HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/1993� MINUTESq[TTAC11Lll�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 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 )
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
5:01 P. M. Proposed Land Development Regulation (LDR) Amendments
( memorandum dated November 29, 1993 )
DEC
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.
SPECIAL MEETING
M
Tuesday, December 14, 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, December 14,
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
Chairman Richard N. Bird, due to a death in his family. 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 and announced
that each section of the proposed Land Development Regulation
amendments under consideration will be explained by staff, the
Commissioners will have the opportunity to ask questions of staff,
and the public will have an opportunity to speak. The same
procedure will be followed for each section.
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
DEC 141993 BOOK 91 Fr, 1;C #73
r -
DEC i4199
BOOK 91 PAGE 274 -7
NOTICE OF ESTARLISIIMENT 'OR CIIANGE u.::
'T?OF LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
AFFECTING THE USE OF LAND:
. 9
••,, .f-.; ,. Flu �' :!'
... , h'li:.y. •a
•.....rte 'Jr
t The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners proposes to adopt or +�
chm
ange regulalions affecting ilia use of land for the area shown in the map in this
'•Z'
advartlseant. . .. . ,
Two public hearings on the regulations affecting the use of land will be hold, one on •,!,
,',Tuesday, December 14, 1993 at 5:01 p.m. and one on Wednesday. January 5, t
e11994 at 5:01 p.m. In the County Commission Chambers in the County Admhustra-%. r..i
bon Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
Proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations ILDRs) effective In the :..,,,i
rt;
unincorporated area of the county consists of an ordinance containing various LDR ., 1 •r..
omendmsnls, and include changes to the following LDR chapters,
• Chopler 901, Definitions t :a . 1 .ih•'t'
t ;, •Chapter 904, Nonconformlties ,,, t : .• r i•b;, ,
.i,, Cl/apter 911. Zoning : �.t, .:i •. i' 1 r.:n,.t
• Chapter 912, Single Family Development
,,i. • Chapter 917, Accessory Uses and Structures ;t...:..!i .1•.:: •.'t e;:.. f t:
tl/ Chapter 925, Open Burning/Air Curtain Incinerator "'' ' r.t.:. ;,
9 • Chapter 932, Coastal Management { i • ; •t• ' w ,1., , • . 1 :.•:.,•t.
i.. i; • Chapter 971, Regulations for Specific Land Use Criteria !• • • •-"' :'d ; *%1.1. t'
• Chapter 972, Temporary Uses '••f ''•• i,Ic �: ' I -
Topics relating
"j... t idaninan
ls include, but are not limited to, the following,
Clawing Burning
1.1 -
Communications Transmission Towers ' ` ' ! ' t" ' 7't'• '' U.
! ' '• - Fishing -related Commercial Sales & Services (Richard Green, applicant)
F:. -Options to Golf Course Building Setback (Moorings Club, applicant)
* ! - Group Homes in Mobile IIonla Districts " 1
" -Clarification of Lot Widths & Setbacks on Flog Lots &Cul-de-sac lota'�� ..ti'.-�r +'ilriz:,. •"
i• - - Clarification of Single Family/Duplex Development on Single Lots ""t '`•
- Walls & Fences
-Coastal Develo ment •, i • ' ^! b.
i- limited &Heavy Uiilitias Uses in Single Family Zoning Districts f� ''
Capias of the proposed ordinance will be available at the Planning' Division Of
on ilia second floor of Ilse County Administration Building beginning December'...;
93,
no who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made of this meet- �• a..,;,
•ed to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which In-
7ony and evidence upon which the appeal is based, 1 '•j,,.,..
'O NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MUST..* ,1..•4
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINA-
I X408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. :. • :.t �.
.oRD, CHAIRMAN
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OFINDIANRIVER 1't�� 3oursial
STATE OF OIDUMA
Before the undersigned authorityy penaonnlly appeared J.J.
Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he Is Business Manager of the
Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In
Indian River County. Florida; that
a display ad measuring 33^ at 11.35
per column inch.
billed to Indian River County Pt nia n «
was published In said newspaper in the issues)
e1 12/8/93, December B 1993 on Pave 3A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
10 dayar 1)acember
— A.D 1993
.- C # �mlo-L-
byomm,.anager
Jane Z9, mal Ca•AA.eicn t+,.v,.. cream"
NO 72
. r
pQ^�+' as.raAtmaunsrsaaa —�—
L
Community Development
Director Bob Keating
and Planning
Director Stan Boling made the presentations with the aid of
graphics and the overhead projector.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. eats g,
Community DevelopmeriC Director
1415
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: November 29, 1993
SUBJECT: Proposed 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 December 14, 1993.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
•Background
Over the last several months, county staff, the Board of County
Commissioners and private entities have initiated various proposals
to amend tihe*county Is land development regulations (LDRs). Since
July of this year, the Professional Services Advisory Committee
(PSAC) has reviewed and made recommendations regarding each of the
various LDR amendment proposals. These various amendment proposals
have been combined into a single ordinance which was considered by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at its November 18, 1993 meeting
(see attachment #15). At that meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission made recommendations regarding various sections of the
proposed ordinance. The recommendations of the PSAC, Planning and
Zoning Commission, and staff are reported in the "ANALYSIS" section
of this report.
*Board Consideration
The Board is now to conduct the first of two public hearings to
consider adoption of the proposed ordinance. [The second public
hearing is -scheduled for 5:01 p.m. on Wednesday,? January 5, 1994.]
At this first hearing, the Board is to consider the proposed
ordinance and direct staff to make any changes to any section or
sections of the ordinance which the Board feels should be made
prior to final action.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has structured the proposed ordinance such that each
ordinance section contains an amendment or amendments that are
related to a single topic (see attachment #1). The analysis
section of this report is similarly structured, addressing each LMR
issue section by section.
3
BOOK 9 1 `�Gr �7 5
DEC 141993
II
BOOK 91 PAGE 276 -1
The proposed
ordinance contains 14 sections.
Sections it - 14
contain
standard legal language contained in
all LDR ordinances.
Sections
1-10
deal with particular issues, as
follows:
-Section
1:
Land Clearing Debris Burning
-Section
2:
Communications Transmission Towers-
-Section
3:
Fishing -related Commercial
Sales & Services
(Richard Green, applicant)
-Section 4: Options to Golf Course Building Setback (Moorings
Club, applicant)
-Section 5: Group Homes in Mobile Home Districts
-Section 6: Clarification of Lot Widths & Setbacks on Flag Lots
& Cul-de-sac Lots
-Section 7: Clarification of Single Family/Duplex Development
on Single Lots
-Section 8: Walls & Fences
-Section 9: Coastal•Development
-Section 10: Limited & Heavy Utilities Uses in Single Family
Zoning Districts
It should be noted that, based upon direction from the Board of
County Commissioners, planning staff and county attorney's office
staff have been researching and drafting LDR amendments to address
certain issues related to high voltage powerlines. Until recently,
staff proposed to address powerlines in this set of LDR amendments.
However, on November 9, 1993, the County Attorney (after
discussions with FP&L attorneys) determined that based upon Florida
Statutes 163.3164 and 380.04, powerlines cannot be regulated under
the LDRs; powerline issues must be addressed under non-LDR county
ordinances. Thus, no LDR amendments are being proposed which
directly relate to powerline issues. Instead, the County Attorney
will report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the
county's options for addressing powerline issues outside of the
context of the LDRs. It should be noted, however, that Section 10
of the proposed ordinance would require special exception rather
than administrative permit review for limited utilities uses (e.g.
substations and package treatment plants) and heavy utilities uses
(e.g. power plants and major wastewater treatment plants) in single
family zoning districts.
Staff's analysis of each section of the proposed LDR amendments
ordinance, and its related LDR issue, is as follows:
Director Keating related the history of debris burning as
follows:
-Complaint: debris burning operation in south county
-Code Enforcement Board consideration and action
-Initial LDR amendment consideration (PSAC, PZC) and adoption (BCC)
-Consideration and action on Fey request (PZC, SWDD, BCC)
-Direction given to staff by HCC: amend LDRs
-Current LDR amendment consideration (PSAC, PZC, BCC)
4
M
SECTION 1: LAND CLEARING DEBRIS BURNING
M
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
1. SECTION 1: LAND CLEARING DEBRIS BURNING
•Background
At its May 18, 1993 regular meeting, the Board of County
Commissioners considered the county's first proposed -permanent,
private landclearing debris burning facility. The special
exception use request involved a proposal by Richard Fey to locate
a debris burning facility southwest of Fellsmere on CR 512. During
consideration of the special exception request, the Board of County
Commissioners convened as the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD)
Board and considered several landclearing debris burning issues
(see attachment 1). The SWDD Board pronounced a policy of
prohibiting permanent, private landclearing debris burning
facilities as well as use of "temporary" (6 months at a time) burn
sites on which debris is collected from several sites under the
control of a land clearer and burned on a central site. Based upon
this stated SWDD Board policy, and based upon land use concerns
related to both permanent and "temporary" burn sites, the Board of
County Commissioners directed staff to:
1. Amend the LDRs to delete the "private landclearing debris
burning facilities" use category and related provisions.
2. Amend the LDRs to delete provisions that allow "temporary" (6
month) burn sites to be established where land clearers
consolidate debris from several sites -onto-a central burn
site.
3. Invoke the pending ordinance doctrine and stop processing
applications or issuing new permits for either permanent or
temporary private debris burning sites.
Based upon the Board's directions, planning staff has informed the
appropriate agencies and departments to stop issuance of new
permits for temporary, "centralized" burn sites. Planning staff
has also solicited comments and input from the Emergency Services,
Utilities, Solid Waste, and Public Works departments, the Division
of Forestry (DOF), and the County Attorney's Office. Furthermore,
in mid-June, planning staff mailed letters to 31 known land
clearing establishments, informing those businesses_of-.t.he, Board's
policy and directives and inviting participation and input at the
July 8, 1993 PSAC meeting in regards to the proposed LMR changes.
on July 8, 1993, the PSAC considered various land clearing debris
burning issues (see attachment #2) and recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners not change the existing LDRs'. The PSAC
recommended that the Board continue to allow permanent burn sites
and temporary (6 month) sites.
On November 18, 19930 the Planning and Zoning Commission considered
various alternative land clearing debris regulations (see
attachment #15). On a 5-0 vote,the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners amend the LDRs
to delete ' provisions for private permanent debris burning
facilities but keep provisio"-! that allow for "temporary" (6 month)
burn sites.
61
DEC. aooK . 3 , 7
Fr -
DEC 14 M3 BOOK 91 FACE 278
*Analysis & Alternatives:
-Current LDRs
About one year ago, the county revisited its land clearing debris
burning regulations and made the following important changes:
1. Establish a "private land clearing debris burning facility"
use category to allow private, permanent burn facilities as a
special exception use subject to SWDD Board approval.
2. Specifically allow "temporary" burn sites to be used as sites
where a land clearer could stockpile and burn debris generated
from several work sites. Air curtain incinerator burn permits
are issued for up to 6 months on these sites, as allowed by
DEP provisions.
3. Reduce air curtain incinerator setbacks from perimeter
property lines from 1,000' to 5001.
These three changes were adopted and are contained in the existing
LDRs. Staff's LDR amendment proposal simply deletes all provisions
relating to changes 1 and 2,, 'described above, and would add a
Provision giving the Board of County Commissioners the specific
authority to set-up temporary debris collection and burning sites
to handle extraordinary amounts of debris generated by disasters
(e.g. hurricanes and freezes).
Other circumstances under which debris burning is allowed by the
LDRs are as follows:
1. Burning activities incidental to agricultural operations.
2. Burning of yard trash as permitted by the-DOr.
3. On-site burning of debris cleared from the site on which the
burning occurs, as permitted by Emergency Services or the DOF.
4. Burning in road rights-of-way of debris cleared from the
right-of-way ("roadside" burning).
None of these four provisions is proposed to be eliminated or
changed.
-Land Use Issues
As evidenced by past code enforcement cases and by the Fey special
exception public hearings, debris burning facilities (-permanent or
"temporary") can generate negative impacts, including nuisances
relating to truck traffic and smoke/pollution and incompatibilities
with the established character of an area. Thus, debris burning
regulations should consider and address such potential nuisances
and incompatibilities. Under the existing LDRs, the permanent
facility regulations address all of these land use issues. The
existing "temporary" facility regulations address smoke and
pollution nuisances via setbacks and monitoring by either the
Emergency Services Department or the Division of Forestry. Traffic
impacts and land use compatibility are not specifically addressed
by.existing "temporary" facility regulations.
M
- M M
-SWDD Issues
Two basic issues drive the SWDD Board policy decision to delete the
private, permanent facilities and "temporary" burn sites (sites
where debris from several sites is consolidated on one site).
First, the SWDD is committed through its basic objective and
through bond covenants to control the stream of solid waste
disposed of within Indian River County, oversee its proper
disposal, and collect revenues necessary to carry -out its
responsibilities (see attachment #3). Second, _mulch from
landclearing debris has become a necessary commodity in the SWDD's
landfill and composting operations. The SWDD not only needs mulch
for present and future operations; it also recognizes that, for
various reasons, the future trend for handling landclearing debris
is away from incineration and toward mulching. Allowing private,
permanent facilities and "temporary" burn sites (on sites where
debris from several sites is consolidated on one site) can
potentially conflict with these two basic SWDD issues.
-Expressed Concerns
As expressed last summer by land clearers, there are concerns that
requiring debris cleared in the north county to be transported to
SWDD's south county landfill is an undue burden on north county
development. In general, the cost of transporting debris to the
landfill and the cost of tipping fees has been criticized as being
too expensive. Allowing permanent and "temporary" burn sites (on
sites where debris from several sites is consolidated on one site)
in the unincorporated area of the county, and the operation of
Fischer's incineration and mulching operation in Sebastian, are
potential solutions to the problems associated with "the long haul"
from the north county to the south county landfill. Although
deleting the "temporary" and private, permanent burn facilities
could reduce disposal options throughout the county, SWDD staff
note that they are in the process of establishing a north county
land clearing/debris mulching facility. Furthermore, staff notes
that the proposed LDR changes would have no effect on the Fischer
operation in Sebastian, which could continue to operate as a
disposal option for as long as the_ City of 'Sebastian allows the
facility to operate. Thus, when SWDD does establish -a north county
debris mulching site, the north county "long haul" problem will be
addressed without the need for private permanent or "temporary"
burn sites.
-Implications
Emergency Services staff indicate that Sunnyland Clearing (a
private land clearing operation), County Road and Bridge, and
contractors for FDOT road projects are using the provisions
allowing "temporary" burn sites ( on 'sites where debris from several
sites is consolidated on one site). No businesses have established
or are using the private, permanent burn facility provisions. At
this time, it appears that Sunnyland, County Road and ..Bridge,, and
FDOT could be the parties most affected by the proposed changes.
Costs to these parties for disposing of land clearing debris would
probably increase.
7
DEC 14 1993 BOOK 91 WAGE 279
V1
BOOK 91 uu.280
DEC 14 1993
-Alternatives
There are several alternative means of addressing the issue of
landclearing debris burning. These alternatives are as follows:
A. Delete provisions for permanent, private burn facilities and
for temporary (6 month) burn sites. Retain provisions for on-
site burning and the other exemptions described on page 3 of
this _report.
B. Retain all current provisions for permanent, private burn
sites and temporary (6 month) sites.
C. Delete provisions for permanent, private burn sites and allow
temporary (6 month) sites via temporary use permit criteria
relating to special setbacks, access, and haul route
requirements.
D. Delete provisions for permanent, private burn sites and
generally prohibit temporary (6 month) sites except for.an
allowance to burn debris.from road projects off-site.
E. Delete provisions for permanent private burn sites and allow
temporary (6 month) burn sites only until SWDD opens a north
county facility that accepts landclearing debris.
PSAC Recommendation: Adopt alternative "B", with no changes to
the current LDRs.
Planning Staff
Recommendation: -Based upon the Board of County
Commissioner's direction, adopt
alternative "A" or "E", to delete
provisions for permanent private burn
sites *and to delete provisions for
temporary (6 month) burn sites.
PZC Recommendation: (On a 5-0 vote) Delete provisions for
permanent, private burn sites and keep
Provisions for "temporary" (6 month) burn
sites [similar to alternative "C" but
without temporary use permit criteria].
Commissioner Macht led discussion regarding Alternative C,
which would allow temporary burning on land clearing sites. He
considered this policy more practical than transporting debris to
the Landfill. It causes less traffic and pollution, and saves
time.
Director Keating responded that on-site burning is allowed on
a site that is being cleared as long as it meets the separation
distances.
Director Boling noted that our Public Works Department takes
advantage of that on-site burning allowance. Off-site burning is
also allowed at locations such as the fairground site, which was
used recently by the Public Works Department.
8
_ M M
_ M
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the question is whether
or not they should meet temporary use permit criteria.
Commissioner Adams asked how the criteria and requirements can
be enforced to eliminate material being conveyed from other sites
to a temporary burn site.
Director Keating conceded that enforcement is a problem but
Sunnyland Clearing is the only non-public entity to apply for a
temporary off-site permit.
Discussion ensued regarding SWDD's need for mulching materials
to fill the recycling quota. Director Pinto explained that if the
Board's decision eliminates revenues for the District, those
revenues must come from somewhere else. The District depends
heavily on mulching to fill its percentage quota of recycled
material and will have to make up that percentage in other ways.
Commissioner Eggert led discussion regarding Planning
Department's control of enforcement of criteria at temporary burn
sites, and Director Boling advised that there is good cooperation
between the departments.
Dan Dietz, Fire Bureau Chief, described the criteria of fire
safety requirements at permanent burn sites. He explained that the
size of a pile of debris must be within certain limits, with 20 -
foot lanes on all sides of each pile to allow access for fire
trucks. If a given pile of*debris accidentally catches on fire,
the fire department can allow it to burn without causing other
piles of debris to catch on fire. He described the Fischer
permanent burn site, which has 2 or 3 several -acre lakes, and the
owner has put in a hydrant system so the fire department does not
have to haul water to fight a fire.
Commissioner Macht asked, and Director Keating responded that
staff objects to Alternative C as recommended by P & Z and PSAC
because there is no restriction or limitation on the size of the
stockpile, no consideration of the amount of truck traffic, and
there are some issues related to land use.
Commissioner Adams noted that P & Z recommended Alternative C
without the temporary burn criteria.
Commissioner Eggert preferred Alternative C with the criteria
which were included originally.
Public Works Director Jim Davis confirmed that we generate a
large volume of cleared material and transporting it in large
sections is more expensive than if it is chipped or in a
consolidated form. Setback requirements cannot be met on certain
rights-of-way and a temporary burn site permit saves the
transportation fund quite a bit of money throughout the year. A
chipping operation can be a problem because mulchers tend to grind
®EC 14 1993 BOK 91 FAGF 2,81
I
pp
DEC 14 1993 BOOK 91 FACE 282
and break the debris into large pieces which cannot be used for
ornamental landscaping. It is best if the material can be chipped
to a small size which can be applied in that immediate vicinity.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Mary Parsons, representing Sunnyland Clearing, stated
that her client favored Alternative C with the criteria. Sunnyland
Clearing works on temporary sites and the site is shut down after
six months, so there is no problem with stockpiling debris. They
burn only debris from that temporary site and none is brought from
other sites. They have only two trucks and there usually is only
one truck on the site. There are daily checks with the Department
of Forestry and all guidelines are followed as far as depth of the
pit and the condition of the air curtain incinerator. Ms. Parsons
urged the Board to allow temporary burn sites because Sunnyland
Clearing provides a service which eliminates a lot of open burning
of debris.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
Director Keating pointed out that when only mulching is
allowed, we have stumps and large pieces which cannot be put into
the mulcher and must be burned. In addition, the mulching
machinery is prone to break down.
Discussion ensued regarding temporary burn permits, and Chief
Dietz reported that currently there are three permits in effect.
The only private contractor other than Sunnyland Clearing that was
permitted in the last six months was Sheltra & Sons on a private
site.
Commissioner Macht pointed out that common sense and economics
dictate that we should permit temporary burn sites.
Vice Chairman Tippin agreed. He did not want to restrict
trade as a means of lowering our taxes or to eliminate competition
with the Landfill because the regulations of the Department of
Environmental Protection are changing constantly.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac directed the Board's attention
to his memo suggesting a possible solution to potential revenue
reduction at the Landfill. The memo suggested a fee per ton of
debris which could be called a regulatory fee or tax. That would
add an expense to the temporary burn facility but it could provide
a legal revenue stream to replace lost revenue at the Landfill.
10
_ M
W
Commissioner Eggert agreed that there is a need for some
burning permits but there must be criteria regarding stockpiling,
setbacks and fire safety requirements.
Vice Chairman Tippin stated that it is the consensus of the
Board that Alternative C, with criteria as originally recommended
by staff, be presented for consideration at the next public
hearing.
SECTION 2: COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION TOWERS
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
2. SECTION 2:
•Background
TRANSMISSION TOWERS
In May 1993, county staff received a copy of a decision by the 19th
Circuit Court regarding a challenge to the county's regulation of
transmission towers in residential zoning districts. The court's
decision was that the county's 70' maximum tower height regulation
was too restrictive in light of a federal (FCC) exemption and state
law which require a balancing of tower restrictions with
"...legitimate needs of licensed amateur radio operators" (see
attachment #4).
Based upon the court's decision, planning staff has coordinated
with the county attorney's office staff to draft LMR amendments
that conform to the court's decision.
*Analysis
Current county LMRs place transmission towers into three height
categories: those less than 70' in height, those 70'-140' in
height, and those over 140' in height. LDR section 917.06(11)
currently allows transmission towers of up to 35' in height within
residential districts as long as normal setbacks are satisfied.
Also, towers up to 70' in height are allowed in residential
districts if the distance from the tower to the nearest property
line is 110% of the tower height. The court's decision was that
these provisions do not adequately accommodate legitimate amateur
radio communications.
The court Is' decision was based on an interpretation of a federal
preemption whereby FCC amateur radio requirements can preempt local
zoning ordinances. The court noted that this preemption is
incorporated into the Florida Statutes (FS 125.561) and that local
ordinances must accommodate legitimate amateur radio
communications. In the court's opinion, such legitimate interests
may necessitate a tower over 70' in height in a residential zoning
district. In the opinion of planning staff and the county
attorney's office, the court's decision requires that the following
changes be made to the county's LDRs related to transmission towers
(see attachment #5).
1. The term "transmission tower" needs to be defined and should
address whether or not antenna components are considered in
the tower's height measurement.
11
EC 14 1993 BOOK 91 r�.cE 283
OF,
BOOK 9 1 FA^F2)'7 4
2. An alternative should be provided to the 110% of tower height
setback, whereby an engineer -certified design fall radius
could be used to establish a .shorter setback.
3. Provisions must be made to allow towers greater than 70' in
height in residential districts, where an applicant
demonstrates that legitimate amateur radio communication needs
require a tower height in excess of 701.
Staff's proposed transmission tower LDR amendments comprise
thirteen sections (A -M) which address the necessary changes. The
amendment sections are described as follows:
A. This section defines the term "transmission tower" as any
structure which supports an antenna and the antenna structure
itself. The proposed definition specifically states that the
toner height is measured vertically, from the ground to the
highest point of the structure (including the antenna).
B., C., D., F., G., -H., I., & J.
These sections involve the use -tables for. -the non-commercial
districts in which residential units are permitted uses, and
would specify that towers less than 70' are permitted uses
regulated by provisions in Chapter 917 (discussed later in
section K.). Also, these sections would allow a transmission
tower of 70'-140' in height in all residential districts as an
administrative permit use, subject to Chapter 971 specific
land use criteria (discussed later in section M.).
E. This section involves the commercial district use table, and
establishes the same tower. allowances in the PRO and OCR
districts (where residential uses are permitted uses) as would
be allowed in the residential zoning districts. Tower
allowances in the MED and CN districts would be made the same
as tower allowances in the other commercial distvicts.
K. This section amends Chapter 917 and establishes setback
provisions for towers less than 70' in height for all
districts (residential and commercial). For towers up to 351,
normal setbacks would apply. For towers 35'-701, a setback of
110% of the tower height would apply unless the engineer -
certified design fall radius option in section 971.44(1)(d)l
is satisfied.
L. This section amends a portion of Chapter 912 which parallels
Chapter 917 provisions. This section would amend that portion
of Chapter 912 to make it conform to the Chapter 917 changes
described in section R.
M. This section amends Chapter 971, updating the list of zoning
districts in which 70'-140' towers are allowed, and
establishing special criteria for amateur radio communication
towers over 70' in height. The proposed criteria would ensure
that in residential districts such towers would be accessory
to an allowable principal use. Also, the criteria would
require any applicant proposing to construct a tower over 70'
in height in a residential district to demonstrate that the
proposed tower height is necessary for effective amateur radio
communications.
12
_ M
_ M M
PSAC Recommendation: Adopt the proposed amendments with
one major change, exempt amateur
radio towers from any special local
regulations including the proposed
regulations.
Planning Staff's
Recommendation: Adopt the proposed amendments as
presented.
PZC Recommendation: No motion carried 4 or more_votes;
therefore, no official
recommendation was made. However,
the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 3-1 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners accept
staff's recommendation and adopt the
proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Macht led discussion regarding the criteria for
a tower over 70 feet in height.
Director Boling advised that the applicant must demonstrate
the need for a tower more than 70 feet in height, and Commissioner
Macht thought the FCC would endorse a justification of need because
range is based largely on antenna height.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Al Smith, communications officer for the Office of Emergency
Management in Indian River County, read aloud the following letter:
Fred Sarg
3306 First Road
Vero Beach, FL 32968
407/778-0784 Call sign N4wlm
Re. Tower Heights
Addressed to the Planning Commission
Indian River County
County Chambers , Vero Beach.
Gentlemen.
Dec. 11th 1993
Being unable to attend the Commission meeting, I Nish to bring
the following facts to your attention and consideration.
It is surprising that the aftermath of hurricane Andrew is so
quickly forgotten. The homestead area which was completely wiped
out, had a more sophisticated emergency communication system com-
pletely destroyed and the area depended -entirely on Amateur Com-
munications. --
13
DEC 141993 Bou 91 FviF.(85
I
BOOK 91 `,, GE 286
The antenna towers mounted on the old hospital building
would be demolished should Vero Beach suffer.the attack of a
hurricane, leaving the emergency management radio room useless.
EMERGENCLY CU;114UNILATIUNS FOR LIFE & :JELFARE '16ULD DEFEND SOLELY
ON THE RADIO AMATEUR AND HIS ANTENNA SYSTP1. Doesn't it make sence,
not to put a o your eggs in one as et? 'Ind have a back-up of
all of the radio operators with their stations and antennas?
The chances of all of the antenna towers being destroyed in a
hurricane is slim , therefore some radio amateurs will be able
to handle emergency traffic.
Bear in mind, the Radio Amateur performs a public Service
at NO CHARGE to the community. He has invested thousands of
Dollars in station equipment and antenna towers to supply this
SERVICE. In addition has prepared himself for this duty, with
hundreds of hours of training, so to be ready in time of emergency.
It is a known fact, the higher the antenna, the greater the
distance of communication.
I therefore suggest and hope that you be guided by th FCC
guidlines relating to antenna tower heights.
Yours truly,
Mr. Smith explained that Radio Amateur Civil Emergency. Service
(R.A.C.E.S.) is an arm of Federal Emergency Management and Indian
River Emergency Services. Mr. Smith gave details of how amateur
radio operators assist in emergencies and in emergency preparedness
drills as well as in public service. He urged the Board to delete
any reference to amateur radio operators in the proposed amendment
to the LDR so that R.A.C.E.S. and the affiliated groups and
agencies can continue their activities.
Molly Hench, representative of the American Red Cross, urged
the Board to support the amateur radio operators. She explained
that in times of disaster when the phone lines go out, Red Cross
headquarters and their 22 shelters in the county depend on the
amateur radio operators for communication.
Jim Arnold, vice president of the Vero Beach Amateur Radio
Club, member of the Treasure Coast Repeater Association and FCC
licensed ham radio operator, urged the Board to exempt amateur
radio operators from any ordinances. He advised that the FCC has
a height limit of 200 feet for an amateur radio operator's antenna.
The primary reason that amateur radio operators have only a 100 -
foot tower is because a 200 -foot tower is prohibitively expensive.
There are very few amateurs in the county who have towers over 70
feet high, and there is not a waiting list of operators to erect
200—foot towers. Being licensed by the FCC means they follow
regulations on a federal level. Their communications are not only
14
intrastate but also interstate and transcontinental, and that
requires antennae with certain heights and configurations. The
Board of County Commissioners on several occasions have issued
proclamations honoring the Vero Beach Amateur Radio Club and the
Treasure Coast Repeater Association. When a ham operator invests
time and expense to erect a tower, he does not want it to fall on
his own house, much less on somebody else's house, so they are
built and installed according to safe structural practices. Mr.
Arnold also pointed out that ham radio operation allows people with
visual or other impairments to "travel" all around the world
without leaving their homes, and they are the ones who man the base
stations during emergencies.
Gary Metzler, president of the Vero Beach Amateur Radio Club,
urged the Board to allow the federal regulations to be the standard
for the County's requirements.
John Slayton, resident of Vero Beach, was a radio operator
during World War II, and knew a little bit about radio signals. He
was aware that amateur radio operators can operate very well with
a 75 -foot antenna. He related that when he lived next door to a
ham radio operator, his television reception was affected. Mr.
Slayton was concerned about the circuit court decision regarding
antenna height. We have the right of appeal and he asked whether
the County planned to appeal that decision. He mentioned wireless
cable television and cellular phones and thought that new
technology might require additional towers all over the community.
He asked the Commissioners to research this thoroughly before
making a final decision.
Pat Waggaman, stated that he sails throughout the world,
including the South Pacific, and he counts on the amateur radio
operators to aid him in communicating with his home and his elderly
and ill mother. Ham operators aid in rescues at sea by directing
rescue agencies to boats in distress. Mr. Waggaman stated that his
sailboat mast is 65 feet tall, plus the VHF whips on top which are
removable for bridges, making his boat a mobile antenna tower. He
did not want an ordinance restricting the height of his mast.
Antenna towers are light aluminum, do not cause great damage, and
the antenna owner can be dealt with through liability insurance.
John Boniface, licensed amateur radio operator for 33 years,
refuted the concerns about towers going up all over the community
because cable television towers exist now. He further explained
that interference with television reception is due to poor
grounding of the cable where it connects at the house. He agreed
with the statements about the services of ham radio operators. He
also commented that he has seen what happens to towers in strong
15
DEC 141993 BOOK 91 F'A,'
DEC 14 199J
BOOK 91
winds, and they do not fall down. They bend at their weakest point
and do not cause significant damage.
David Brower, licensed amateur radio operator for over 30
years, urged .the Board to adopt the LDR amendment recommended by
the Professional Services Advisory Board. Mr. Brower cited a 19th
Circuit Court decision, quoting legislation which prohibits
counties from adopting regulations which restrict amateur radio
towers. He argued that members of Planning staff do not have the
expertise to decide whether a radio operator needs a tower over 70
feet high. He requested that amateur radio antennae be exempted
from the LDR amendments. He advised that precedent has been set in
St. Lucie and Collier Counties where they exempt amateur radio
towers from their LDRs at present.
Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II advised the Board
that there is no requirement in the FCC opinion that the County not
regulate at all. To the contrary, the FCC recognizes legitimate
local interests. The FCC opinion states that we cannot preclude
amateur operations, and the 19th Circuit Court opinion adds that
there cannot be an arbitrary height limit. We are attempting to
establish a variance procedure whereby an operator could
demonstrate that the additional height is needed to effectively
communicate with the radio operation. If staff does not have the
expertise to make a decision, we can contact people with more
expertise, including the FCC, to verify that the additional height
is needed for the reason given by the applicant.
Chris Gunno, resident of Vero Beach Highlands on 25th Street
Southwest, stated that he lives in an area where a large number of
power poles are close to the road. He distributed several
documents which addressed Section 2 and Section 10.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac interrupted and advised that
at the Regular BCC meeting earlier in the day the Board was advised
that the State has prevented the County from talking about the
height of transmission poles and that power poles shall not be
subject to LDR regulations by the County.
Mr. Gunno argued that the difference is poles which are
constructed on established rights-of-way, and read aloud the
following:
16
M r M
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Citizens Affected by the'Vero Beach High
Voltage Power Line
I)
The following changes to the proposed LDR amendments are needed in
order to mitigate for the fall zone of poles/posts, especially
those with high voltage electric lines connected to them. The
purpose of the change is for the county to ensure the health,
safety and welfare of its residents.
Section 2: Communication Transmission Tower
Must change to read as "Towers/Poles/Posts and any similar
tall structures" throughout the proposed amendment.
The danger of falling power poles/posts is even greater than that
of transmission towers as there are many more power poles than
transmission towers. -There are also hot electric lines connected
to the power poles.
Mr. Gunno argued that Section 2 should include "Towers/
Poles/Posts and any similar tall structures." He quoted the
definition of structures in the State Statutes and argued that it
should be included in the proposed amendment to the LDR. He
conceded that his argument is more appropriate to Section 10 of the
proposed amendments to the LDR.
Brenda Kramer, resident of Vero Highlands, stated that she
grew up in Nebraska. Her father was a ham radio operator and she
noticed a connection between lightning and tall structures. She
gave the example of a resident of Vero Highlands whose home was
struck by lightning on three occasions, and on one occasion all
electronics in the home were completed destroyed. She asked
whether the FCC has requirements for liability insurance and
suggested that applications be reviewed by Planning Staff to
confirm that all applicants have insurance.
Bonnie Rohani, 644 S.W. 25th Street, asked whether Attorney
Vitunac's opinion was given to the Board and whether the
Commissioners had time to review the originally proposed amendment
which included the language "towers/poles/posts and any similar
tall structures." She agreed that Mr. Gunno presented a different
interpretation and suggested that Attorney Vitunac's opinion was
personal, albeit professional, and that other attorneys had other
opinions. Ms. Rohani stated that it is an insult to her
intelligence to suggest that similar structures which carry high
voltage do not present a danger equal to a communication
transmission tower. She thought the original proposed language
regarding the transmission lines, "Towers/Poles/Posts and any
17
DEC 141993 na 91 1prF X89
BOOK 91 PAGF 290
similar tall structures," is the proper approach to address the
issue. She urged the Board to consider this matter further before
making a final determination.
The Vice Chairman determined that no one else wished to be
heard and thereupon closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Adams asked Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright for his views on Section 2.
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright assured the Board that
R.A.C.E.S. is an asset to the county and he would like to see the
Board accommodate the communications efforts of the R.A.C.E.S.
members. At the same time we must ensure that it does not create
problems to neighboring property. Emergency Services needs and
depends on the amateur ham radio operators in case of disaster. He
felt that there are adequate remedies in law if the towers cause
problems. Regarding cable television and wireless technology,
Director Wright predicted new technology would eliminate the need
for towers and this is not a problem that will involve us for any
length of time.
Commissioner Adams was not concerned about towers falling
down, because freaky accidents happen. She was not in favor of
exemptions to any LDR. She felt that if we regulate height of
towers, we may have to regulate the height of trees and other
things.
Commissioner Macht saw this as regulation where there has been
no damage that calls for intervention. He objected to the clause
requiring justification for a need for height greater than 70 feet.
A person who requests a permit knows what he needs and it would be
ridiculous to require him to justify the need. He pointed out that
there is a rigorous procedure to obtain an FCC license and great
expense to erect a tower. Commissioner Macht did not favor
exemptions, and he preferred the PSAC recommendation.
Discussion ensued regarding proper design, construction and
installation of the tower.
Director Keating stated that applicants require a building
permit, and the tower design would be addressed in the site plan.
Commissioner Macht pointed out that the applicant would have
the obligation to obtain a statement from the tower manufacturer
regarding poundage load, wind load and height guidelines.
Commissioner Eggert clarified that we are differentiating
between the amateur radio operator towers and any other towers.
Commissioner Macht was in 6ympathy with the Vero Highlands
is
- M M
- M M
Commissioner Macht was in sympathy with the Vero Highlands
residents but the agency that intruded on them is entirely
different.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that his office
received telephone calls from Senator Kurth and Representative
Sembler indicating they will sponsor a bill for the February
session to require public meetings before electrical utilities can
construct certain transmission lines. He gave the opinion that the
law pre-empts us from regulating the height of poles. He believed
FPL has an established right-of-way when they buy the land.
Commissioner Macht pointed out that at the Regular Board
meeting earlier in the day, the Commission decided to set a clock
in motion, and if the State does not act, we will.
Vice Chairman Tippin noted that the consensus of the Board is
to delete the requirements for special setbacks as applied to
amateur radio communication towers and eliminate the requirement to
demonstrate and justify a need for height over 70 feet.
SECTION 3: FISHING -RELATED COMMERCIAL SALES & SERVICE
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
SECTION 3: FISHING -RELATED COMMERCIAL SALES & SERVICE
•Background
Attorney Warren Dill, on behalf of Richard.Green, has filed an
w' application to amend the county's-LDRs to establlah a special use
category and corresponding regulations to allow commercial fishing
services (bait and tackle shop, food concessions, boat storage,
fishing guide services) in agriculturally zoned areas (see
attachment #6). The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow
for commercial development to serve recreational fishing demands
generated by use of the recently opened St. John's Marsh areas. At
its July 8th and August 12th 1993 meetings, the PSAC discussed the
proposed amendments (see attachment #6 & 7).
•Analysis
-Proposed LMR Amendment
The proposed amendment would allow, by administra.tive permit
approval, the following types of uses in the A-2 (Agricultural, up
to 1 unit/10 acres) and A-3 (Agricultural, up to 1 unit/20 acres)
zoning districts:
- bait and tackle shop,
- sandwich/deli area,
- boat/boat trailer storage area,
- fishing guide services.
Several specific land use criteria are proposed to limit and
restrict the commercial fishing facilities. These criteria,
proposed by the applicant, are as follows:
19
DEC �. 1993BOOK y1 PAGE 9 2
II
r
DEC 14 1993 BOOK 91 FACE 292
1. The facility shall be located on a paved, county or state
arterial roadway.
2. The project site shall have a minimum area of 400,000 square
feet.
3. Bait and tackle shop, sandwich deli, and commercial sales uses
shall be limited to a total gross building footprint area of
2,400 square feet.
4. All buildings must satisfy a 75' setback.
5. A Type "D" buffer with 6' opaque screening is required between
any outdoor boat/boat trailer storage area and perimeter
property boundaries. Type "C" buffers with opaque screening
are required around all commercial buildings and parking
areas.
6. Only one permanent residence is allowed on the project site.
7. Minimum open space on site is required to be 80% (the minimum
required in the.A-2 and A-3 districts).
B. The Board of County Commissioners must find that:
- the proposed uses are fishing -related
the proposed location is more appropriate than locating
the use on property already zoned commercial
- the proposed location is convenient to a public road that
is the primary access to a major fishing resource.
-Alternatives to an LDR Amendment
1. Have the Property Re -designated and Rezoned.
Under this alternative, an applicant could pursue an amendment to
the land use map and zoning map to designate -.and sone his parcel
for commercial uses. Under such an approach, the county would
revisit the comprehensive land use plan for the western portion of
the county and determine if a commercial area should be established
to service the demands of the new public fishing resource: the St.
Johns marsh area. Through the comprehensive plan
amendment/rezoning process, the county could control the location
of the commercial use, although specific criteria relating to the
use and site design would not be addressed through such a process.
If the applicant's property is re -designated and rezoned for
commercial use, then the applicant could apply for and obtain
"regular" site plan approval for a development project.
In staff's opinion, this alternative would be the best approach if
the full range of general commercial uses (e.g. genual retail,
restaurants, gas sales) are needed to service the spouts fishing
demand in the area. However, the applicant's request is for a
limited variety of uses that are limited in size and scale. It
should be noted that although existing zoning district categories
would not restrict commercial uses only to those. uses directly
associated with sports fishing (e.g. bait and tackle shop, boat
storage, fishing guide services), a new commercial zoning district
specific to recreational fishing could be drafted and considered.
W7
2. Use a Site Already Zoned for Commercial Uses
A second alternative for an applicant would be to develop a site
already zoned commercial that is located convenient to a major
sports fisaing area, such as areas located in the northwestern
portion of the county (e.g. commercial property in Fellsmere or in
the I-95/CR 512 node). Under this alternative, commercial uses
would not be required to be related to sports fishing, and
development could proceed via the normal site plan process. No
special approval process or specific land use criteria would apply.
-Staff's Concerns
Staff has concerns about opening -up agricultural areas for
commercial services, as is proposed with this LDR amendment
request. Commercial uses introduced into agricultural and rural
areas can pose compatibility problems. Allowing a commercial use
to be located in a remote area could set a precedent for subsequent
commercial development, unless such commercial development is
limited in its location and scale, and carefully regulated. In
staff's opinion, existing commercially designated areas in
Fellsmere and in the I-95/CR 512 commercial/ industrial should serve
demands for general commercial uses and services in the north
central and northwestern portions of the county. Allowing
commercial uses to be located outside of these existing commercial
areas would be warranted only if it is more logical to allow
certain special commercial uses that serve the St. Johns marsh
fishing areas to be located closer to those fishing areas than
existing commercially zoned areas.
-Justification for Locating Certain Commercial Uses in Rural Areas
Staff' s research indicates that the St. Johns marsh, although still
evolving in terms of its ecology and management, is and will
continue to be a* popular sports fishing and recreation area. It is
logical to assume that use of the marsh is generating demand for
the fishing -related commercial uses proposed by the applicant. In
fact, the county public works department is currently working on
plans to provide a stabilized, vehicle and trailer "parking pad"
area between the Fellsmere Grade and the C-54 canal at the St.
Johns marsh public boat ramp area.
St. Johns River Water Management District staff indicate that, at
the present time, the District has no plans -to accommodate on
District property any of the following uses: bait and tackle sales,
secure overnight boat/boat trailer storage, or food concessions
(see attachment $9). Furthermore, it appears to staff that the C-
54 Canal/Fellsmere Grade is the primary access road to the public
boatramp serving the marsh fishing areas in northwestern Indian
River County and southwestern Brevard County. Therefore, staff
concludes that certain commercial services needed for fishing the
marsh can be accommodated only outside of the marsh, and that such
uses should be located near primary public access roads to the
marsh, such as the C-54 Canal/Fellsmere Grade road.
21
DEC 14 1993
BOOK 91 F'AGE 293
V
F,
DEC 14 1993
BOOK 91 PAGE
294 -7
Staff's analysis of existing LDRs is that certai.p._types of
agriculturally -related commercial and industrial uses (e.g.
packinghousing, farm equipment sales, feed stores) are already
allowed in agricultural areas as special exception- uses (see
attachment #8). Such uses are allowed where the Board of County
Commissioners makes a finding that it is more logical for such
businesses or industries to be located closer to agricultural
resources rather than in existing commercially or industrially
designated areas. In staff's opinion, allowing fishing -related
commercial services to be located close to fishing resources is
logical under certain circumstances and is similar to existing LDR
allowances for development of agricultural businesses and
agricultural industries in remote areas.
-Other Jurisdictions' Treatment of Rural Commercial Uses
Staff surveyed several other local governments in central and south
Florida to determine how they regulate RV campgrounds, fish camps,
and related uses in agricultural and rural areas. Unlike Indian
River County's situation, where a new fishing resource has been
recently opened -up to the public, other jurisdictions seemed to
have relied upon rural commercial patterns that developed prior to
zoning and land use planning (such as the Blue Cypress fish camp in
Indian River County). Other jurisdictions have already zoned and
designated fish camp type uses around their historical and existing
fishing resources, based upon existing land use patterns.
Therefore, county planning staff concludes that most other
jurisdictions have not dealt with "new", popular sports fishing
resources such as the St. Johns marsh. It appears that other local
governments have allowed rural commercial uses by commercially
zoning existing, rurally located fish camp and bait and tackle shop
sites.
When surveyed local governments were asked how a request to locate
a new bait and tackle shop/boat storage facility on an
agriculturally designated property would be processed, they
responded as follows:
1. Brevard, Hillsborough, Lake, Manatee, and Polk counties
indicated that rezoning from an agricultural district to a
commercial or leisure recreation district would be required.
2. Osceola, St. Lucie, and Volusia counties indicated that
conditional or special exception use approval would be
required but that no rezoning action would be necessary.
-Summary_ -
In planning staff's opinion, allowing certain types of commercial
uses in remote areas via the special exception use process is
logical and justifiable. As an example, the current LDRs allow for
agricultural businesses and industries as special exception uses to
be located -in remote areas zoned agricultural. "*The proposed LDR
amendment contains criteria to ensure adequate buffering, open
space, and review (procedurally) for project proposals.
Furthermore, the required findings by the Board of County
Commissioners provide safeguards that a project proposal would be
=plated to recreational fishing and would be properly located.
22
PSAC Recommendation: Adopt the proposed LDR amendment with
some allowances for counting stabilized
(mulch, -marl, sod) parking and storage
areas as open space.
Planning Staff
Recommendation: Adopt the LDR amendment, as_j?.resented.
PZC Recommendation: (On a 5-0 vote) Deny the LDR amendment
application, delete the fishing -related
commercial sales and service provisions
from the proposed ordinance, and require
such uses to be located in areas already
zoned commercial.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Warren Dill, representing Richard Green, gave a
history of his clients reasons for requesting the change in the
LDR. Mr. Green is an experienced fisherman and saw the potential
for a bait and tackle business near the bass fishing areas in
Indian River County. He does not qualify for the current special
exception use in agricultural districts to establish that business
because he owns only 10 acres and the special exception requires
500 acres. The proposed LDR amendment would allow Mr. Green to
supply fishermen with bait and tackle, along with boat and boat
trailer storage near the fishing areas. Mr. Dill described this as
clean industry which will increase business for restaurants, gas
stations, hotels and motels and provide tax revenues to Indian
River County. He clarified that the proposed amendment is not
specifically for this site but will apply throughout the county,
which has many wonderful fishing areas. Mr. Dill pointed out that
staff recommended approval of the amendment with restrictions and
requirements to meet criteria before a special exception use would
be granted, and he urged the Board to approve the requested
amendment.
Richard Green, resident of Brevard County, described his
vision of a fishing camp near the water impoundments. He saw the
potential for a bait and tackle shop with boat and boat trailer
storage. Mr. Green related his experiences as a fisherman in this
area since 1961, and pointed out that Stick Marsh and Farm 13 are
well known for world class bass fishing. He stated that the
hotels, motels, shopping districts and other related businesses in
Brevard County are getting the business from these fishermen that
Indian River County could be getting. He predicted that if he
could establish his business, he would contact magazine writers and
23
BOOK 91 UGGE 41 r
DEC 14 1993
r`�
OEC 4199
n nn
BOOK 91 FACE
Stick Marsh and Farm 13 would become known world-wide. Mr. Green
cited the quantity and sizes of bass which are caught as well as
the numbers of fishing guides and the hours they are employed for
bass fishing in Indian River County. He saw all this as potential
income for local businesses and tax revenue for the County. He
requested approval of the LDR amendment for use of agricultural
land for commercial use as a special exception.
Katherine Henderson, 11120 County Road 507-B, Fellsmere, spoke
in opposition to the proposed LDR amendment. She described the
agricultural and rural nature of the area west of Fellsmere and the
area owned by Mr. Green. She did not want to commercialize that
area.
Sharon Morse Anderson, Fellsmere, agreed that we can use the
tax dollars. She described herself as a fisherwoman, and pointed
out that the Stick Marsh and Farm 13 are known world-wide without
Mr. Green's business. She suggested that he establish his business
in one of the many commercial locations available throughout the
county. Ms. Anderson urged the Board to deny this request because
it would not be fair to the established commercial areas.
Gerald Austin, owner of Stick Marsh Bait & Tackle in
Fellsmere, related his experience in the bait and tackle business.
His business was located on the Harris Chain until all the bass
died from a disease that caused them to sink. After that he moved
his business to Fellsmere and is able to service the bass fishermen
in that area.
Debra Lynch, 13855 122nd Street, Fellsmere, opposed the
proposed LDR amendment because it is not needed. Fishermen have
caught bass in that area for many years without a bait and tackle
shop at the dock, and the City of Fellsmere has commercial property
where Mr. Green can establish his business.
Barbara Crews, 14195 122nd Street, Fellsmere, opposed the
proposed LDR amendment because it would not enhance the rural,
agricultural nature of that area. She proposed that the commercial
node at I-95 and CR -512 is the appropriate place for Mr. Green's
business. She was happy to see the people of her community speak
up on this subject and -she urged the Board to deny the request.
Mike Hearndon, of Fellsmere, land owner in the general area
where Mr. Green proposes to establish his business, was opposed to
a bait and tackle shop in an agricultural district. He stated that
there is commercially zoned land readily available which is more
appropriate. Mr. Hearndon predicted that if a bait and tackle shop
were allowed because of the fishing, then a sporting goods store
and a water ski shop could be allowed also because there is hunting
and waterskiing in that area. He further commented that if a
24
disease or algae bloom in the marsh kills all the bass, Mr. Green's
business would fail. Currently there are two bait and tackle shops
in Fellsmere that serve the needs of the bass fishermen.
Attorney Dill commented that the opposition voiced by the
speakers was directed to the specific site, but the amendment would
allow this type of special exception use throughout the county. He
contended that the Board could not deny the request on the basis
that Mr. Green would compete with existing businesses. He argued
that the amendment would not approve Mr. Green's business but
merely present an opportunity for him to apply for the special
exception use. He urged the Board to support good clean business
in Indian River County.
The Vice Chairman determined that no one else wished to be
heard and thereupon closed the public hearing.
In response to the comment regarding free enterprise,
Commissioner Tippin stated that he would match his record with
anyone in this county and in this country. He related his
experiences growing up in Indian River County and fishing for bass
in the Stick Marsh and surrounding areas, and he remarked that bass
fishermen do not expect to buy their supplies at the dock. They
prepare and make advance plans for their food, beverages and
shiners. It is the nature of the sport. He saw no need for the
amendment to allow this special exception use in agricultural
districts.
Commissioner Eggert confirmed that the Board members have and
will continue to work hard to attract business to our county, but
it is equally important. to support existing business. She could
not support special exception use of commercial enterprises in
agricultural districts.
Commissioner Adams agreed that the bait and tackle business is
a clean industry and is an asset to the marsh, but a need for it to
be allowed in agricultural districts has not been demonstrated.
She believed there is sufficient commercial area in Fellsmere for
Mr. Green's business.
Commissioner Macht agreed.
Vice Chairman Tippin noted that the consensus of the Board is
to deny the request.
25
DEC 14 1993
BOOK 91 P,,G- 297
DEC
14 1993
BOOK 91
FA;F-2;J�
SECTION 4:
OPTION FOR REDUCING GOLF COURSE BUILDING SETBACK
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
SECTION 4: OPTION FOR REDUCING GOLF COURSE BUILDING SETBACK
The Moorings Club proposal to reduce golf course building setbacks
(see attachment #10) resulted from the club's investigation into
potential expansion of the existing Moorings Golf Course
maintenance"facilities . The existing Chapter 971 criteria which
apply to the Moorings Golf Course require a 100' setback between
major accessory use or principal buildings and structures and
abutting residentially designated properties. The existing 971
provisions also require a type "B" buffer to be provided between
such structures and abutting residentially designated property
located within 200' of the proposed golf maintenance structures.
The existing 100' setback requirement would not allow expansion of
the Moorings Golf Course maintenance facilities, since the facility
site is limited in area and abuts residentially designated property
(St. Edwards upper school). The Moorings Club believes that it is
reasonable to allow a reduction in the 100' setback where the
maintenance facilities will abut a non-residential use, such as St.
Edward's school, if a type "B" buffer is provided with a 6' Opaque
feature.
It is planning staff's opinion that the existing 100' setback
requirement and the existing type "B" buffer requirement are
intended to protect adjacent residential uses (both existing and
future). Staff agrees with the applicant that an adjacent non-
residential use, such as a school, should not require as great a
buffer as residential uses. It is staff's opinion that a 6' opaque
feature coupled with a type "B" buffer would provide sufficient
buffering between a golf maintenance facility and an adjacent non-
residential use. Furthermore, it is staff's opinion that the
special exception process for golf course facilities in residential
areas will guarantee notice and input for adjacent property owners
when an application is filed for a new maintenance facility or a
significant expansion of such a facility.
Section 1 -of the proposed amendments would allow a reduction of the
100' setback IF:
a. the use of the abutting residentially designated property is
non-residential (such as institutional, recreation, or
community service uses that _are allowed --in residential
districts), AND
b. a type "B" buffer with a 6' opaque feature is provided between
the proposed facility and the abutting residentially
designated property.
In staff's opinion, this alternate requirement provides adequate
buffering between new or expanded golf maintenance facilities and
adjacent non-residential uses.
Planning staff and the PSAC both recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment, as presented. On a 4-0
vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended adoption of
the proposed amendment.
26
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard on this section. There being none, he
closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Tippin declared that it is the consensus of the
Board to follow staff's recommendation with Section 4 of the
amendments to the LDRs.
Commissioner Adams suggested, and the Board members agreed to
address Section 10 out of order because there were interested
parties in the audience.
SECTION 10: LIMITED AND HEAVY UTILITIES USES IN SINGLE FAMILY
DISTRICTS
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
10. SECTION 10: LIMITED h HEAVY UTILITIES USES -IN SINGLE FAMILY
DISTRICTS
These amendments (Sections 10A, 10B, and 10C) would require special
exception use approval, rather than administrative permit use
approval, for limited utilities uses proposed to be located in the
RS -2, RS -3, and RS -6 single family zoning districts, and the RT -6
two-family zoning district. Currently, special exception use
approval is required for all limited utilities uses in the RFD, RS -
1, RM -3, RM -41 RM -6, RM -8, and RM -10 residential districts. The
result of the proposed change would be that limited utilities uses
would be special exception uses in all residential zoning
districts.
Also, the amendments would allow heavy utilities. -�-as special
exceptions in the RS -2 and RT -6 residential districts. `Currently,
heavy utilities are allowable special exception uses in the RFD,
RS -1, RS -3, RS -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, and RM -10 residential
districts. The result of the proposed change would be that heavy
utilities would be special exception uses in all residential zoning
districts.
Staff and -the PSAC both recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment. On a 4-0 vote, the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed
amendment.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard on this section.
27
ii L_ DEC 14 1993
BOOK 91
DEC 141993 BOOK 91 30
Chris Guano, read aloud portions of the statement from the
citizens affected by the Vero Beach High Voltage Power Line as
follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
II)
Section 10: Limited and Heavy Utilities uses in Single -Family
Zoning District
The original language regarding New Electric Transmission lines as
proposed by the county planning staff and recommended unnanimously
by the PSAC must be included in the (Land Development Regulations)
LDRs changes.
The Board of County Commissioners directed staff more than five
months ago to propose' these amendments. We believe it was not
appropriate for the power line item to be removed from the Planning
and Zoning Commissions' and the Board of.County Commissioners'
report. The Board of County Commissioners"dlected by the public
and is in charge of ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of the
county residents. Staff should not be able to eliminate the Board
from this decision process by arbitrary elimination of the proposed
amendment against direction by the Board.
Exemption as to the definition of what is considered to be a
development in Florida Statutes 163.3164 and 380.04 is for work by
any utility company on an established rights-of-way and does not
include utility power lines within residential neighborhoods (copy
attached).
Please direct staff to include the original proposed language
regarding new electric transmission lines (copy attached) for your
consideration at the final public hearing on January 5, 1994.
Mr. Gunno referred to the documents he distributed and pointed
out items which were deleted from the original LDR in the proposed
amendment. He asked why these items were deleted. He compared the
Commissioners to parents who are obliged to make every effort to
safeguard our safety and welfare.
Planning Director Stan Boling explained that staff was
directed to address some of the power line issues and staff
determined that the only way to do so within LDRs would be through
the site -plan approval process. That staff recommendation was
presented at a PSAC meeting. After that meeting and discussions
with attorneys from Florida Power and Light, staff determined that
regulation of power lines must be handled outside the context of
LDRs.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac wished the citizens would not
be so "anti -County Attorney." If they do not understand the
reasons for the Board's action, they should call the County office
and find out. After the Planning and Legal Departments studied the
28
_ M
I _I
problem of electrical transmission poles, a recommendation was made
to the Board and the Board explained at the Regular BCC meeting
earlier in the day what procedure would be followed. He realized
that the citizens are angry and that their anger is directed at
County staff, but he emphasized that the County is trying to help
in the only possible way.
Brenda Kramer returned to the microphone and led discussion
regarding the citizens' frustration and the problems caused by the
power transmission lines. She assured the Board that not all
citizens are angry at the Board, but they feel they have been left
out of the democratic process.
Attorney Vitunac advised that Jack Shreve is State Public
Counsel and is charged with representing people like Ms. Kramer.
He offered to give her the contact information and to invite her to
attend the meeting with that Counsel.
Vice Chairman Tippin expressed empathy for the trauma suffered
by the citizens. He reported that the Legislative Delegation
proposed a bill on public hearings which was endorsed by the
Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments. He also pointed out
that county commissions throughout the state are supporting this
bill.
Mr. Gunno appreciated the Board's efforts and noted that if
the Board issued a press release, the citizens would know what the
Board is doing.
The Vice Chairman determined that no one else wished to be
heard on this matter and thereupon closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she shared the citizens'
frustration. She confirmed that the Board is making efforts to
find ways to solve the problem. The motion of the Board at the
Regular Meeting earlier in the day was to allow the State to act on
the issue of public hearings, and if they do not act, the Board
will proceed with an ordinance.
The Vice Chairman noted that the consensus of the Board was to
follow staff's recommendation regarding section 10.
29
S
DEC41993 BOOK �1 Ur.,
3��
I
DEC D BOOK 91 FAGF 302
SECTION 5: GROUP HOMES IN MOBILE HOME DISTRICTS
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
5. SECTION 5: GROUP HOMES IN MOBILE HOME DISTRICTS
Recently, it has come to planning staff's attention that a group
home use (the Palm Gardens Children's Home) exists on property
zoned RMH-8 (Residential Mobile Home up to 8 units/acre). Although
most properties zoned RMH-6 and RMH-8 are mobile home parks, some
areas zoned RMH-8, such as the Palm Gardens Subdivision, may
contain institutional uses such as group homes. Although the RMH-6
and RMH-8 district regulations currently allow other institutional
uses such as child care facilities and foster homes, group homes
are not specifically listed as allowable uses in the RMH-6 and RMH-
8 districts_. In planning staff's opinion, group home uses should
be allowed ih-the RMH-6 and RMH-8 districts, and should be treated
the same as group home uses in the RM -6 and RM -8 multi -family
districts.
Section 5A and 5B of the proposed amendments would establish group
homes as allowable uses in the RMH-6 and RMH-8 districts, in the
same manner as the RM -6 and RM -8 districts allow group homes. All
existing group home specific land use criteria would apply (see
attachment #11).
Section 5C of the proposed amendments would correct a previous
oversight, where the Chapter 971 multi -family district use table
was not made to properly reflect the Chapter 911 allowances for
residential centers and ACLFs in the RM -31 RM -4, and RM -6 zoning
districts. The proposed amendment would make this correction.
Planning staff and the PSAC both recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment, as presented. On a 4-0
vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended adoption of
the proposed amendment.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he
closed the public hearing.
The Vice Chairman announced that the consensus of the Board
was to follow staff's recommendation.
30
_I
SECTION 6: CLARIFICATION OF LOT WIDTHS AND SETBACKS ON FLAG LOTS
AND LOTS ON CURVILINEAR STREETS AND CUL-DE-SACS
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
6. Section 6: CLARIFICATION OF LOT WIDTHS a SETBACKS ON FLAG
LOTS i LOTS ON CURVILINEAR STREETS AND CVL -DE -SACS
Current county LDRs do not specifically define "flag lots",
although "flag lots" are specifically referenced in the subdivision
chapter [913.09(6)(B)] and are allowed to be created (although
creation of such lots is discouraged). County policy has been to
deem lots fronting on curves or cul-de-sacs to be flag lots if a
side lot line is not straight or if a side lot line is not radial
to a street curve. As a result, some lots on curves and cul-de-
sacs have been treated as flag lots, for which minimum lot widths
have been calculated on an average lot width basis. Currently,
county MRS do not specifically address lot width and front yard
setback treatment for flag lots. Staff's LDR amendments proposed
in Section 6A, 6B, and 6C differentiate between flag lots and cul-
de-sac lots, and specify a more flexible approach to measuring lot
widths for lots on curves and cul-de-sacs. --__
The proposed amendments would do the following:
A. Define "flag lot".
B. Define "lot width" for three different types of lots, as
follows:
1. Conventional lots (general case): lot width is measured
at the front setback line.
2. Cul-de-sac/curve lots: lot width is the greatest
horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured
along a straight line running parallel to. -the chord of
the cul-de-sac or curve.
3. Flag lots: lot width is measured at the front yard
setback line (defined in C., below).
C. Define the front yard setback line for lots on curves and cul-
de-sacs as a line running parallel to the front property line,
measured from the front property line the distance of the
applicable front yard setback. Also, the proposed amendment
would define the front yard setback for flag lots as being
measured from the line where the flag lot "stem" meets the
major area of the flag lot (see attachment #12).
In staf f I i 'opinion,, these amendments are needed to specifically
address and clarify the treatment of flag lots, and lots on curves
and cul-de-sacs in regards to lot widths and front yard setbacks.
Planning staff and the PSAC both recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment, as presented. On a 4-0
vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended adoption of
the proposed amendment.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard on this section. There being none, he
closed the public hearing.
31
DEC 14 1993 BOOK 91 i�,�u 393
Ii
DEC
14
1993
BOOK
91 FAGE304
The Vice
Chairman announced that the consensus of the
Board
was to follow staff's recommendation.
SECTION 7: CLARIFICATION OF SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
ON SINGLE LOTS
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
7. SECTION 7: CLARIFICATION OF SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX
DEVELOPMENT ON SINGLE LOTS
In multi -family zoning districts, current county LDRs allow both
single family and multi -family residences on individual lots,
subject to certain dimensional requirements. These dimensional
requirements include: maximum density, minimum lot size, minimum
yard width, and minimum setbacks. Within the multi -family
districts, current LDRs establish different lot size and lot width
standards for multi -family lots vs. single family lots. In staff's
opinion, the different lot size requirement is reasonable since it
helps to ensure conformance with zoning density. requirements.
However, the greater minimum lot width requirements for multi-
family lots (e.g. 70' for single family vs. 100' for multi -family)
are not necessary since lot size, density, and site plan review
requirements are already applied to multi -family lots. Therefore,
the greater lot width requirements for multi -family lots are not
needed and should be eliminated to allow greater flexibility for
property owners and developers.
Sections_ 7A, 7B, and 7C of the proposed amendments would do the
following:
A. Replace the word "family" with the word "unit" in a
nonconformities chapter regulation dealing with single-family
and multi -family development on non -conforming parcels of
record. -
B. Delete requirement for increased lot width for RT -6 zoned lots
upon which multi -family development occurs or is proposed.
C. Delete requirement for increased lot width for RM -3, RM -41 RM -
6, RM -B, and RM -10 zoned lots upon which multi -family
development occurs or is proposed.
Planning staff and the PSAC both recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the .proposed amendment, as presented. No
motion by the Planning and Zoning Commission carried 4 or more
votes; therefore, no official recommendation was made. However,
the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-1 to recommgnd adoption
of the proposed amendment.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard on this section. There being none, he
closed the public hearing.
The Vice Chairman announced that the consensus of the Board
was to follow staff's recommendation.
32
SECTION 8: CONSTRUCTION OF WALLS AND FENCES IN EASEMENTS
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
S. SECTION 8: CONSTRUCTION OF WALLS AND FENCES IN EASENENTS
Current county LDRs [section 917.06(12)(A)] prohibit construction
of walls and fences in public easements, except in agricultural
districts where the easement holder (public authority) consents to
such construction. However, in addition to the "agricultural
exemption", the county has a long-standing practice of approving
covenants for removal of structures in easements, whereby
construction in easements is approved with conditions. Thus,
section 917.06(12)(A) needs to be modified to reference the
covenant for removal of structure exception, which is already being
applied. Proposed amendment section S. would make such a
modification.
Planning staff and the PSAC both recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment, as presented. On a 4-0
vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended adoption of
the proposed amendment.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard on this section. There being none, he
closed the public hearing.
The Vice Chairman announced that the consensus of the Board
was to follow staff's recommendation.
SECTION 9: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
9. SECTION 9: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
Staff is proposing changes to LDR Chapter 932, relating to sea
turtle protection and dune crossover regulations. These changes are
proposed to make County regulations more consistent with State
guidelines and rules pertaining to these topics.
Dune crossover regulations (section 9A): the State has no defined
height maximum for dune crossover walkways. The proposed Chapter
932.LDR revision relating to dune crossover design deletes a 30
inch average height limit presently in the County Code for such
walkways. This revision allows more flexibility in walkway design
to serve the objective of dune. vegetation protection, and is
consistent with State guidelines and regulations.
33
DEC
BOOK 91 fAGE305
r DEC A 4 1993
ti
BOOK 91 PACE 306
Sea turtle protection lighting regulations (section 98 and 9C):
proposed revisions to Chapter 932 would extend the official sea
turtle nesting season so that it starts annually on March lot
(instead of May 1st) as it applies to coastal lighting regulations.
The State DEP Division of Beaches and Shores now recognizes the
nesting season in Indian River County (and other southeast Florida
counties) as beginning in March, based on the nesting cycle of the
federally endangered leatherback sea turtle.
Planning -staff and the PSAC both recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment, as presented. On a 4-0
vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended adoption of
the proposed amendment.
The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard on this section. There being none, he
closed the public hearing.
The Vice Chairman announced that the consensus of the Board
was to follow staff's recommendation.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
ATTEST:
J. kA3arton, Clerk John W. Ti:ipin, ce Chairman
L ,
34