendment request filed by attorney Michael O'Haire to allow residential resorts (time-share type units) as a special exception use in the higher density multi -family districts (RM -6, RM -8, and RM -10). Please -see attachment #12 for Mr. O'Haire's application. Currently, county regulations classify any "time-share" type of project that rents units for a period of 'less than 30 days as a "hotel/motel". Hotels and motels can be developed only in commercial zoning districts. Staff's research of 15 other Central and South Florida local governments .indicates that there is a broad spectrum of classification of time-share type units (see attachment #13). Some jurisdictions allow timeshare units "by right" in multi -family -districts; some allow such units as conditional uses in multi -family districts (as is being proposed), and still others treat such units as hotel/motel units requiring commercial zoning (as do current Indian River County regulations). The "conditional use" approach seems to be a logical, middle-of-the-road approach to a use type that appears to be more similar to a residential use than to a commercial hotel use. In staff's opinion, the proposed 7 MAR - 2 1993 BOOK 8d F'a�F1S7 MBAR - 2 1993 BOOK 88 FACE 95 specific land use criteria provide adequate assurance for compatibility, buffering, and control of project density. •Subsection 2.A.: This subsection establishes a definition for a "residential resort", along with a 25 acre minimum project site size. *Subsection 2.B.: This subsection amends the use table to allow residential resorts as a special exception use in the RM -6, RM -8, and RM -10 districts. •Subsection 2.C.: This subsection establishes specific land use criteria with which any "residential resort" project application would be required to comply. These criteria include: - direct access onto a Thoroughfare Plan road - complete units (cooking facilities, access to laundry facilities) - density limitation (each unit counts as a residential unit) - allowance for accessory uses (e.g. recreational, dining) - heavy buffering (Type "A" buffer adjacent to residential, Type "B" buffer adjacent to roadways). [Please see attachment #14 for buffer types.] SECTIONS 3 - 17: These amendments were initiated by the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) as a comprehensive update of current county LDRs relating to specialized housing needs such as elderly and group housing, and residential treatment centers. •Sections 3 - 7: These sections add to or modify definitions in Chapter 901, Definitions. The changes provide new definitions for uses not currently defined and make existing county definitions compatible with state definitions. •Sections 8 - 13: These sections add or modify the use classification charts for the various zoning districts. The changes add uses to reflect the new definitions while standardizing the,use classifications between similar zoning districts. •Section 14: This section adds a newly defined classification to the general Table of Uses for Chapter 971, Specific Land Uses. •Sections 15 - 17: These sections modify the existing Specific Land Use Criteria. The changes reflect the modifications and additions to the definitions section and the use classification tables. For reference, two tables have also been attached (see attachment #15). The tables reflect existing uses and their classifications and the results of the proposed LDR changes. Vil SECTION 18: This amendment was initiated by staff and would Am eliminate the Minimum Unit Square Footage requirement for hotels and motels. In previous LDR revisions, minimum unit square footage requirements were eliminated for most types of residential uses (e.g. Single-family units, Multiple -family units). Planning staff is now recommending that the Minimum Unit Square Footage requirement be eliminated from the Size and Dimension Criteria for the Commercial Zoning Districts where hotels and motels are permitted uses. The elimination of the Minimum Unit Square Footage would then allow market preferences to determine acceptable unit sizes. NOTE: This change does not affect or modify the Minimum Land Area per Unit standard which determines the maximum hotel/motel unit density. 8 SECTION 19: This LDR change was initiated by staff and involves changes to the county's current marginal access road and easement requirements. For many years, the county has required 'developers to install segments of marginal access or frontage roadways (driving aisles as well as roads) in conjunction with development of commercial projects that front on major roadways. The marginal access roadways serve to interconnect parking areas and allow business customers and the general public to travel short distances between commercial sites without the need to re-enter the adjacent major roadway. The usual result of the requirement has been the "stubbing -out" of a parking lot driving aisle to adjacent property boundaries (see attachment #16). Along with the installation of the marginal access roadway, developers have had to dedicate "marginal access easements" to the county and to adjoining property owners to ensure that the interconnecting driveways remain open for free access between sites. Based upon current case law, the county attorney's office has determined that the current easement requirement is legally indefensible in most cases unless the property owner is compensated. Therefore, staff is proposing to eliminate all requirements for granting marginal access easements to the county. Furthermore, the changes, as proposed, do not require that marginal access connections be perpetually maintained as open for free access and circulation. The proposed amendment, however, would still require the actual construction of interconnecting driveways and "stub -outs" to adjacent property lines. Also, the proposed changes reformat the marginal access section for clarification. In considering this proposed amendment, members of the PSAC expressed different opinions as to whether or not the physical construction of stub -outs should be required or if merely the design of such stub -outs be shown on site plans. After much debate, the PSAC voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners modify the proposed ordinance to require design of stub -outs and interconnections but not to make actual construction mandatory. However, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that construction be required, as currently required in the wording of the proposed ordinance. Therefore, the PSAC and the staff/Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations differ on this Proposed ordinance. SECTION 20: This amendment was initiated by the PSAC and is patterned after an existing Nanatee County ordinance. The amendment would essentially "waive" the normal 508 of assessed building value repair/reconstruction threshold applied to nonconforming structures if any area of Indian River County is declared to be a disaster area. The intent of the amendment is to allow the reconstruction of structures in their former location in the event of a large-scale disaster in order to speed the county's recovery from such a disaster. This proposed amendment will in no way modify state or federal (e.g. FENA) reconstruction requirements. SECTION 21: This LDR change was initiated by staff to grant a special status to roadways that have been maintained by the county for a long period of time but which are not officially platted or dedicated road rights-of-way. An example of such a roadway is 7th Road S.W. which parallels the Lateral "J" canal south of Oslo Road and has-been maintained by the county for approximately 30 years. The amendment would allow lot splits (not subdivisions) off of such roadways. SECTION 22: 'This amendment was initiated by staff and would allow developers of small site plan projects (projects generating less than 100 AADT) to delay construction of required parking area paving improvements for up to 24 months by bonding -out for the future paving. The intent is to reduce some of the upfront construction costs for small projects (construction costs versus bonding -out costs) while ensuring that paving improvements are made 9 BEAR - 2 1993 BOOK �� FBF 980 MAR o 2 00.1 BOOK 88 FAGE 990 in a reasonable amount of time. The amendment format and language are patterned after the existing subdivision ordinance "bonding - out" section. SECTION 23: This amendment has not been formally reviewed by the PSAC but has been initiated by staff to ensure that any proposed sludge spreading use is approved by the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) board, in accordance with SWDD requirements and policies. It should be noted that the Board of County Commissioners sits as the SWDD board. SECTION 24: This change was initiated by staff in response to concerns raised in the past by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the need for buffering between high density multi -family projects and single family residential areas. The proposed amendment would require new multi -family projects in the RM -8 or RM -10 zoning districts to provide a buffer when abutting property within a single family zoning district. SECTION 25: This amendment has not been formally reviewed by the PSAC or the Planning and Zoning Commission but is initiated by staff to be consistent with the recent elimination of other structural setbacks from easement (as opposed to property) boundaries. SECTION 26: This amendment has not been formally reviewed by the PSAC but has been initiated by staff to reduce current parking requirements for automotive repair uses. Staff's examination of current requirements in relation to requirements of other Jurisdictions indicates that a reduction is warranted. SECTION 27: This change has not been formally reviewed by the PSAC but has been initiated by staff to reduce current parking requirements for miniature golf/amusement uses. The reduction will bring the LDRs in line with the results of a special miniature golf/amusement use parking study, performed in the county. The referenced study was approved by the county traffic engineer several months.ago. SECTION 28: This amendment has not been formally reviewed by the PSAC but has been initiated by staff to recognize. reduced side, front, and rear yard setback requirements for legal nonconforming lots of record located in the RS -3 zoning district. SECTION 29: This amendment has not been formally reviewed by the PSAC but has been initiated by staff to expand a setback exemption for legal nonconforming lots of record, whereby setback requirements for any such lot would not reduce the buildable width of the lot to less than 301. Without this amendment, the exemption applies only to nonconforming corner lots. SECTION 30: This change was initiated by staff to insert into the nonconformities chapter (904) a helpful cross-reference to a setback regulation contained in the Zoning chapter (911). This cross-reference is an informational item only. SECTION 31: This amendment was not formally reviewed by the PSAC but has been initiated by staff to update current handicap parking regulations to reflect specific state and federal requirements. The existing parking LDRs contain mostly general references to state and federal handicap parking requirements. The proposed amendment is intended to provide more specifics within the county's LDRs which should provide more useful, easy to find handicap parking requirements for staff and the public. SECTION 32 (A & B): This pair of amendments has not been formally reviewed by the PSAC but has been initiated by staff to clarify the definition of a front yard and a side yard in relation to corner lots. The changes are consistent with current LDR wording and long-standing county application of yard designations for corner 10 lots. The proposed changes, along with a graphic that will be inserted into the LDR text, will make the yard designation requirements for corner lots easier to understand. SECTIONS 33 - 36: These sections contain standard legal language that is used in all LDR ordinances. *Conclusion This second proposed ordinance is recommended by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and should be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Provide staff with direction(s) for any changes to either or both of the proposed ordinances; and 2. Announce its intention to take final action on both proposed ordinances at the public hearing scheduled for Thursday, March 18, 1993 at 5:01 p.m. in the Commission Chambers. Commissioner Adams asked for more clarification on the differences between the New Hibiscus Airport and the others. Director Boling explained that the overflight zones at New Hibiscus Airport are equal to the clear zone areas and are smaller than the other airports. The use at New Hibiscus Airport is less intense than Sebastian or Vero Beach Airports so staff felt it was justifiable to have smaller overflight zones area. Florida Statute 333 gives the Board authority to determine the overflight zone but gives no guidance as to size or use restrictions. Director Boling clarified that these requirements apply only to publicly licensed airports and not to private airports. Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II confirmed that Florida Statute 333 requires the Board to regulate the runway clear zone, which is the more limited area. It is not required by FS 333 to protect the overflight zone, but if the Board feels that some uses are not compatible with airport operations, it is within the Board's general police power authority to regulate in the interest of public health, safety and welfare. The restrictions in the overflight zone were based on recommendations from experts that these uses are not particularly compatible with airport operations. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. 11 VAR - 21993 BOOK �.� � BOOK 88 PA. %F. 9 ,� Bill Sherry, Airport Director for the City of Vero Beach Airport, presented recommendations regarding the proposed ordinance to help the Board understand the Airport staff's concerns. He stated that unrestricted development which is incompatible with an airport could eventually create public pressure on the City's and County's elected officials to limit the airport's operational use. Unrestricted use of all airport facilities is necessary to preserve the airport's full operating capability now and in the future for safe and efficient use by the public. He emphasized that each time the City accepted a federal grant, it gave three assurances to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that it would protect the approach surfaces of the airport so as not to interfere with, the airport's ability to continue safe and efficient operation: 1) The airport sponsor (in this case the City of Vero Beach) has the duty to continue to maintain and operate the airport in a safe and efficient manner in accordance with all applicable federal state and local requirements; 2) The airport sponsor has the duty to protect the airport runways and approaches by removing and preventing hazards to air navigation; and 3) The airport sponsor has the duty to the extent possible to achieve land use compatibility around the airport. In the event that the airport is found in noncompliance or default of any of these assurances, such action could affect future and past airport improvement funding at all publicly licensed airports in the county. Vero Beach Airport depends on these grants in order to maintain a high level of service to the community. The FAA and FDOT grants have averaged $1.2 million per year in the past and they anticipate $3 million this year. Mr. Sherry contended that although aviation remains among the safest modes of transportation available today, aircraft accidents do occur. Based on National Transportation Safety Board accident records, the majority of all civil aircraft accidents occurred within five miles of the runway and a significant majority occur within the physical dimensions of the runways primary airport approach surfaces. Vero Beach Airport staff cannot support in its present form that portion of the ordinance that pertains to public safety. Airport staff made its position known in earlier drafts of the ordinance and continues to support phraseology that would disallow any development which would create an assembly of people within the airport approach surface. Mr. Sherry felt that uses which store flammable liquids should be prohibited within the overflight zones. Vero Beach Airport staff realized that the property around the airport is going to be developed and urged that the uses be limited to prevent interference with the normal airport operations and not put a large number of people in harm's way. He 12 agreed with Mr. Boling that of the three segments of the proposed ordinance the first two are rather easy because we have a lot of federal and state mandated guidance. The third section is the difficult one and that is determining what is safe and unsafe. Michael O'Haire, attorney representing the owners of property located at the easterly fringe of the overflight zone of the Vero Beach Airport on the east side of U.S. 1, pointed out that the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks and City -owned property are west of U.S. 1. Mr. O'Haire agreed with the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) and pointed out that Florida Statutes Chapter 333 does not require the Board to limit the uses around the overflight zone. Chapter 333 has been on the books for almost 40 years, and if these uses along the easterly side of U.S.1 are incompatible with airport use, they have been incompatible without problem for the past 40 years. There is no emergency now that dictates that these peoples' property should be limited in use. He conceded that the City of Vero Beach and Mr. Sherry are in a position of having to work around the needs of the airport in the City of Vero Beach. He further pointed out that Mr. Sherry has had considerable success in obtaining the FAA grants without the limitations. He urged the Board to follow the recommendation of the P&Z. Commissioner Macht announced that he was not previously aware but had just noticed on the enlarged map that he owns property in the area affected by the Vero Beach Airport overflight zone. He asked for legal advice from the County Attorney. There was discussion regarding his conflict of interest and what procedure should be followed, but later in the meeting it was discovered that his property would not be affected by the Board's decision. Director Boling specifically addressed the New Hibiscus Airport where the runway comes up just short of a driveway and proceeds over property located immediately north of State Road 60 and the airport property. Those two parcels are zoned general commercial. The New Hibiscus Airport situation entails all six types of restrictions, including motels and hotels, gasoline fuel sales and the amount of building area that can be on a particular piece of property. The property immediately north of the airport is about 14 acres. This is a situation where the overflight zone affects a parcel of property which is both inside the zone where the restrictions would apply and outside the zone where the restrictions would not apply. The restricted zone allows uses such as parking, landscaping, or stormwater retention in conjunction with the building that is just outside of the zone. For instance, a hotel could be built just outside of the zone and the parking for 0W BOOK 88 F'.+�f. 9,93� BAR ®2 1993 � 001 )�ffi BOOK 88 F'.,,uF 9�)4 that hotel could be within the zone. Where the zone affects a portion of a property, we must address that entire property. Director Boling also pointed out that a gas transmission easement is on the eastern boundary of these two properties. R. J. MacMillan, 305 Live Oak Road, realtor and part owner of the property which is affected by the New Hibiscus Airport overflight and clear zones, came before the Board and made the following presentation: 312/93 TO: INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS FROM: R.J. MACMILI AN, RANDY MACMILLAN, & HUGH SUHR SUBJECT: PROPOSED AIRPORT ZONING AROUND THE HIBISCUS AIRPORT OUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF STATE ROAD #60 & 98th AVENUE. 98th AVENUE IS IS A MAJOR NORTH -SOUTH THOROUGHFARE ON THE 20 YEAR COUNTY PLAN. THE HIBISCUS AIRPORT IS LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF OUR PROPERTY. OUR PROPERTY IS RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE Wr1H 1043' FRONTAGE ON STATE ROAD #60 AND 581' FRONTAGE ON 98th AVENUE. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 13.96 ACRES. WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1989 FOR 5430,000. BEFORE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, R.J. SPOKE WPIH THE INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y ZONING DEPARTMENT AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL. HE WAS NOT TOLD OF ANY PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE AIRPORT. WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE USE AS A GAS STATION (MACMul AN OIL CO), HOTEL, RESTAURANT OR RETAIL. THESE USES ARE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE SINCE THE I-95 INTERSECTION IS SO CLOSE. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE SINCE IT DECITASES OUR PROPERTY USES & VALUE SUBSTANTIALLY. OUR PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT HAS A 75' UNDERGROUND GAS TRANSMISSION EASEMENT ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT LIMITS CONSTRUCTION ON THE EASTERN 1/4. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE WERE COUNTING ON DEVELOPING THE AREA ON THE WEST SIDE WHICH IS SEVERELY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. FACTS TO CONSIDER REGARDING THE HIBISCUS AIRPORT 1. THE AIRPLANES USING THIS SMALL PRIVATELY OWNED AIRPORT ARE CROP DUSTERS, AND SMALL PLANES. THE CROP DUSTERS HAVE LARGER ENGINES WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO CLIMB QUICKLY AND BE MORE MANEUVERABLE. 2. THERE ARE VERY FEW FLIGHTS A DAY. THERE IS A NOMINAL AMOUNT OF PUBLIC TRAFFIC OTHER THAN CROP DUSTERS (PROFESSIONAL PILOTS THAT ARE TI AIlVED TO FLY LOW). 3. THE AIRPORT HAS A GRASS RUNWAY, NO TOWER, AND IS NOT INSTRUMENT RATED. 14 4. NEARLY ALL FLIGHTS TAKE OFF & LAND FROM/TO THE SOUTH. THIS IS BECAUSE THE TWO HANGARS ARE LOCATED ON THE NORTH END OF THE RUNWAY. NO PLANE WOULD DESIRE TO TAXI ON THE GRASS RUNWAY UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NEED -ED. 5. THE RUNWAY IS 3950'+/- LONG. HOWEVER, THERE ARE TWO ENDS ON THE NORTH END OF THE RUNWAY. ONE IS THE TEMPORARY END (THIS IS ABOUT 650' SOUTH OF THE PERMANENT END AND HAS BEEN THE END EVER SINCE THE HANGARS WERE CONSTRUCTED). THE OTHER IS THE PERMANENT END THAT IS RIGHT TO OUR PROPERTY LINE. THE PERMANENT END CAN NOT BE USED UNLESS THE HANGARS WERE REMOVED. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE MINIMUM RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIRED BY THE FAA IS 1800' FOR A PUBLIC AIRPORT. THEREFORE THE RUNWAY (USING THE TEMPORARY END) IS STILL 1500' LONGER THAN REQUIRED. PLANES NOW USE A MA)MgUM OF 1500' OR LESS OF THE RUNWAY TO TAKE OFF AND LESS TO LAND. 6. THERE ARE TWO HANGARS, ABOVE GROUND GAS TANKS AND PUMPS, AND FERC TANKS LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF THE RUNWAY. THE DIAGRAM ON ATTACIIlKIIVT 7 SHOWS THESE ARE NOT IN THE CLEAR ZONE BUT WE THINK THE ATTACHMENT IS NOT TO SCALE AND THE THEY ARE IN THE CLEAR ZONE 7. THE PILOTS THAT USE THIS AIRPORT ARE REGULARS. IT WOULD BE RARE FOR A PILOT TO USE THIS AIRPORT THAT IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CONDITIONS. 8. WE CAN NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE COUNTY ALLOWED THIS AIRPORT TO HAVE THE RUNWAY RIGHT UP TO OUR PROPERTY LINE. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING NOTES AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE OLD HIBISCUS AIRPORT ON 12th STREET. WHY DID THE COUNTY ALLOW THESE PROBLEMS TO REOCCUR AT THE NEW HIBISCUS AIRPORT WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND THE COUNTY COMMISSION MINUTES '%`HERE THE NEW HIBISCUS AIRPORT WAS APPROVED. WE WOULD LIKE THE COUNTY TO FIND THESE MINUTES FOR US SO WE CAN REVIEW THEM. 9. BY PASSING THESE RULES BOTH ON HEIGHT AND USE, THE COUNTY HAS TAKEN ALL USES AWAY FROM OUR PROPERTY THAT IS IN THE CLEAR ZONE. WE FEEL WE SHOULD BE COMPENSATED AND PLAN TO TAKE ANY ACTION NEEDED TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM OR GET COMPENSATED. OUR RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. HEIGHT NOTIFICATION ZONE: IF THIS PROPOSAL IS PAS SED WE COULD ONLY BUILD TO A HEIGHT OF ABOUT 1" AT THE REAR OF OUR PROPERTY AND 25' AT THE FRONT WITH A HEIGHT VARIANCE ALLOWING THE 20 TO 1 SLOPE. IF WE WERE HELD TO THE I TO 100 SLOPE, IT WOULD BE ONLY 6' AT THE FRONT. AS YOU CAN SEE, IF WE CAN NOT OBTAIN A VARIANCE THE WESTERN PORTION OF OUR PROPERTY IS WORTHLESS & WE CAN NOT BUILD ON THE EASTERN PORTION DUE TO THE GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT. EVEN IF WE ARE GRANTED THE 1 TO 20 15 MAR m 2 1993 BOOK 88 FKlJF.905 BOOK 88P 9,.6 ,1GE : VARIANCE THIS WILL STILL SEVERELY RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT. THE RUNWAY IS ONLY 160' WIDE. WHY DOES THE OVER FLIGHT ZONE NEED TO BE 250' TO 450' WIDE. THE PLANES ARE SILALL AND DO NOT HAVE LARGE WING SPANS. WE FEEL THE COUN71'Y SHOULD USE THE TEMPORARY END OF THE RUNWAY FOR THEIR. CLEAR ZONE SINCE THIS HAS BEEN AND WILL CONI= TO BE THE END AS LONG AS THE HANGARS REMAIN IN PLACE. 2. THE PROHIBITED USES IN THE OVER FLIGHT ZONE ARE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USES FOR OUR PROPERTY AND EXACTLY WHAT WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU ALLOW ITEM (IV) HOTELSIMOTELS, ITEM (V) GASOLINE STATIONS, AND RETAIL. WE WILL AGREE TO ELIMINATE ITEM (I), (II), AND (III). STAFF HAS GN -EN YOU OPTIONS TO CHOOSE UNDER THE OTHER SIMILAR USES. WE AGREE Vi nH STAFF THAT OPTION B IS BEST. HOWEVER WHY 30%. HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT THE ZONING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ALREADY ALLOWS A LIMITED LOT COVERAGE. IF WE WERE IN DOWNTOWN, I CAN UNDERSTAND A REDUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED. AGAIN, WE FEEL THE COUNTY SHOULD USE THE TIM4PORARY END OF THE RUNWAY AS THE STARTING POINT FOR THEIR CLEAR ZONE. 3. NOISE IMPACT' ZONE: WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THIS SHOULD APPLY TO OUR PROPERTY SINCE IT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL AND THERE ARE A LIMITED NUMBER OF FLIGHTS. THE PLANES THAT USE THE AIRPORT ARE NOT LOUD JETS. PLEASE CONSIDER OUR POSITION & PROPERTY RIGHTS BEFORE YOU PASS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. AS YOU CAN SEE IT WILL SEVERELY AFFECT OUR USES AND VALUE. IT MAY EVEN MAKE OUR PROPERTY UNBUILDABLE. THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. Sig Lysne, 109 Prestwick Circle, half owner of Indian River Flying Service which is owner of New Hibiscus Airport, stated that 46 years ago they received approval for Old Hibiscus Airport, and 22 years ago they received approval for the present location. He clarified that the end of the runway is not temporary. The State required what is called a displaced threshold to avoid moving trees and fences. The displaced threshold has nothing to do with the hangars. The planes take off and land depending on wind conditions and since Florida is influenced by the prevailing southeast winds, planes take off and land to the south. The hangars do not influence the takeoff pattern. The runway was built where it is to allow for expansion. Mr. Lysne agreed that a gas station should not be prohibited because of the airport. The gas transmission line would prohibit certain uses but that is their decision. Mr. Lysne stated that he wants to get along with his neighbors. While he runs an honorable, although sometimes disagreeable, occupation which makes some people unhappy, agriculture is important in this area and he does provide a service. 16 Evelyn Neville, 100 Sable Oak Drive, distributed the following letter and urged the Board to reconsider the overflight zone. EVELYN F. NEVILLE, INC. REAbrTB R9 REACH STATION ORAWER .3377 asoa-sauw+-eauN DOW& - TCLCPHONC to (407)599-2877 Indian River County Commissioners and REAL ESTATE • INVESTMENTS • VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960 TOWN OFFICE 2237 FOURTEENTH AVENUE TELEPHONE '( 407) 569-2877 March 2, 1993 .Stan Boling,AICP Planning Director Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission - Airport Zoning Commission Indian River County Courthouse Vero Beach, Florida Gentlemen: In order to clarify the exact location of the property which I own jointly with Dr. Woodrow E. Hunt, now residing in LaJolla, Ca., the legal description is as follows: Lots C -1,C-2, C -3,C -4,C -5,C-6, AND C-7•, Vero Tropical Gardens Unit No. 2, Indian River County, Florida(sketch attached), Located on the N.E. corner of Route 60 and 98th Avenue, which has 791. feet on Road 60 and a depth of 249 feet. We have owned this property for over thirty years. Vero Tropical Gardens is a subdivision consisting of over 150 lots and was de- veloped in the 1950s. The Hibiscus Airport was established around 1970. ' Up to this time there has been no history of crashes or-o-ther - -- serious accidents during the twenty two years the Hibiscus Airport has been located in that area. I feel the following options be considered: 1. Exempt the MacMillan and Neville -Woodrow properties from the airport zoning. - -- 2. .Request Mr. Orth to move his runway further to the south. 3. Compensate the property owners for the loss in value of their property as a result of the rezoning. Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter. 20th Place Gas Line Easement „ a<91.3H• e N Road 60 r Airport 17 Appro4 h mile MAR ® 2 1993 BOOK F"v,F907 1 't6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 1 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 122. 511, 168.67' a<91.3H• e N Road 60 r Airport 17 Appro4 h mile MAR ® 2 1993 BOOK F"v,F907 r MAR - 2,199'x. BOOK 88 PAGF-998? -7 Warren Dill, 11675 Roseland Road, which is in proximity to the Sebastian Airport, stated that his comments pertained to the ordinance in general. He realized that the Florida Statute and FAA regulations require the County to adopt an airport ordinance but it should be a bare -bones or a scaled-down version to comply with the law without all the extras that are included in the proposed ordinance. He cautioned that the County is adding another layer of regulations at the very time we are trying to attract new business and streamline the LDRs, and study nonconforming uses to make it a little easier for people to expand. He maintained that the Height Notification Zone simply means that the FAA must be notified. They do not have the authority to deny or approve anything that comes before them concerning a height obstruction. The Height Notification Zone extends 20,000 feet out, which means that three quarters of a mile from the runway a structure is limited to 35 feet -in height. The County does not have too many buildings over 35 feet in height. If a potential structure is considered to be a hazard, the ordinance would require the developer to obtain a construction waiver which involves fees and applications, but that is not mentioned in federal or state laws and is not necessary in this ordinance. The Overflight Zone is not mandated but is a recommendation by safety experts, so it is not necessary in the ordinance. The Noise Impact Zone is based on the state law boundaries if a noise study is not done. There should be a noise study done to determine the area of impact. Additions to existing structures and outside uses are unclear in this paragraph. Residential uses are authorized within this noise zone provided that the noise level reduction in the house is down to 20 to 25 decibels. The property is required to give avigation easements to the City of Vero Beach and to the City of Sebastian. An avigation easement is a severe restriction on property rights and there is no reference in the state or federal law requiring an avigation easement. Easements should be purchased. Property buyers should see the avigation easement to see what it is going to be and we should not say that whatever the airport wants to do is okay in the future. Mr. Dill felt that by adoption of this ordinance we are creating nonconforming uses in the County. Chapter 904 of the LDR deals with nonconformity. If a building does not meet a setback restriction, the owner is restricted in adding to the structure. If they are in nonconformance with the noise restriction, structures cannot be altered or rebuilt. The wording should be changed to 'snot increase the height or exceed federal obstructions standards. 11 Mr. Dill realized the Board has discretion to adopt this ordinance and he distributed a summary sheet of his suggestions. 18 Director Boling thought the height notification paragraph in the ordinance is essentially the bare -bones approach and is as streamlined as possible under FS 333. Deputy County. Attorney Collins advised that the State does contemplate height notification if the approach or flight path is pierced, the variance procedure and criteria follows state law, and the nonconforming issue is largely controlled by state law. There is some specific guidance in the statute as to when you can expand on conformity or when you discontinue it, and the statute is more generous than our local law. The point is not to allow things to get worse without analyzing them. Nancy Offutt, Government Affairs Coordinating Officer for the Indian River County -Vero Beach Board of Realtors, reported that she has been following the progress of this proposed ordinance and the Board of Realtors' main objection to the ordinance is the overflight zone. They feel that extending the overflight zone beyond the clear zone is not necessary and cutting it back to the clear zone will eliminate the unnecessary regulations. The av'igation easement is a property right that is being taken without compensation. The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard and thereupon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tippin felt that the ordinance is an overreaction. The government is not charged with looking out after everybody's welfare. He did not agree with all the hazards at New Hibiscus Airport and thought it might be safer there than living near a public road. He felt we have gone overboard, probably because of all these federal and state mandates. Commissioner Adams agreed and. felt we are trying to cover too many details. She felt that buying a piece of property gives no guarantee that it can be used for the intended purpose. Buying land is speculative and always will be. This is also true for the airport. We do not know whether there will be a need for that airport in 15 years. Commissioner Adams thought the ordinance needed more study and preferred that it be simplified. Commissioner Eggert asked for clarification of avigation easement. Deputy County Attorney Collins explained that it basically allows the airport operator to continue operation without fear of threat of nuisance suits from the noise or disturbance in the overflight zone. The state law does allow giving the airport authority or political subdivisions the power to acquire easements. 19 MBOOK 88 FIVE 999 ® 2 19�3 `999 r MAR - 2 1493 BOOK 88 F'A.UE 1000 The ordinance is trying to reduce some of the conflicts so that the nuisance uses might not be near each other. Commissioner Adams felt we should not pass legislation to favor an airport operator over a homeowner or property owner.- Deputy wner:Deputy County Attorney Collins advised that the Board has the responsibility to make a judgment on the economic benefits to having the airport operation here as well as its benefit to the community's economic well-being. If it is squeezed by adjoining property in incompatible uses to such an extent that it cannot function, its ability to expand or provide whatever economic benefits that the airport provides are limited. There is a balance that the Board must reach between regulation, property rights, and protection of the economic benefit that the airport provides to the community. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed staff to eliminate the restrictions related to the overflight zone and to draft a minimum, generic airport zoning ordinance for consideration at the second public hearing on LDRs at 5:01 p.m. on March 18, 1993. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding the second proposed ordinance. There being none, he closed the public hearing. The Board agreed that there was no controversy regarding the second ordinance and it would be considered at the second public hearing on LDRs at 5:01 p.m. on March 18, 1993. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:10 P. M. ATTEST: J. arton, Clerk Richard N. Bird, Chairman 20 BOOK cft, 00 J