HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/24/1994MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Minutes are unaooroved Minutes
AGENDA of BCC Meeting of May 24, 1994.
After approval by the BCC they
will become the official record.
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1994
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John W. Tippin, Chairman (Dist. 4) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman (Dist. 3)
Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5)
Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
- 7L - . Appointment of Jerry Tillman to MANWAC
11-E-1 Budget Amend. 017, Substance Abuse Council
Annual Audit
11-E-2 FY 1994/95 Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Funding
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
Adoption and Presentation of Proclamation Designating
June 6-12, 1994 as Code Enforcement Officers' Appre-
ciation Week in Indian River County
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of April 26, 1994
B. Regular Meeting of May 3, 1994
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received 6 Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board: Fellsmere Water Control District
Map 8 Annual Budget for FY 1994-95
B. Proclamation Designating June 6, 1994 as D -Day
Golden Anniversary Remembrance in Indian River
County, Florida
C. Proclamation Designating June 5-11, 1994 as
"Safe Boating Week" in Indian River County, FL
D. Approval of Out -of -Town Travel for Comm. Macht
and any Commissioner Desiring to Attend FACo
Meeting, July 1994, and/or to Serve Qn One of
the Policy Development Committees
( letter dated May 10, 1994 )
1,w
Ll
MAY 241994
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
E. Misc. Budget Amendment 016
( memorandum dated May 18, 1994 )
F. Release of Utility Liens-
( memorandum dated May 12, 1994 )
G. Release of Utility Lien & Re -Lien on Another
Parcel
( memorandum dated May 17, 1994 )
H. Request for Public Hearing Date Re: Ordinance
Amending Chapter 305, Courts, to Include a New
Part IV D.U.I. Impoundment S Immobilization
Trust Fund
( memorandum dated May 18, 1994 )
1. I.R.C. Courthouse Project, C.O. No. 9
( memorandum dated May 16, 1994) _
J. Award Bid #4072 / Vero Shores Lift Station
( memorandum dated May 4, 1994 )
K. Fla. East Coast Railway Co., (FEC) License
Agreements
( memorandum dated May 11, 1994 )
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Judge Vocelle - Discussion of Courthouse Matters
( letter dated May 2, 1994)
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Requests by Pelican Island Preservation- Society,
Inc., Pelican Island Audubon Society," Inc., and
Friends of St. Sebastian River for Board to Pass
Resolution Endorsing Acquisition of Kennedy Tract
on Barrier Islands
( memorandum dated May 18, 1994 )
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Sanctuary Park, Inc. Request to Rezone
Approx. 7.36 Acres from MED to OCR
( memorandum dated May 10, 1994 )
2. Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact
(D. R. I .) Substantial Deviation Request to
Add 200 Boatslips to the G.H. Marina and
Add 4.94 Acre Parcel to the Overall D.R.I.
Project Area
( memorandum dated May 16, 1994 )
3. Harbor Town Center Mall DRI Notice of Pro-
posed Change to Modify Certain Development
Order Traffic Conditions
( memorandum dated May 17, 1994 )
9:05 a. m. 9.
10.
11.
PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd):
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd):
4. Public Hearing for the Paving & Drainage
Improvements to 1st PI. between 27th Ave.
E 32nd Ave. in Vero Beach Homesites
( memorandum dated May 11, 1994 )
5. Public Hearing for the Paving 6 Drainage
Improvements to 63rd Ave. between 4th St.
8 8th St. in Pine Tree Park S/D
( memorandum dated May 11, 1994 )
6. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE III OF THE
CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY ADDING SECTION 303.28 RELATING
TO ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE
ROUTES; PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC
MEETINGS ON SAID ROUTES
7. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AMENDING CHAPTER 400 OF THE INDIAN
- RIVER COUNTY CODE WITH RESPECT TO
CATEGORIES OF SKILLS REQUIRING A
COMPETENCY CARD, ESTABLISHING A
PREREQUISITE FOR ACTIONS AGAINST
A REGISTERED CONTRACTOR, AND
CREATING A PRESUMPTION FOR WORKING
FOR COMPENSATION
8. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AMENDING SECTIONS 307.04 AND 307.06
OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE TO
PLACE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON
COUNTY PARKING FACILITIES
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1.. Request for Authorization to Submit an
Application for Section 9 Grant Funds
(memorandum dated May 16, 1994)
2. Bruce Barkett's Appeal of a Planning E
Zoning Commission's Decision on an
Interpretation of the Subdivision Ordinance
Road R -O -W Frontage Requirement
( memorandum dated May 18, 1994 )
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
MAY 24 1994
I
MAY 241994
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
Facilities Liability Insurance
( backup provided separately)
G. PUBLIC WORKS
IRC Bid No. 40-64, CR512 Corridor Improvements;
CR510 and CR512 Intersection Improvements Bid
Award
( memorandum dated May 18, 1994) -
H. UTILITIES
1. Central Region Effluent Disposal Project
Change Order No. 2 and Final Pay Request
( memorandum dated May 2, 1994 )
2. Sewer Service to SR 60 and 90th Ave.,
Resolutions I and II
( memorandum dated May 11, 1994 )
3. Developer's Agreement Between I.R.C. and
Water's Edge
(memorandum dated May 11, 1994)
4. Water Expansion Plan, Ph. 3, Contract I,
Change Order #1 and Final Pay Request
( memorandum dated May 13, 1994 )
5. Vero Beach Highlands, Water Expansion
Services, Proposed Survey
( memorandum dated May 16, 1994) _
6. North County Water Treatment Plant, Ph. 11
( memorandum dated May 9, 1994 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
B. VICE CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MRCHT
Discussion Re: Commissioner/ Chairman of
Advisory Committees Non -Voting Role
( memorandum dated May 16, 1994 )
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
D. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
E. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Extension of Contract - Environmetrics,
Inc.
( memorandum dated May 17, 1994 )
2. City of V . B . , Interlocal Agreement for
Recycling
( memorandum dated May 9, 1994 )
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
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.
MAY 2 41994
r
Tuesday, May 24, 1994
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, May 24, 1994, at
9:00 a.m. Present -were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht,
Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Richard N. Bird; and Carolyn K.
Eggert. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator;
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy
Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney Vitunac
led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Bird requested the addition as Item L on the
Consent Agenda of the appointment of Jerry Tillman to MANWAC.
Chairman Tippin requested the following additions:
Budget Amendment 017, Substance Abuse Council
Annual Audit (11-E-1)
FY -1994/95 Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Funding (11-E-2)
PROCLAMATION - CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' APPRECIATION WEEK IN IRC
The Chairman read aloud the following proclamation and
presented it to Code Enforcement officers Betty Davis, Charles
Hgath, and C. G. (Blue) Bowling.
r
BOOK PAr,E 446
MAY 241994
MAY .241994
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING JUNE -6-12, 1994
AS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS'
APPRECIATION WEEK IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOOK 92 f -AGF 47
WHEREAS, Code Enforcement Officers provide for the safety,
health and welfare of the citizens in the community through the
enforcement of building, zoning, housing, animal control, fire
safety, environmental, and other codes and ordinances; and
WHEREAS, Code Enforcement Officers are not often recognized
for the jobs that they do in saving lives and improving
neighborhoods, as are emergency personnel such as police, fire,
and emergency medical services; and
WHEREAS, everyday, assisted by support and program staff,
they attempt to provide quality customer service to the public
for the betterment of the community; and
WHEREAS, too many
to achieve corrective
compliance has been
expertise; and
times, their success stories and ability
action go unnoticed, even though code
accomplished due to their efforts and
WHEREAS, Code Enforcement Officers are dedicated, well
trained, and highly responsible individuals who take their jobs
seriously and are proud of their department and the local
government within which they serve:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
June 6 - 12, 1994 be designated as
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' APPRECIATION WEEK
in Indian River County. The Board further encourages all
citizens of our county to join them in expressing appreciation
for the dedication and outstanding service provided by the
individuals who serve as our Code Enforcement Officers.
Adopted this 24 day of May, 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y, FLORIDA
f. John W. TippinV'hairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of April 26, 1994 or May 3,
1994. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meetings
of 4/26/94 and 5/3/94, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Tippin requested that Item H be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of the Clerk to the Board:
Fellsmere Water Control District Map & Annual
Budget for FY 1994-95
B. Proclamation - June 6, 1994 as D -Day Golden Anniversary
Remembrance
f
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING JUNE 6, 1994 AS
D-DAY GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY REMEMBRANCE
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, Tuesday, June 6, 1944 signaled the commencement of
"Operation Overlord" - a daring military invasion involving over
200,000 Allied soldiers and sailors and which initiated the
liberation of what was then termed "Fortress Europe" by Adolph
Hitler; and
.WHEREAS, that military incursion landed approximately
130,000 American and Allied troops onto various beaches in the
vicinity of Normandy, France under the command of General Dwight
D. Eisenhower;,jand
WHMUMS,•an additional 23,000 American and British airborne
troops were also parachuted or taken by glider into enemy
territory to secure certain tactically significant inland areas;
and
WHEREAS, the landings and their accompanying military
operations, collectively known as D-day, involved almost 5,000
ships and over 11,000 sorties by Allied aircraft and comprised
the largest, most complex military operation to date; and
WHEREAS, the landings were bitterly opposed by a fanatical
enemy who was overcome only by countless feats of incredible
leadership and bravery; and
WHEREAS, America's fighting forces suffered horrendous
losses on this date, including 1,465 killed -in -action, 3,184
wounded, 1,928 missing -in -action and 26 captured; and
WHEREAS, the D-day assault stands as one of the most
significant and critical events df World War II, since its
tactical success ultimately led to the Allied victory in Europe,
which led to the eventual formation of enduring alliances; and
WHEREAS, Florida is home to the second-largest, most highly
concentrated population of World War II veterans:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that June 6, 1994
be designated as
D-DAY GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY REMEMBRANCE
in. Indian River County, commemorating the 50th Anniversary of
D-day. The Board urges all residents to join in remembering the
valor of those who served in the D-day assault forces with
appropriate ceremonies and observances.
Adopted this 24th day of May, 1994.
MAY 24 1994
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSYONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
an W. Tipp airman
3
B®®yy pl�pa J(�(
ooK 920 PA,UF 44
�1AY 2 41994
BOOK 92 ucu, F 449
C. Proclamation - June 5-11, 1994 as "Safe Boatincc Week"
P R O C L A M A T I O N
DESIGNATING JUNE 5 - 11, 1994
AS "SAFE BOATING WEER" IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHER$AS, water -related recreational activities are vital
.elements in the lives of Florida's citizens; and
WHEREAS, the state's 8,426 miles of saltwater tidal
coastline, over 3 million acres of, inland lakes and 1,700 miles
.of rivers and streams provide for..many of the needed outlets for
,.recreation and relaxation; and
WHEREAS, recreational boating is one of Florida's leading
outdoor activities with more than 4 million residents
participating in -this pastime; and
ting
state in the,nationFlorida
with overfastest
715,000gregistered vessels; and
WHEREAS, every year lives are lost in boating accidents due
to alcohol in spite of the educational efforts of the U.S. Coast
Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, the U.S. Power Squadrons,
the Florida':Marine'•Patrol, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission and local agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Marine Patrol, the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Coast
Guard Auxiliary, the U.S. Power Squadrons and other cooperating
agencies and groups have developed and are now executing
campaigns in this field; and
WHEREAS, the sponsors of these safety programs have
addressed their efforts to the youth and general public of
Florida, urging them to enhance boating pleasure and avoid
possible loss of life and property damage:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
CONMIISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
June 5 - 11, 1994 be designated as
SAFE BOATING WEER
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens to join
in learning and•practicing safe boating through boating education
courses and in operating their vessel responsibly by not drinking
and driving.
Adopted this 24th day of May, 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4 (--' - 4faa 41.14 1�!,
John W. Tipprr
4
D. Approval Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
authorized out -of -county travel for
Commissioner Macht to attend FACo Annual
Conference in Ft. Lauderdale on July 1, and
authorized his serving on one of the policy
development committees.
E. Misc. Budget Amendment 016
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/94:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 18, 1994
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 016 - CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. The State of Florida, Department of Labor, has charged Indian
River County for Unemployment Compensation payments to former
employees. A budget amendment is required to reflect these
payments.
As requested by the Board of County Commissioners, Jack Price,
Personnel Director, has prepared a case history on the new
unemployment claims for the period ending March 31, 1994.
2. This is to authorize the transfer of funds for the purchase of a
personal computer and printer for the Budget office to replace an
obsolete system.
3. Replace roofs and repair electrical problems at Wabasso and Gifford
Park pavillions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment 016.
MAY
2 4 1994 5 nu U? pmu 450
MAY 2 4 1"994
pm 2 F•rl1,)I.451
ON MOTION by Commissioner. Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved Budget Amendment 016, as recommended
by staff.
TO: Membges of the Board
00 County commisdonets
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Dii+eaor
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 016
DATE: Mn 18, 1994
Bony
Number
Pnmds/Departmem/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
L
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Clerk of Court
Unemployment Compensation
001-309-513-012.15
$2,294
$0
GENERAL. 'FUND/Supervisor of Elections
Unemployment Compensation
001700-519-012.15
$8
$0
GENERAL FUND/
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$2,302
EXPENSE
TRANSPORTATION FUND/Road & Bridge
Unemployment Compensation
111-214-541-012.15
$1,012
$0
TRANSPORTATION FUND/Cty. Engineer.
Unemployment Compenaation
111-244-541-012.15
$0
$627
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Reserve for Contingency
111-199-581-099.91
$0
$1,639
EMERGENCY SERVICES/Fire District
Unemployment Compensation
114-120-522-012.15
$6,500
$0
EMERGENCY SERVICES/ALS
Unemployment Compensation
114-253-526-012.15
$132
$0
EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
Cash Forward
114-000-389-040.00
$0
$6,632
EXPENSE
S.W.D.I141tecycling
Unemployment Compensation
411255-534-012.15
$2,226
$0
S.W.D.D./Landfill
Cash Forward - September 30
411217-534-099.92
$0
$2,226
EXPENSE
GOLF COURSF/Opetations
Unemployment Compensation
418-221-572-012.15
$2,189
$0
bOL F COURSF Clubhouse
Unemployment Compensation
418-236-572-012.15
$398
$0
GOLF COURSE/
Cash Ford
418-236-572-099.92
$0
$2,587
EXPENSE
UTILITIES/Water
Unemployment Compensation
471-219-536-012.15
$1,443
$0
UTII:MES/Water
Cash Forward
471-219-536-099.92
$0
$1,443
2.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Budget
Office Furniture and Equipment
001-229-513-066.41
$4,300
$0
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$4,300
3.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Pork
Maintenance Sauer Exc. Bldgs
001-210-572-034.66
$30,000
$0
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$30,000
F. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/12/94:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Royal Poinciana Project
FROM: Sandy Wright, County Attorney's Office
DATE: May 12, 1994
5.
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
The attached lien releases are in proper
form for the Board of
County Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so that they
can be recorded. The names and projects are:
1. Satisfaction of Impact Fees
HIGH
KELLY
7.
2. Phase I Water Project
MELITI
SIMONS
3. Phase II Water Project
ANDERSON (2)
HIGH
BARRY
HINGA
BENT PINE GOLF CLUB INC.
HUFFMAN
CATTAFI
IRWIN
CIRCLE N RANCH INC.
ISINGS
DAMARSHALL
KABASAN
DESANTO (3)
KRATT
EVANS
LEAGAN
FUSCO
MCBEE (2)
GENOVESE
MUTCH
GILMOUR
ROLLINS
HARDIE
ROSS
ZANDER
4.
Royal Poinciana Project
GRANATA
5.
Anata Park
BYRD
COOPER
6.
Rockridge Sewer
WILKINS
7.
Wood Hollow Water Assessment
TERLIZZESE
MAY 2,41994. ' Rou 92 P� ,F 4�� _
MAY 2 4.1994 MR.. 92 P4'453
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the release of utility liens as
listed above.
RELEASES OF LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
G. Release of Utility Lien & Re -Lien on Another Parcel
The Board -reviewed the following memo dated 5/17/94:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Lea R..Reller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: May 17, 1994
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIEN AND RE -LIEN ON ANOTHER PARCEL
When the
County completed its
public hearing on the Phase II Water
Main
Extension
Growth Plan there
were two properties included on
our
assessment roll which were on
the Property Appraiser's records in
the
names of
the incorrect owners,
and when one of the property owners
paid
off his
assessment the lot that was shown as his on the roll
was
released.
Since that time the owners have exchanged deeds and 'recorded the new
ones. Therefore, the Utility Services Department has requested our
office to re -lien the lot that was released and to release the lot that
was previously paid (but shown in the incorrect name).
Requested Action: Board approve the attached release and lien and
authorize the Chairman to execute both documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the release of utility lien and re-
-lien as listed above.
RELEASES OF LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
8
H. Rectuest for Public Bearing Date - Ordinance Amending Chapter
305, Courts
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/94:
TO: Board of County Commissioners /�j
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County AttorneC�
DATE: May 18, 1994
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENTITLED:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3059 COURTS,
TO INCLUDE A NEW PART IV D.U.I.
IMPOUNDMENT AND IMMOBILIZATION TRUST FUND.
The attached ordinance has been prepared amending Chapter 305 to
include a new D. U. I. Impoundment and Immobilization Trust Fund.
A public hearing date of June 21, 1994 is suggested.
Administrator Chandler noted that the suggested date of June
21 is in error. It should read June 28, 1994.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
scheduled a public hearing for 6/28/94, to
adopt ordinance amending Chapter 305, Courts,
to include a new Part IV D.U.I. Impoundment &
Immobilization Trust Fund.
MAY 2 41994 9
boaK. 0-o�F X54
MAY 2 4119-94 .RooK 9Z F�q1Jc 455
I. IRC Courthouse Proiect, Change Order No. 9
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/94:
DATE: MAY 16, 1994
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 9
BACKGROUND:
This Change Order was generated to allow for a deduction to the
contracted price with James A. Cummings, Inc. It covers an amount of
direct purchases for materials and equipment made by the County, in
an effort to take advantage of not being required to pay sales tax on
these items.
XXTR T VQTQ .
A total of $156,080.75 was paid to vendors for the materials and
equipment. This equates to a savings of $9,533.85 to the County.
The new contracted price for the project is now reduced to
$10,101,147.04.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Board approval of this Change Order as presented,
and requests authorization for the Chairman to execute the applicable
documents. -
ON -
MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order No. 9 with James A.
Cummings, Inc., as set out in staff's
recommendation.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 9 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
10
J. Award Bid #4072 / Vero Shores Lift Station
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/4/94:
DATE: May 4, 1994
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T.-"Sonny" Dean, Director
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #4072/Vero Shores Lift Statio
#--::)
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: April 20, 1994
Advertising Dates: April 6 13 1994
Specifications Mailed to: Twenty -Four �
our(24) Vendors
Replies: Six (6 Vendors
VENDOR
Timothy Rose Contracting
Vero Beach, FL
JoBear, Inc
Palm Bay, FL
TLC Diversified
West Palm Beach, FL
G.E. French
Okeechobee, FL
BID TOTAL CORRECTED TOTAL
$ 76,800.00 $ 76,540.00
$ 80,035.00
$ 97,681.00
$ 97,030.00
Treasure Coast Contracting $ 96,961.30
Vero Beach, FL
Multi State $131,067.00
Mineola, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $ 76,540.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS Utilities General
ESTIMATED BUDGET
CONIl�(ENDATION
$102,430.00
$ 85,292.00
$ 95,030.00
$ 95,111.30
$119,067.00
Impact Fees
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Timothy Rose
Contracting as the lowest, most responsive and responsible
bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the
Invitation to Bid.
In addition, staff requests Board -approval of the attached
Agreement as to form, when all requirements are met and
approved by the County Attorney:
92+ Pour 456 �GOK 2 4194
MAY 214 1994
BOOK 0 2 PAG- 45 7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
awarded Bid #4072 to Timothy Rose Contracting
in the amount of $76,540 for construction of
the Vero Shores Lift Station, as recommended
by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
R. Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) License Agreements
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/11/94:
DATE:
MAY 11, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI S CES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. CAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PR ENGINEER
BY: DE PAR O ILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (FEC)
LICENSE AGREEMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On August 17, 1993, Indian River County purchased General
Development Utilities, Inc., in the South County area. As part of
this purchase, the County acquired two utility crossings in the FEC
right-of-way which involved a 12 -inch DIP water main and a 10 -inch
DIP sewer force -main. The lease agreements with the Florida East
Coast Railway Company must now be transferred from General
Development Utilities, Inc., to Indian River County. (See attached
lease agreements with the Florida East Coast Railway Company.) The
cost of these crossings is $50.00 each per year.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of.County Commissioners approve the Florida East Coast Railway
Company lease agreements and fees, as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved the FEC lease agreements and fees
as set out in staff's recommendation.
AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
12
L. Appointment of Jerry Tillman to MANWAC
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
Appointed Jerry Tillman to MANWAC as
representative from Fellsmere Water Control
District, replacing Oren Deacon.
DISCUSSION OF JUDICIAL BUDGET MATTERS
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 2/24/94:
February 24, 1994
Mr. John Tippin
Chairman , Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394
Dear Chairman Tippin:
I request a workshop meeting with the Board of Commissioners, Judges
and those who have an interest in matters pertaining to the Judiciary
to consider:
1. Overall court house budget, including security for new
courthouse.
2. Projective use of present courthouse and annex when moved to
new facilities.
3. The acquisition of adjacent properties to new courthouse for
future judicial complex.
4. Other matters of mutual interest.
Your earliest consideration to this request is appreciated. Early
morning meetings (7:00 am) are more convenient to the Judge's schedule.
L.B. Vocelle
Chief Judge
L B. Vocelle, Chief Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
introduced Tom Willis, Court Administrator, prior to reviewing the
following budget request for 1994-95:
13
MAY 24-1994 RooK 92 ucF 458
MAY 2.4 1994
Rou 92 F u, 459
State of Stariba
L a. VOCELLE{ne t..41. J iCiul Wrft P. O. BOX 486
CHIEF JUDGE "tet VERO BEACH. FL 32961
April 18, 1994 PHONE: (407) 770.9090
(407) 466.1460
Honorable John W. Tippin, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian *River County
1840 25th. Street
Vero Beach, FL. 34961
REI • COURT ADMINISTRATION BUDGET FOR 1994 - 1995
• Dear commissioners:
Pursuant to the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT the following is the
Court Administration Budget request for fiscal year 1994.- 1995:
DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY I SALARY
FICA
FICA (MANDATORY MEDICAL)
RETIREMENT
GROUP INSURANCE
LIFE INSURANCE
SALARY & BENEFITS TOTALI
93-94 BUDGET
94-95 BUDGET
ACTUAL BUDGET
BUDGET REQUEST
$48,790.00
$50,742.00
$ 3,024.00
$ 3,146.00
$ 707.00
$ 736.00
$ 8,660.00
$ 9,007.00
$13,200.00
$13,200.00 '
S 250.00
S 250.00
$74,621.00 $77,081.00
TRAVEL $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
COMMUNICATIONS $ 3,500.00 $'3,500.00
EQUIPMENT $ 1,020.00 $ 1,020.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES $ 186.00 $ 186.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 5,860.00 $ 5,860.00
BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS 1-----140.00 S 140.00
OPERATING EXPENSES $12,706.00 $12,706.00
As you are aware, the committee voted to provide the County
funded Deputy Court Administrator and the County funded
Administrative Secretary I with the same pay raises as other State
Employees. At the time of the preparation of this budget, the
Legislative had tentatively approved a four (4) percent increase in
State salaries. Thus increases in the salary and benefits
secti8ns.
Using the 1990 Census to arrive at the allocations of
contributions for fiscal year 1994 - 1994, the following would be
each Counties contribution:
COIINTY "OPVLATION CONTRIBUTION
INDIAN RIVER 24.30% $21,818.77
MARTIN 27.20$
$24,422.61
OKEECHOBEE 8.00% $ 7,183.12
SAINT LUCIE 40.50% X$36,364.55
TOTALS 589.789.00
Court Administrator Tom Willis and I will be happy to answer
any questions concerning this budget.
Sincerely,
L.B. Vocelle
Chief Judge
14
Judge Vocelle next reviewed the following letter requesting
supplemental monies for mediation services and video telephones:
L. B. VOCELLE
CHIEF JUDGE
£+tttte of �luri�tt
Nineteeto -Jubictal Ttrcu t
April 18, 1994
Honorable John W. Tippin, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th. Street
Vero Beach, FL. 34961
P. O. BOX 488
VERO BEACH. FL 32961
PHONE: (407) 770-5050
(407) 468-1460
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUESTS FOR COURT ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE
Dear Commissioners:
As Chief Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit I am
responsible for the efficient and proper administration of all
Courts within this Circuit. Over the past ten (10) months I have
studied the operations within our Circuit and I strongly believe is
necessary to request additional County funded manpower to insure
the prompt disposition of cases within the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit.
Due to the Supreme Court Mandate that one judge handle all
family matters, our family division judges are handling enormous
caseloads consisting of Dissolutions, Child Support cases, Domestic
Violence cases and Juvenile Dependency and Delinquency cases. Of
the almost 11,000 cases handled in 1993 by this division, about
twenty percent (20%) were Child Support. Judges are unable to
calendar enough time to handle this extremely important category
thus there is a large demand by HRS for additional hearing time.
These hearings are vital because the welfare of children is at
stake in the outcome. I have met with HRS Officials and a solution
to this problem is at hand. HRS is willing to pay sixty six
percent (66%) of the annual salary and expenses of both a Hearing
Officer and a Legal Secretary in order to insure prompt hearings on
Child Support. The Counties share would be thirty four percent
(34%). As with the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, each County, would be
responsible for a share of the thirty four percent (34%) based on
population.. The Counties would enter into a contract with HRS.
The chart below is a list of expenses and a breakdown of HRS
and the Counties share:
15 _
MAY 2 4 1994 ` Boa 92 F,acc 400
mm 2 199
TOTAL:
$40,000.00
$16,800.00
$10,082.00
$13,200.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 600.00
$ 3,500.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 4,-000.00
$ 300.00
$92,982.00
HEARING OFFICER EXPENSES
Hearing Officer
Legal Secretary
Retirement
Health Insurance
Travel
Office Supplies
Communications
Postage
Equipment Rental
Printing
ROOK 92 F.nu 461
(Attorney) Salary
Salary
HRS SHARE = $92,982.00 x 66% = $61,368.12
COUNTIES SHARE = $92,982.00 X 34% = $311,613.88
SHARE BY POPULATION
& Leases
Indian River 24.30% - $ 7,682.17
Martin 27.20% - $ 81598.98
Okeechobee 8.00% - $ 21529.11
St. Lucie 40.50% - $12,803.62
As a Judge working within the Family Division, I have
discovered that mediation is an extremely valuable tool for
disposing of cases. Unfortunately a large number of case involve
indigent parties who cannot pay for Mediation. I would like to
hire a Mediator to provide Mediation services to these parties
Circuit wide. The stood news is that _money is already available at
no cost to either the Counties or the taxpayers. Each County has
already established Mediation Trust Funds for Circuit Civil,
Circuit Family and County Civil cases.
What I am proposing is to "pool" the money and have a Circuit
wide Mediator for Circuit Civil and Family cases and an
Administrative Assistant to recruit, train and supervise a
Mediation Program for Small Claims Court using volunteers.
Currently Circuit -wide the Circuit funds have accumulated
$81,000.00 and are collecting a Circuit total of about $58,000.00
yearly. The County Mediator funds total $79,000.00 and are being
collected at the rate of $39,000.00 a year. I am.requesting that
each County Commission amend their Ordinances allowing the Circuit
Funds to be pooled into a single fund in Saint Lucie County and•the
same for the County Civil fund. At this point it has not been
decided whether to contract with a Mediator for a set number of
cases or to hire a full time employee. The Administrative
Assistant would be full time.
Last, but not least, I would like for each Court to spend
$1,000.00 to purchase video telephones. HRS has agreed to purchase
a video phone for the Detention Center and if each County purchased
a video phone for use in one Courtroom, detention hearings could be
held without having to transport the juveniles all over the
Circuit. This will save numerous hours of transportation plus
costs and will eliminate the possibility of traffic accident suits
or escapes.
16
� � r
As Chief Judge I realize that each County is faced with
meeting the demands that a growing population put on County Budgets
and would not be requesting these items if I didn't feel they were
absolutely necessary for the efficient operations of the Court
System. I would like to point out to you that the use of
electronic recording over Court Reporters is saving the Counties
approximately $500,000.00 a year and in addition the Courts
Guardian Ad Litem Program provides volunteer Guardians instead of
County paid private Attorneys to represent abused children. This
program alone saved approximately $1,500,000.00 dollars in 1992.
In 1993 three hundred and fifty six (356) cases were assigned. The
average number of hours a volunteer spends is eighty (80) hours per
case. The appointment of an Attorney at a minimum fee of $50.00 an
hour would have cost $1,424,000.00. The proposed Court
Program.
It is my intention to appear before both the Court
Administration Budget committee and each County Commission in order
to emphasize the necessity of the Counties funding these budget
requests. I also wish to discuss"the need to have the Chief Judge
consulted whenever Court Facilities Funds are to be spent. At the
present time the Court has no input over use of this money yet the
fund is financed through a filing fee.
Sincerely,
L.B. Vocelle
Chief Judge
Judge Charles Smith explained the family mediation procedures
stressing the savings derived from using volunteer mediators.
Judge Vocelle presented the Court Facilities Fund balance as
of 1/1/93:
17
MAY 2 4 ,199,E �oor 92 482
MAY 241994
MM x Brune CovM
COMM FAC1I3?!1$811'M
FUND BALANCE AS OF VIM
REVENUES:
Coact Faeilfda Feet
Inmrad - Invommemta
BOOK 92 pncr.63
1ucmff VM`
4l1i94
.5.
6S.38S.30
.91233
76.297.85
EXFENDIZ'SJR139:
DSSCR�TTON:
Clerk of Chodt Court
Office Fumbre and Egnipmot
02/93
I.M.F. Com
AC100 Auto AtW Cam and Computer Cacti
03M
K=qw Busin w Machiraa
2 Carron typewr W ft FamUy Relatiow
0SW
Ind] Rim Blue Prat
Maylins fle3Bks (2 naw and 2 used)
11193
RapNot t Iac.
Tame Cloak for Recording D
Snbbaral omm FUM A Equip.
BDP Ew*=W
03193
SBM Corp DP6
3 Lass trim+
03194
Maachatr Equipment Campagy
HP La*ct Prb r (CasMdem Dap!)
M&
Manchu E4uipmM Company
Legal eine paper' tray for abovc Pfkft
Subtotal EDP Egent
China C Nd
OfilwFumburewdEqutmwat
tt1193 Nadia Sba>rk
0319'3 Savor Corporation
SWADW Offmc Fvm & Egnip.
Coum1+ Croat
O>$oo Ft WMM =0 Equipment
0"3 Savin Corparotton
03194 Xerox Cion
S*Mtd office Fuca. & Equip.
Tvtnl D"Mlhum
Net Ravcsm (Expeoditurn)
Fund Halaa+oe as 0f 411194
Tandy Pcr=W Compdr Syseam,
Fax. Pnow and htwW Modem
Copier
Fax fflachko
5,571.00
1,4b8 S4
2,07.5.00
869.00
9,433.54
11,071.20
4,471.02
100.96
16,143.18
2,225.!1
6,334A
8,77921
6.S34.00
1495.00
8,044.00
42.905.33
33
193.34422
TSE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE HAS BEEN EARMARKED FOR FURNITURE AND EQLTEPPAENT
FOR TME NEW COURTHOUSE PROJECT.
Judge Vocelle emphasized his concern that monies from the
Court Facilities Fund are being spent by the BCC before seeking
advice from him or his Administrative Assistant. The Court has no
input over the use of this money, yet the fund is financed through
a filing fee. He urged the Board to amend the ordinance to assure
the input of the Court.
Commissioner Macht felt that all Judge Vocelle wants is -to be
consulted, and OMB Director Joe Baird believed the solution would
be to sit down together prior to budget time and discuss the
specific items.
Commissioner Bird suggested that it all be routed through the
Chief Judge's office.
18
Attorney Vitunac didn't feel the ordinance needed to be
amended since the problem seems to be one of communication between
the Budget office and the Judge's office.
Chairman Tippin agreed that we need more communication.
Judge Vocelle concluded his presentation of proposed budget
matters with a recommendation for the purchase of the remaining
property in the.area that was designated as the judicial complex.
He stressed that the value of the property is set at the time of
the declaration of taking, and the longer we wait to do this, the
more money we will have to pay at the end. He asked the Board to
give direction to the County Attorney to proceed as quickly as
possible with the acquisition of that property.
Commissioner Macht noted that staff is negotiating with the
property owners at the present time.
Chairman Tippin thanked Judge Vocelle and Judge Smith for
bringing their proposed budget before the Board. He stated that he
could guarantee that the Board would do the maximum possible with
the resources available.
REQUEST FOR RESOLUTION ENDORSING ACQUISITION OF KENNEDY TRACT ON
BARRIER ISLANDS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/94:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
0
•\VYiGi Y W1. i%�Yi..a,
Community Develorrpm
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois, AICD
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: May 18, 1994
RE: Request for County Resolution Supporting Federal
Acquisition of the "Kennedy Tract" to Provide a Buffer
for the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 24, 1994.
19
MAY 2.4199:4
e<
nor 92 F,,,, 64
MAY 241994,.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
moK 92 Farr 465
Earlier this month, the Board of County Commissioners received
letters from the Pelican Island Audubon Society, Friends of St.
Sebastian River, and the Pelican Island Preservation Society,
requesting that the Board adopt a resolution endorsing federal
acquisition of the "Kennedy Tract" on north Jungle Trail. The
purpose of the acquisition is to provide a protective buffer for
the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (PINWR).
Attached for the Board's consideration is a proposed county
resolution supporting the federal acquisition.
Kennedy Tract Description
The Kennedy Tract is approximately 90 acres in size, bordering the
Indian River Lagoon (and PINWR) on the west side of Jungle Trail,
north of Windsor Development (see attached map). The property
consists of mangrove wetland and citrus grove.
The property is presently zoned A-1, Agriculture (1 unit/5 acres)
and RS -1, Single -Family Residential (1 unit/acre), with a
comprehensive plan future land use designation of L-1, Low Density
Residential, up to 3 units/acre. Wetlands on the property have a
future land use designation of Con -2, Wetland Conservation,
1 unit/40 acre development density (1 unit/acre density transfer
credit).
The Kennedy Tract abuts the +132 acre Korangy property to the
north, which is under negotiation for county acquisition as part of
the county environmental land acquisition program.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed resolution supports federal acquisition of the Kennedy
Tract, and does not entail county contribution to acquisition
funding.
The subject property was once included on the Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee's (LAACs) list of sites under consideration for
county acquisition, as part of a bigger area on north Jungle Trail
that included the Korangy property. The Kennedy Tract was
eventually dropped from LAAC consideration,' due to the uplands
portion of the property being largely citrus grove.
Notwithstanding LAAC's withdrawal of the property from county
acquisition consideration, federal purchase of the property,would
afford an important buffer to the Pelican Island Refuge, including
the elimination of the possible proliferation of waterfront
structures if the tract was developed as a residential community.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the
attached resolution in
Kennedy Tract to provide
National Wildlife Refuge.
Board of County Commissioners adopt the
support of federal acquisition of the
a protective buffer to the Pelican Island
20
0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-66, supporting federal acquisition of
the "Kennedy Tract" bordering the Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge.
Resolution No. 94 -66
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
SUPPORTING FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF THE "KENNEDY TRACT"
BORDERING THE PELICAN ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.
WHEREAS, the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge,
established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 as the first
national wildlife refuge of the United States, is located in
unincorporated Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was
established as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds, and
continues to serve as a nesting area for such birds as the brown
pelican, common. egret, snowy egret, reddish egret, great blue
heron, little blue heron, tri -color heron, black -crowned night
heron, white ibis, glossy ibis, double -crested cormorant, anhinga,
and oyster catcher; and
WHEREAS, Florida's population growth and conversion of land
for development continue to encroach on our natural systems; and
WHEREAS, federal acquisition of the herein described "Kennedy
Tract", approximately 90 acres of land bordering the Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, would provide an importantbuffer to
protect the Refuge from land development encroachment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners hereby supports federal acquisition of the "Kennedy
Tract" to serve as a buffer to the Pelican Island National Wildlife
Refuge. Said Kennedy Tract is legally described as:
Tax Parcel No. 04-31-39-00000-0060-00001.0
Government Lot 6, less the south 660 feet of the east
673.86 ,feet, and also including Government Lot 1 of
Section 9, Township 31 South, Range 39 East
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon adoption.
THE RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Macht , the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Eaaert , and upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Commissioner
John W.
Tippin
Ave
Commissioner
Kenneth
R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner
Carolyn
K. Eggert
Aye
Commissioner
Richard
N. Bird
Aye
Commissioner
Fran B.
Adams
Aye
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 24 day of May , 1994.
MAY 2 41994 -
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNT�,FLORIDA
By e 1.
ohn W. Tip i$
Chairman
21
�uaK
466'
I
MAY 2 41994
Foot 92 F,u 467
PUBLIC HEARING - SANCTUARY PARR, INC. REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX.
7.35 ACRES FROM MED TO OCR
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
advised 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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at VeroBeachin Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a. YidL
in the matter of
_4&11A��v92�_
in the . Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues. of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year nett 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.
•.•••�.0'+ultl`t�•nd subscribed before me this . S day of A.D. 19
• P S o�
BAR C. SPRAG�,E„, NOTARY PUtl�inesv Maifl
MY Corp State of . My Commission Exp. June 29, 190?
`•. June 29 • Fxpir� :171: emission Number- CrrIM572
No 1997 ;
1„ n -9j; ••G8L1G ••' spa; F. •� : ^.1� ^ 4
4,• • •... • • AQP•` Notary: BARBARA C. SPRAGUE >�
1
r+iome of hearYg to consider the adopynn of a.
many' ardnence maftg land trap: NW, Mewl
0lsaict • to CCR, office. C wnwc al, Residential
D;trlot. The subject prolter%b presently wined by
te1y 187 feet west of skis the intaeeation ot th 1 371h
Street and 4dian Rim Smavard, and ocmdna W,
proxtnatelt+ 738 axes. The saber We ti
the sautl>east ti section of Sectbn 25, 7owreldp
32 moth, Range 39 east, lying aid b ft in Wen
I RA p
,�9 at wtkh perfks in irceeat end'
dtlzens stml have en opportrsily to be heard, will
f be held by the Board ofCanr�ioners of
! Chemberaof tylhea b the Q"Camrds-
f Ing. located at 1840 25thCburStreet, Vero Seadn,
ida an Tuesday, May 24,1994, et 9V5 a.m..
The Board If County ComrISsiawrs may adopt
-WOW MM 11 - —, other then the dsW w
Aid, provided A Is within the sane general use
i � who may wish to appe�
which may be m�e at this mee wineed .
r sure flat a verbatim rem of the promedigs is,
made which Inckdes
e testlmany aid evidence „pan t
thiso ftAnyone who needs a �rn �
nunodetio'
mu ty's AmerRans x
with , Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567 -MM i
extei ob 223 'at Ieeat • 48 hags in • advance of
"eeIndian Rim countytlir t ;it .�
Br Wolin W T"K Chairman
Mey4.1994 F•1! 1 i ; 1098078
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/10/94:
22
s�N
V ati•oi 3tiw.y� .
7�&"
'
t ♦
7
3'
37t
ST —
y
'Subject
,j
Property .1°
c
r
r+iome of hearYg to consider the adopynn of a.
many' ardnence maftg land trap: NW, Mewl
0lsaict • to CCR, office. C wnwc al, Residential
D;trlot. The subject prolter%b presently wined by
te1y 187 feet west of skis the intaeeation ot th 1 371h
Street and 4dian Rim Smavard, and ocmdna W,
proxtnatelt+ 738 axes. The saber We ti
the sautl>east ti section of Sectbn 25, 7owreldp
32 moth, Range 39 east, lying aid b ft in Wen
I RA p
,�9 at wtkh perfks in irceeat end'
dtlzens stml have en opportrsily to be heard, will
f be held by the Board ofCanr�ioners of
! Chemberaof tylhea b the Q"Camrds-
f Ing. located at 1840 25thCburStreet, Vero Seadn,
ida an Tuesday, May 24,1994, et 9V5 a.m..
The Board If County ComrISsiawrs may adopt
-WOW MM 11 - —, other then the dsW w
Aid, provided A Is within the sane general use
i � who may wish to appe�
which may be m�e at this mee wineed .
r sure flat a verbatim rem of the promedigs is,
made which Inckdes
e testlmany aid evidence „pan t
thiso ftAnyone who needs a �rn �
nunodetio'
mu ty's AmerRans x
with , Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567 -MM i
extei ob 223 'at Ieeat • 48 hags in • advance of
"eeIndian Rim countytlir t ;it .�
Br Wolin W T"K Chairman
Mey4.1994 F•1! 1 i ; 1098078
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/10/94:
22
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE NT HEAD CONCURRENCE
G
obe t Resting AIC
Community Develop ent ector
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP S R•
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachte;, V
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
i
DATE: May 10, 1994
RE: SANCTUARY PARR, INC. REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 7.36
ACRES FROM MED TO OCR (RZON 93-04-0058)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 24, 1994.
DESCRIPTION ANIS CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 7.36 acres from MED,
Medical District, to OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential District.
Located on the north side of 37th Street, approximately 167 feet
west of the intersection of 37th Street and Indian River Boulevard,
the subject property is owned by Sanctuary Park, Inc. The purpose
of the request is to secure the necessary zoning to develop the
site with professional office uses.
On April 14, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subject property to OCR.
Existing Land Use Pattern
Consisting of vacant uncleared land, the subject property is zoned
MED, Medical District. Properties to the south and west of the
subject property are also zoned MED. A partially developed
commercial subdivision exists to the west, while a building
containing doctors' offices exists to the south, across 37th
Street. North and east of the subject property, land is zoned RM -
8, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). Some
of this land is used for Indian River Boulevard. The balance is
uncleared and vacant.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and properties to the south and west are
designated C/I, Commercial/ Industrial, on the future land use map.
Properties'to the north and east are designated M-11 Medium -Density
MAY 2 4 1994 23 8 0 0 K 92 F�,A,F 468
I
MAY 2 41994
_I
BGGK 92 PnF, 469
Residential, on the future land use map. The M-1 designation
permits residential uses with a density up to 8 units/acre.
Environment
The property consists of cabbage palm hammock and areas dominated
by nuisance exotic Brazilian pepper. Eastern portions of the
property adjacent to the Indian River Boulevard right-of-way
contain jurisdictional wetlands. The subject property has a
federal flood designation of 11AE-711, which indicates that the
property is within a 100 year floodplain.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county.
Wastewater lines extend to the site from the Central County
(Gifford) Wastewater Plant. The South County Reverse Osmosis Plant
provides potable water to the site.
Transportation System
The subject property presently has access to 37th Street.
Classified as a collector roadway on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map, the segment of 37th Street extending from
U.S. #1 to Indian River Boulevard is a two-lane paved road with
approximately 110 feet of existing public road right-of-way. No
expansion of this segment of 37th Street is programmed.
Indian River Boulevard will form the northeast boundary of the
subject property. Classified as an urban principal arterial
roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment
of Indian River Boulevard, when completed, will be a four -lane
paved road with approximately 200 feet of public road right-of-way.
Zoning District Differences
As noted in the county's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), the
MED zoning district is intended to support, accommodate and protect
a "major medical facility". Permitted uses within the MED district
include doctor's offices, health and medical related services and
institutions, and related retail.
The OCR zoning district, however, is designed to protect
residential uses in areas where commercial and residential uses may
mix. According to county regulations, the OCR zoning district is
programmed for office, commercial, and residential development that
is compatible with nearby neighborhoods. Permitted uses within the
OCR zoning district include professional offices and residences.
Most retail, service, and other intense commercial uses are
prohibited.
The difference between the MED and OCR zoning districts is best
illustrated by the respective purpose statements of the two
districts. These purpose statements, found in the LDRs, are as
follows:
• MED, Medical District, is intended to provide a variety of
uses which support a major medical facility, and to protect
such major medical facility from encroachment by land uses
which may have an adverse effect on the operation and
potential expansion of the facility. Land uses that could
24
a � �
cause an adverse effect would generally include those uses
that are likely to be objectionable to neighboring properties
because of noise, vibration, odors, smoke, amount of traffic
generated, or other physical manifestations.
• OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential District, is intended to
provide areas for the development of restricted office,
commercial, and residential activities in a manner which will
be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The OCR
district is further intended to provide land use controls for
ensuring the separation of potentially incompatible
activities, such as intense commercial uses, from established
residential -areas.
The MED and OCR districts are similar in several ways. Both
districts are designed to accommodate office use and limit retail
uses. In terms of permitted uses, the major difference between the
districts is that OCR allows a wider variety of office uses, while
the MED district permits more.retail uses.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• potential impact on environmental quality; and
• the appropriateness of the OCR district.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service -Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The comprehensive plan also requires that new development be
reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these
services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required. .
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning
requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district. For
commercial rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to
the county's LDRs) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of
gross floor area per acre of land proposed for rezoning. The site
information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property: ±7.36 acres
2. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 17.36 acres
MAY 241994 25
BOOK 92 F.,�F 470
tig 2 41994
3. Land Use Designation:
`I
4. Existing Zoning Classification:
Ruc�K 92, Facr 471
C/I, Commercial/ Industrial
MED, Medical District
5. Proposed Zoning Classification: OCR, Office, Commercial,
Residential
6. Most Intense Use under Proposed Zoning Classification:
173,600 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in
the 5th Edition ITE Manual).
As per section -910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of
the County's LDRs, projects which do not increase density or
intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This
rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review because the
requested zoning would not increase the use intensity of the site.
By changing the zoning of the subject property from MED to OCR,
some uses currently allowed will become prohibited, while other
uses not currently allowed will be permitted on the site. However,
because the most intense use of the property would be the same with
either zoning district, changing the property's zoning from MED to
OCR will not create additional impacts on any concurrency
facilities.
When new development is proposed
detailed concurrency analysis
development approval process.
for the subject property, a more
will be conducted during the
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that the proposed rezoning will not create any
compatibility problems with the surrounding areas. The impacts of
the wide variety of offices allowed in the OCR district are no
greater than the impacts of the medical offices allowed in the MED
district. Similarly, the impacts of the limited retail permitted
in each district are nearly the same. In terms of impacts on
surrounding areas, the difference between the MED and OCR districts
is negligible. For this reason, the proposed zoning district is
not anticipated to create compatibility problems.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the
overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use
Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation,
conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities: Commercial and industrial land uses are located in
nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing
rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request
are the following policies and objectives.
26
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the commercial land
use designation is intended for uses such as retail and wholesale
trade, offices, business and personal services, residential
treatment centers, limited residential uses, and other similar type
uses. In addition, that policy states that all commercial uses
must be located within an existing or future urban service area.
Since the subject property is located within a commercial/
industrial node within the county's urban service area, the request
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15. -
- Future Land Use Element Objective 5
Future Land Use Element Objective 5 states that the county will
provide for a mix of land uses which permit and encourage a variety
of development patterns to accommodate a diversity of -lifestyles.
Since the OCR zoning district allows a mix of uses, granting this
request would encourage a diversity of development in this portion
of the county. Therefore, the requested zoning is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Objective 5.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based on this analysis, staff determined
that the proposed zoning district is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Staff's position is that the requested zoning change will not
negatively impact the environmental quality of this site. Based
upon its analysis, staff has determined that the environmental
impacts of development of the subject property will be the same
under either the current MED zoning or the requested OCR zoning.
County regulations that apply to site development under either
zoning include: 15% preservation of native upland plant communities
(or a fee -in -lieu); wetland protection (requiring mitigation for
filled wetlands); and native tree protection.
Appropriateness of the OCR Zoning District
Several characteristics of the site make it an appropriate location
for either the MED or the OCR zoning district. Since the site is
located near a hospital and within a commercial/ industrial node,
the existing MED zoning district is appropriate. In fact, this
node, depicted on attachment 3, was established to protect and
support the hospital and associated uses.
Given the site's relatively small size and its location at the
northeastern edge of the 250 acre subject node, there is more
zoning district flexibility with this site than with a location
closer to the hospital'and closer to the core of the node. This
flexibility is demonstrated by the fact that there are
approximately 40 acres, located in the southwestern portion of the
node, that are zoned CG, General Commercial. Because those 40
acres are located at the edge of the subject node, adjacent to U.S.
#11 this land can support a wider range of uses and not adversely
affect the hospital and other medical uses.
27
MAY 24199.4 BOOK 92 Fri;= 14
MAY 2 41994
RUGK 92 f'. yr 473
The circumstances are similar with the subject property. Due to
its size and location, the subject property could be rezoned
without encroaching on the 200 acres of MED zoned property
surrounding the hospital. This MED district, comprising over 80%
of the node, would have enough size to protect and support the
hospital. In contrast, rezoning a large tract located in the
middle of the subject node would compromise the intent of the MED
zoning district. For this reason a MED to OCR rezoning would not
be appropriate for sites located in the middle of the node. Since
the subject property is located at the edge of the node, rezoning
the site to OCR would not compromise the intent of the MED
district.
Although the OCR district allows most uses permitted in the MED
district, rezoning the subject property from MED to OCR would allow
the applicant to develop the site with some uses that, while not
permitted in the MED district, are compatible with the site's
surroundings. For these reasons, the proposed rezoning is
appropriate.
CONCLUSION
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area,
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan, and meets all applicable concurrency criteria.
The subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for a
mix of office, restricted commercial, and residential uses. The
request meets all applicable criteria. Staff supports the request.
RECONNENDATION
Staff recommends that the Hoard of County Commissioners approve
this request to rezone the subject property from MED to OCR.
Chairman Tippin opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard on this matter. There being none, he closed the
Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 94-14, rezoning from MED to OCR property
located on the north side of 37th street, approx.
167 feet west of the intersection of 37th Street and
Indian River Boulevard.
28
ORDINANCE NO. 94-14
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM MED TO
OCR, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 37TH
STREET, APPROXIMATELY 167 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
37TH STREET AND INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN,
AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the- Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
- hearing pursuant to- this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE
39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGIN AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH -SOUTH QUARTER SECTION
LINE OF SAID SECTION 25 AND THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
37TH STREET (A 110.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE N 00001122"
W, ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 608.13 FEET;
THENCE N 89042'39" E, A DISTANCE OF 248.57 FEET, TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD (A
200.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY); THENCE S 44056105" E, ALONG SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 620.55 FEET; THENCE S
00001'22" E, A DISTANCE OF 167.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
AFOREMENTIONED NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 37TH STREET; THENCE
S 89044'30" W, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF
686.69 FEET, TO THE POINT -OF -BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 7.369 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from MED to OCR.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
County Land Development Regulations.
29
MAY 241994 i
nu ' 92 PA'u 474
I
MV 2 41994
ORDINANCE NO. 94-14
mu 92 PAGF 475
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 24th day of May, 1994.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 4th day of May, 1994 for a public hearing to be held on the
24th day of May, 1994 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner Eggert
, and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman -John W. Tippin Aye
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: �.
/John W. Ti , Chai3lraan
ATTEST BY.. �`y
Jef -fey K. Barton, Clerk
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 2nd day of June , 1994.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 6th day of June , 1994, at 10:00 a.m.
WMXMM. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
PUBLIC HEARING - GRAND HARBOR D.R.I. SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REOUEST
TO ADD 200 BOAT SLIPS TO GRAND HARBOR MARINA
The County Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has
been property advertised, as follows:
30
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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
In the matter
in the . Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper In the issues of `m/ll2G /1/ i �% r
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the.said newspaper.
$,w�tlidi'�f' ,,subscribed before muftis % day of �7�ZA.D. 19
�J� ��`• • . •• Vp •moi, I . �/�
Q, •. GTq R� •••� A.
.
�- •
• ,�'G Manager)
MY �mm. Expires m • RARRARA R coos 19.-
• 997 GNM&O PUBH ,
June 29,
1 I
• . State of Florida, MY Commission EXP. June 29,1907
to 72 d ion Number; CC300572
:A • • •G
•ii� ••��•• `O�• b..�.rR{'� �L.K' • ♦ I�,w.•h./ .P .P �4'/
"•�" Notary: BARBARA C. SPRAGUE "
s
-:•►u., •B�IDUWRIVERCOUNrY'.y;;pf=+�. .::.� .
NOTICE OF PLIC IIBIU W F `
The Board of - Canty clalmlissicners of brdlan ,
Rer Cm►y hNaby 9hros encore of a PUBLIC
s HEARING -to be held at 9:08 a.m • m ,May 24� aut
19a94yr
' In the Canty Conrniesbn Chw0m • of the 25th
AdmiNstrathm Building, boatel at 1840 26
Street Vero Beach, Folde. The u6ieat of the i
;hreerYtg Is a eu deviation request to add
200 boalslips W the exgot' g mardna located in thenotheas omft of the . --
of Reglonell Impact (D.RJ�Gener�al I ' ' I�The
(trend Harbor marine Is bourd on the norby the
I' Nath Rdef Canat an the east by the loan ig
and an the west by the Ricer. Club ardldvblm and I
suarrorcam.
peitabribq to ' the s devb-
i tion request we filed 1h the Indian Rhw Canty
plan" DivW n, 2nd floor of the County Adn lr a
tratbn BtWM, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach. Florida. Daaments may be reviewed by
me r6m of the pubic during - nwrad business
$ hen. All members of the pUft are h1v to at-
tend and participate in the pud)ic taming. This 0%
S del pubic ratics to by the Board of
��,ntty�Camruls8lauersI of Cash, Flor-
hearina pl want m Chapter intends 380.06 Florida ONdUCt S�tal-
utes for a aubswltel daviatbn request related to
the D.R1 known as Grand Harbor.
This notice Is being p Dished at Mast'sbdym(801
days In advance of the pada hearing by Ore a
of ccurdy Cammbsbriers of idan River
s Florida. and Is In addition to any regtked pubea
rptice(s) of local pubic hearigs to be caducted by
the Board of Catinly pbk ComMiSsmoars pursuant to
Lard k1a, where sir Bdi�nbruloees of =%hued Cbaanh�Flor.
This notice Is bekg provided to the Op"nent of
Carmu * Affairs of the State of Fbft the
Treasure Coast Regbmal Planning Cminc t.
Johars River water MFont', District
mem' of Fsv4onmemal State of Florida
Deparbrient Beady, n,e Taovm of b River the
thCity e C�Vy a
Sebastian. the Tam of Orchid; the Town of Fels
mere; and the Catartlas of Brevard and SL Lucia.
w ary Danson deddee to appeal wW declaim made
On the shove matter, hafshe will meed a record of
the proceedirge, and for such purpose, helshe may
need to ereure that a verbatim record Of the pro•
, A A a gs Is made, wiuicht >t and'
evi��duaeun�ce updoes on amide a aaprpeall los The.
( ANYOAIE WHO NEEDS. SPEaC1AL ACCOMMODA-
TiON FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AmewAN,S WiTH DISABIUi(ES ACT -
ADA COORDINATOR AT 597400 x 223. AT.
T 48 HOURS W ADVANCE OF MEETING.
March 19, 1994 1081797
Planning Director Stan Boling presented the following staff
recommendation for approval of .the substantial deviation:
MAY 2 4' 19931 Roo- 9 wl) 476
.
N. LI -'•
CANNA
's
'.
�RIVt11 CLUB"'
w
yusip
dj:
... �..r.�l4•RWAi..ay�
;SRk" .
4
Marina-.Are.a
-:•►u., •B�IDUWRIVERCOUNrY'.y;;pf=+�. .::.� .
NOTICE OF PLIC IIBIU W F `
The Board of - Canty clalmlissicners of brdlan ,
Rer Cm►y hNaby 9hros encore of a PUBLIC
s HEARING -to be held at 9:08 a.m • m ,May 24� aut
19a94yr
' In the Canty Conrniesbn Chw0m • of the 25th
AdmiNstrathm Building, boatel at 1840 26
Street Vero Beach, Folde. The u6ieat of the i
;hreerYtg Is a eu deviation request to add
200 boalslips W the exgot' g mardna located in thenotheas omft of the . --
of Reglonell Impact (D.RJ�Gener�al I ' ' I�The
(trend Harbor marine Is bourd on the norby the
I' Nath Rdef Canat an the east by the loan ig
and an the west by the Ricer. Club ardldvblm and I
suarrorcam.
peitabribq to ' the s devb-
i tion request we filed 1h the Indian Rhw Canty
plan" DivW n, 2nd floor of the County Adn lr a
tratbn BtWM, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach. Florida. Daaments may be reviewed by
me r6m of the pubic during - nwrad business
$ hen. All members of the pUft are h1v to at-
tend and participate in the pud)ic taming. This 0%
S del pubic ratics to by the Board of
��,ntty�Camruls8lauersI of Cash, Flor-
hearina pl want m Chapter intends 380.06 Florida ONdUCt S�tal-
utes for a aubswltel daviatbn request related to
the D.R1 known as Grand Harbor.
This notice Is being p Dished at Mast'sbdym(801
days In advance of the pada hearing by Ore a
of ccurdy Cammbsbriers of idan River
s Florida. and Is In addition to any regtked pubea
rptice(s) of local pubic hearigs to be caducted by
the Board of Catinly pbk ComMiSsmoars pursuant to
Lard k1a, where sir Bdi�nbruloees of =%hued Cbaanh�Flor.
This notice Is bekg provided to the Op"nent of
Carmu * Affairs of the State of Fbft the
Treasure Coast Regbmal Planning Cminc t.
Johars River water MFont', District
mem' of Fsv4onmemal State of Florida
Deparbrient Beady, n,e Taovm of b River the
thCity e C�Vy a
Sebastian. the Tam of Orchid; the Town of Fels
mere; and the Catartlas of Brevard and SL Lucia.
w ary Danson deddee to appeal wW declaim made
On the shove matter, hafshe will meed a record of
the proceedirge, and for such purpose, helshe may
need to ereure that a verbatim record Of the pro•
, A A a gs Is made, wiuicht >t and'
evi��duaeun�ce updoes on amide a aaprpeall los The.
( ANYOAIE WHO NEEDS. SPEaC1AL ACCOMMODA-
TiON FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AmewAN,S WiTH DISABIUi(ES ACT -
ADA COORDINATOR AT 597400 x 223. AT.
T 48 HOURS W ADVANCE OF MEETING.
March 19, 1994 1081797
Planning Director Stan Boling presented the following staff
recommendation for approval of .the substantial deviation:
MAY 2 4' 19931 Roo- 9 wl) 476
.
f AY 2 4 19A mor 477
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
r ,
Robert M. Keating, TMP!/
Community Development irector
FROM: Stan Boling,"AICP
Planning Director
DATE: May 16, 1994
SUBJECT: Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact (D.R.I.)
Substantial Deviation Request to Add 200 Boatslips to the
Grand Harbor Marina and Add a 4.94 Acre Parcel to the
Overall D.R.I. Project Area
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 24, 1994.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On February 7, 1994, GHA, Grand Harbor Ltd. submitted a Substantial
Deviation Application for Development Approval to add 200 boatslips
to the existing 144 slip Grand Harbor marina, and to add a 4.94
acre residentially zoned parcel to the overall project. The
request has been reviewed through the normal DRI review process,
and has been considered by the Treasure Coast.Regional Planning
Council. At its April 15, 1994 meeting, the regional planning
council voted to recommend approval of the request with conditions
(see attachment #3).
Pursuant to state DRI rules, the Board of County Commissioners is
now to consider this substantial deviation request. In accordance
with county LDR requirements, the Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewed this request at its May 12, 1994 meeting. The Commission
unanimously recommended that the Board approve the request as
recommended by staff at the end of this report (see attachment #6).
If the Board approves this DRI request, then a more detailed review
of the boatslip lay -out and design will be made at -the time of site
plan approval (as was done for the existing 144 -slips).
ANALYSIS:
*Parcel Addition
The request to add a recently purchased 4.94 acre parcel to the
overall DRI project area will merely add more area to the project;
no increase in the amount of overall project maximum residential
density is being requested, and none will be approved with this
request. Therefore, adding this parcel will not change the off-
site impacts of the overall project. However, county staff has
provided comments to the applicant regarding on-site impacts of
potential future development of the. parcel. In response to county
staff comments, the applicant has agreed that at the time of site
plan review for development of this parcel, the county upland
setaside requirement will apply. Also, the applicant has
acknowledged that in the future, as part of the site plan review
and approval process to develop this parcel, it may need to modify
its St. Johns River Water Management District stormwater permit to
reflect the site drainage design.
32
•Boatslip Addition
The existing development order (D.O.) that governs the overall
Grand Harbor DRI project restricts the Grand Harbor marina to 144
boatslips. Of those 144 slips, 72 are restricted for use by
sailboats only, while the remaining 72 slips are allowed to be used
by motorized boats. The entire marina basin facility and the 144
boatslips have already been constructed. As conditions of
environmental permits issued and monitored/enforced by
environmental agencies, slip use restrictions are incorporated in
each slip agreement.
The primary reason.for regulating the number of slips and limiting
the use of the slips to sailboats is to ensure that boating
activity within the project does not adversely impact the
endangered West Indian Manatee. Despite this concern, both the
regional planning council (see attachment #3) and the Florida Game
and Freshwater Commission (see attachment #4) have no objection to
the addition 'of 200 boatslips to the existing marina basin
facility, subject to a restriction that these additional slips be
used by sailboats only. Restrictions to sailboat use are based on
the opinion of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and
other agencies that operation of sailboats generally does not pose
a mortal danger to the manatee. Allowances for lifting the
sailboat restriction in the future are incorporated into the
regional planning council's recommendation and are tied to future
planning and environmental review and monitoring activities.
Potential traffic impacts resulting from use of the additional
slips were addressed in a previously approved traffic analysis and
update for the overall Grand Harbor project. Therefore, it is not
necessary to attach any traffic conditions to the approval of this
request.
Potential law enforcement impacts of adding 200 boatslips have been
considered by the Sheriff's Office. The applicant has agreed with
the Sheriff's Office that some additional Sheriff's Office boat
patrolling will be needed in response to the boatslip expansion.
To mitigate this impact, the applicant has agreed with the
Sheriff's Office to provide a boatslip for use by a patrol boat and
to provide $2,500 in cash or fuel for the operation of the patrol
boat (see attachment #7). The approving resolution proposed by
staff (see attachment #8), incorporates this condition.
•Approval of Request
To approve this request, the Board of County Commissioners will
need to adopt a resolution that approves the request and amends the
existing D.O. The proposed resolution prepared by staff approves
the request, contains all of the recommendations made by the
regional planning council, including a sailboat only restriction,
and includes the condition recommended by the Sheriff's Office.
The applicant has no objection to these conditions.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution approving the subject substantial deviation
request with the conditions recommended by the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council and the Sheriff's Office.
33 9 Ftvjr4!K
MAY 2 4 1994 MCI
L- I
r
MAY 2 4 1994 Bou 9 2 Pmu, 479
Commissioner Adams inquired about the requirement for a boat _
slip for the Sheriff's Department, and Director Boling explained
that back since 1988 the Sheriff's slip has always been part of the
discussions regarding the marina.
Commissioner Macht suggested the deletion of the extra slip
for the Sheriff, but Director Boling explained that the slip is a
condition of approval.
Chairman Tippin opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Bruce Barkett, attorney representing the applicant, stated
that his client does not object to the slip for the Sheriff.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the
Substantial Deviation request to add 200 boat slips
to the Grand Harbor Marina.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht felt that if the owner -
wants security, then he can pay for his own.
Commissioner Adams preferred that the Sheriff's boat slip be
deleted from the conditions of approval, but she would go along
with deleting the $2,500 in cash or fuel for the operation of the
patrol boat.
COMMISSIONER BIRD AGREED TO AMEND HIS _MOTION TO
DELETE THE $2,500 PROVISION, BUT WANTED TO RETAIN
THE PROVISION FOR THE SHERIFF'S BOAT SLIP.
COMMISSIONER EGGERT WITHDREW HER SECOND, AND COMMISSIONER
BIRD'S AMENDED MOTION DIED FOR A LACK OF A SECOND.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Bird
dissenting), adopted Resolution 94-67, approving a
Substantial Deviation request and amending the D.O.
for the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact
(DRI), with the deletion of, the provision for
Sheriff's boat slip and $2,500 in cash or fuel for
operation of the patrol boat.
34
RESOLUTION NO. 94--7
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPROVING A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUEST AND
AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER (D.O.) APPROVED
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE
GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
(DRI)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 380 Florida
Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida has adopted Resolution 85-128 (adopted October 23, 1985)
establishing the Development- Order (D.O.) approving the Grand
Harbor Development of Regional Impact (DRI), and has amended the
adopted Development Order by the adoption of Resolution 86-4
(adopted February 5, 1986), Resolution 86-89 (adopted October 20,
1986), Resolution 86-108 (adopted December 9, 1986), Resolution 87-
147 (adopted December 81 1987), Resolution 89-80 (adopted August 8,
1989), Resolution 92-68 (adopted May 5, 1992), Resolution 93-88
(adopted May ll, 1993); and
WHEREAS, the project developer (GHA, Grand Harbor Ltd.) has
formally applied for and has agreed to certain changes to the
development approval relating to the addition of ±4.94 acres of
property in the northwest corner of the project site (see Exhibit
"A", legal description), addition of 200 boatslips to the project
marina, and project land use map modifications reflecting these
changes;
WHEREAS, the proposed changes, including the addition of ±4.94
acres to the project, will result in no increase in commercial
building square footage allowed nor allow additional residential
units to be constructed within the overall project site; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 93-88, amending the Development Order for the
Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact contained a scrivener's
error with respect to the legal description of Parcel IX;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida that:
1. APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Grand Harbor Application for Development Approval, Grand
Harbor Transportation Reanalysis, and the conservation
easement affecting the estuarine waterway are incorporated
herein by reference. They are relied upon by the parties in
discharging their statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes, 'but not to the exclusion of other available
information. Substantial compliance with the representations
contained in these documents is a condition for approval.
For the purpose of this condition, the above documents shall
include the following items:
a. Substantial Deviation Application for Development
Approval dated February 7, 1994;
b. "Grand Harbor Transportation Reanalysis" dated October,
1992, and supplemental data supplied December 14, 1992;
and
C. The conservation easement recorded February 3, 1992, in
OR Book 0922, pages 2192 to 2215, public records of
Indian River County.
35
MAY 241994
I
1W ` 4 1994
2.
3.
4.
EFFECTIVENESS OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER
eooK 92 F;acE 481
Except as specifically amended herein, all conditions
specified in the Development Order (Resolution Number 86-128)
and subsequent amendments to the Development Order
(Resolutions Numbers 86-4, 86-89, 86-108, 87-147, 89-80,.92-
68, and 93-88) shall remain in full force and effect and shall
apply to and be binding upon the entire 870.97 acre project as
described in Exhibit "B".
HABITAT,.VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
a. Condition 16 of Resolution 85-128 is hereby amended to
read:
Any proposal to construct a dry dock facility that would
store, handle or utilize quantities of hazardous
materials for boat repair and maintenance shall
constitute a substantial deviation of the Development
Order.
Condition 17 of Resolution 85-128 as subsequently amended by
Resolution 86-108 is hereby amended to read:
Marina development shall be restricted to the existing marina
basin, as shown on the Master Site Plan. The maximum number
os slips to be accommodated shall be a total of three hundred
forty-four (344). All 344 slips shall be restricted to use by
pleasure boats with drafts of six feet or less. An exception
to the pleasure boat restriction may be made to accommodate a
Florida Marine Patrol boat and/or an Indian River County
Sheriff's Department boat or boat of any other law enforcement
agency, or emergency services department boats during an
emergency. Two hundred seventy-two (272) OF THE 344 slips
shall be restricted to use by sailboats at all times
(hurricane conditions excepted). The restrictions shall be
provided for in the form of an agreement which shall be
legally binding on any owner, lessor, lessee, renter or user
of restricted slips. Restricted slips shall be visibly marked
as restricted to sailboats only, in order to make monitoring
of compliance with this condition easier.
The development order may be changed so that additional slips
may be released from the above "sailboat only" restriction if
the following occur:
a) an Indian River County Manatee Protection Plan is
approved by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, and the Governor and Cabinet; and
b) all marking of waterways and enforcement elements of the
approved Indian River County -Manatee Protection Plan have
been implemented; and
C) concurrence has been obtained from the Department of
Environmental Protection Office of Protected Species or
its successor that the change proposed to the development
order would be consistent with the approved Indian River
County Manatee Protection Plan; and
d) concurrence has been obtained from the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service that the change proposed to the
development order is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the West Indian Manatee; and
e) it has been determined by Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs that the change proposed would not adversely
impact neighboring jurisdictions and is consistent with
36
s � �
s
all plans and policies in force at the time the proposal
is made.
If all five criteria are met, the development order -may be
changed to allow additional slips to be released from the
"sailboat only" restrict to the extent consistent with the
approved Indian River County Manatee Protection Plan. Indian
River County, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the
Florida Department of Community Affairs shall be furnished
with documentation of Department of Environmental Protection
and United States Fish and Wildlife Service favorable review.
In the absence of any one of the five criteria listed above,
any proposal for release of slips from the "sailboat only"
restriction shall be subject to substantial deviation review.
Development of docks in other locations (areas outside the
Marina) or development of boat ramps or dry storage facilities
shall be prohibited other than provision of recreational
access for project residents by non -motorized craft to the
internal estuarine/waterway system. Access shall be limited
to no more than two access points. No anchorage shall be
permitted.
5. Marina light -.ng shall be limited to low -intensity, low-level,
downward -directed types of lighting in order to minimize the
intrusion of light into adjacent estuarine areas.
6. The ±4.94 acre parcel described in Exhibit "A", attached, is
hereby.added to the project.
7. Resolution No. 93-88 of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County is hereby amended by the correction of the
legal description of Parcel IX as shown on Exhibit "A" to
Resolution No. 93-88, such that the legal description for said
Parcel IX shall be:
All of.that portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4
of Section 23, Township 32 South, -Range 39 East, lying East of
the said right-of-way line of Indian River Boulevard; said
lands lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
follows:
"dam , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Nay
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert. Aye
This Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 24day of _ may 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
by �441(-t1
Chairman John W. TiPfl(fi
ATTEST
Jeffrey K. Bar op, County Clerk
0Y:U),Z04 . - I F 0, 6 C
37
MAY 2 4 194
MAY 241994.
BOOK 92 PAGE. 483
PUBLIC BEARING — HARBOR TOWN CENTER MALL DRI MODIFICATION
The hour of 9:05 a.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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
L-14 1.
a
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Al
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
NN8„,
�•..��" �cn tb�8rd subscribed before me this day of A.D. 19
aa�P, .Sp •.
Q'.•�jOTg9•. ••%
�� • �• t 8AR C.3PRAt3U ARY PUMMysin s a
My comm. Evrea f�tt i state of FWa. My Cammiasion Exp. June 29. 1907
JVRS 2.9, . (•.n.roninainn N.u.i.n••!_(_1MR79
�• No. rte,^�72 •� � /�- / -
'�,'9j: •.UBL1G.% P.. sem:- -
.� • • • \Q.� Notary: BARBARA C. BPRAG(JE
a,F
OF FLpQ:
38
' UABJECF
r AA
-�
.. ..4 . �.
NDuw RIVER COUNTY k,."��'` .,k,
NOTICE OF PtlBUC I0?ARIrKi
The— Board -d -•Co" Comrnissiaws d Indian
River Comair i hseby give'lloom die PUBLIC
9HEARNO to be held at VA a.m. on TUesft May
,25th street. Vero Bead, Fbide.'Ihe abject of tlaie`i,
.hearing b to Corniden adopderl 'of minor , amend -n
meats Cp spa edd=geWj to thede,*1
opppmrrre�rr�� order (0.0).Mr it* project to t, Imown 1est Herbar Tonn3Ceniar' (mei. -The proposed amend -:n
.111M. world momty aertalr var"ortatir , oor d !•.
ibD aorrtairred h the e>detkg 0.0. .
The Harbor Town center project WO, b gaM**. -
�Bored on thesouth by 53rd Seed. by the
Girard Herbs • River. Club project on the •.;
p.... east, by the Naft-Rde! 0081 -on the7-
north,. aw-• by . Us., wq�m Art: an the
1 }a- west .�..•- r..•, ..;, .�
A Please see:ft above lace 1 map.`
Al members of the pbb• ore Invited to attend
WW partlrlpats at the pubic heat". Anyone wha.
may wish to epp�l any decidon which may be.
i made et the rrneerig wi need to erwrre that a ver-
"baft record of the prooeedllgs Is mads, which ire.
P
a i i:lend'°evi�derpa' upon whbh the ap
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETNO MUST CONTACT THE'
COUNTY'S AMEIWANS W Di DISABILITIES ACT
COORONATOR• AT 887-M X223 AT
LEAST
48 HouBB N ADVANCE OF: THE MEET-
we
EET-
hdimr i8ver_ - , o,;
•L.
BoarddCMohr
May 4,199 ;; 7;i• .. r_r se- Chairman
1088877
W7
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/16/94:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
4 'all Wo
ober . R a n A Cvector Community Develop ent
FROM: Stan Boling;'AICP
Planning Director
DATE: May 17, 1994
SUBJECT: Harbor Town Center Mall DRI Notice of Proposed Change
(NOPC) to. Modify Certain Development Order (D.0.) Traffic
Conditions
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 24, 1994.
On March 28, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
development order (D.O.) approving the development of regional
impact (DRI) known as Harbor Town Center. As approved, Harbor Town
Center included a regional mall, commercial out -parcel development,
and 64 residential units. Subsequently, several amendments were
approved that modified the original D.O. The amended D.O. remains
in effect and governs the general development of the entire project
via specific development conditions and approved application
materials.
The project site contains 92.5 acres of land and is located at the
northeast corner of US #1 and 53rd Street (see attachment #2). The
site is currently used as a golf course and driving range
(Whispering Lakes) and a citrus grove. No site plan for DRI
commercial development has been submitted by the developer, and no
DRI commercial development has occurred on site.
On January 4, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved an
NOPC request by the Harbor Town Center developer/applicant to
extend project site plan submittal, construction, and development
timeframes. In part, this approval was based upon a 1993 traffic
study re -analysis and update performed on behalf of the applicant.
This study was accepted by the appropriate reviewing agencies.
Now, based upon this previously reviewed and accepted traffic
study, the project developer/applicant is requesting modifications
to certain traffic conditions contained in the existing D.O., as
follows:
Changes to improvements that must be started prior to building
permit issuance and completed prior to issuance to a Certificate of
Occupancy (C.O.).
1. Eliminate northbound and westbound turn lanes at the US 1/53rd
Street intersection.(condition #32b.).
39
MAY 241994 Bou 92 F-�m 484
MAY 2 41994 BOOK 92 FAcF 485
2. Add a westbound turnlane at the US 1/West site entrance
(condition #32d.).
3. Eliminate improvements to Royal Palm Boulevard and the Royal
Palm Boulevard/ Indian River Boulevard intersection (condition
#32e.).
4. Eliminate improvements to the Indian River Boulevard/37th
Street intersection (condition #32f.).
5. Clarify the Indian River Boulevard/53rd Street improvements
(condition #32g.).
6. Add a new section to condition #32 to detail the required 53rd
Street/project driveway -intersection improvements.
The approved study showed that these changes are justified due to
roadway improvements that have been constructed or for which
construction has commenced since the original traffic study was
conducted in 1988/1989. Such improvements include the Twin Pairs
project and the new bridge being constructed north of the Merrill
Barber Bridge.
Pursuant to state DRI regulations, this NOPC request is now to be
considered by the Board of County Commissioners. In accordance
with county LDR regulations, the Planning and Zoning Commission
considered the request at its May 12, 1994 meeting. The Commission
voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners find that the request does not constitute a
substantial deviation and that the request be approved as
recommended by staff at the end of this report (see attachment #5).
ANALYSIS:
•Determination of Request Type: Not a Substantial Deviation
Pursuant to FS 380.06 which governs DRIB, the county -may determine
that the request does not constitute a substantial deviation and
may be treated as a proposed change or "minor amendment". As a
minor amendment, a change in an approved D.O. can be made by the
Board of County Commissioners without official approval by the
Regional Planning Council.
Both the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) staffs -have reviewed the
request pursuant to FS 380.06 and have indicated to county planning
staff that the request qu does not increasej ro ect
impacts to a
P
degree that requires substantial deviation review. lCounty staff i and the Planning and Zoning Commission agree. Therefore, in
staff's opinion, the NOPC request does not constitute a substantial
deviation and may be treated as a minor amendment. Thus, all staff
analyses indicate that the county should find that the. request does
not constitute a substantial deviation.
•Requested Traffic Conditions Modifications
This request was reviewed by county staff, and Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) staff, the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), and the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT). None of these agencies has expressed
objections to approving the requested D.O. traffic condition
modifications. However, regional planning council staff have
expressed to the county some concerns about" the future level of
service (LOS) of the segment of US 1 between 4th Street and Oslo
Road (see attachment #3). According to the updated traffic study,
40
a small amount of the traffic generated by the project will use and
impact this roadway segment.
Council staff's concerns surfaced during its re -review of the 1993
traffic study (which was prompted by this NOPC request). If
traffic volume growth rates for the segment are higher than
estimated in the traffic study as recent county traffic count data
for the 1994 peak season seem to suggest, then future level of
service problems could develop. To ensure that such problems do
not develop, Regional Planning Council staff has recommended that _
the county closely monitor this segment. Although the project
traffic analysis shows that some project traffic will impact the
segment, the Regional Planning Council did not recommend that a
monitoring condition be attached to approval of this request.
However, county traffic engineering staff has reviewed the traffic
study and related materials and recommends that a monitoring
condition be attached to approval of the request (see attachment
#4).
Such a monitoring condition would be similar to certain monitoring
conditions contained in the Grand Harbor D.O., and would require
the developer to annually monitor the level of service of US 1
between 4th Street and Oslo Road. According to the condition, if
level of service problems are discovered, then no further project
building permits will be issued until improvements to correct the
level of service problem have been programmed for construction.
The Rimley Horn & Associates project traffic engineer has stated
that he has no objection to this monitoring condition.
*Approval of Request
To approve the request, the Board of County Commissioners will need
to adopt a resolution that approves the request, amends the D.O.
traffic conditions as requested, and adds any special conditions of
approval. With the monitoring condition described above, it is
staff's position that the requested modifications to D.O. traffic
conditions are reasonable and should be approved. Therefore, the
resolution proposed by staff (see attachment #6) approves the
requested traffic condition modifications and adds the special
monitoring condition recommended by county traffic engineering.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Determine that the request does not constitute a substantial
deviation; and
2. Adopt the attached resolution approving the NOPC request to
modify certain D.O. traffic conditions, as contained in the
NOPC application materials, and adding the monitoring
condition as recommended by county traffic engineering.
MAY 24� 41 KKK �4 r�r 486
I
MAY 24 1994- BooK W F-Au487
Chairman Tippin opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone _
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner
Commissioner Adams, the Board
Resolution 94-68, amending the
Town Center Mall D.R.I.
Macht, SECONDED by
unanimously adopted
D.O. for the Harbor
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 68
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER
(D.O.) APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR
THE HARBOR TOWN CENTER MALL DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT (D.R.I.).
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 380 Florida
Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida has adopted Resolution No. 89-31A (adopted March 28, 1989)
establishing the Development Order approving the Harbor Town Center
Mall Development of Regional Impact, and has adopted Resolution No.
89-128 (adopted September 26, 1989) amending said Development
Order, and has adopted Resolution No. 92-13 (adopted January 28,
1992) amending said Development Order, and has adopted Resolution
No. 94-1 (adopted January 4, 1994), and
WHEREAS, Attorney Steve L. Henderson on behalf of the project
developer, CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., has formally applied
for and has agreed to certain language changes within the
Development Order (D.O.) relating to certain traffic conditions,
and
WHEREAS, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and
Department of Community Affairs have indicated no objections to
approving the request and have indicated that the request does not
constitute a substantial deviation,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida that:
1. The Board of County Commissioners finds that the requested and
proposed changes to the Development Order do'not constitute a
substantial deviation, pursuant to Chapter 380 Florida
Statutes.
2. The notification of proposed change application and materials
submitted on behalf of the developer, including the
i transportation analysis performed by Rimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. dated October 1993, and including subsequent
and related staff and applicant correspondence, are hereby
incorporated by reference into the Application for Development
Approval (ADA) for the project.
3. All conditions and restrictions specified in the project
Development Order (Resolution No. 89-31A, and as amended by
Resolution No. 89-128, Resolution No. 92-13, and Resolution
No. 94-1), shall remain in full force and effect.
4. Development Order condition #32, as found in Resolution 89-
31A, is hereby amended as follows:
42
RESOLUTION NO. 94-68
"32. No site plan shall be released and no building permits
shall be issued for'any portion of the Harbor Town Center
project until contracts have been let by the County for
the following intersection improvements, including
traffic signal installation and/or modifications as
warranted by the City, County, or State criteria:
a. US 1/49th Street
Eastbound
one right -turn lane
b. US 1/53rd Street „R
signalization warrant
analysis; and
I IS • •• =09 Southbound
one • second left turn
lane
Eastbound - ..
one left -turn lane' one 1pft-turn lane
•
C. US 1/CR 510
Westbound
one left -turn lane
•. UEntrance
S 1/West Site
North..Southbound
one right -turn lane one left -turn lane
Westbound
one right -turn lane
e. Indian River Boulevard/
Royal �a1�n �oulevatd
1. Royal 1�alm one way pair
Southbound Westbound
one left turn lane r� s t r i'p e t o
provi'd�! , she
tu�n ,., lade ohe
through :1�he
otid right -turn lane
2. OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE
Southbound taestbound
two left -turn lanes lei
��� t� t o���� ft-
.���gH lightne
Eastbound
Add eastbound lane on
eastern leg tb W -IS
dual Southbcsund left tiitns
f. Indian River Boulevard/
37th Street
Northbound Southbound
two through lanes ole.�t}iaUt�h;lane
through l��te
Eastbound
one left -turn lane
Coding:•= in SIMISM11rom type are deletions from existing
Words underlined are additions.
MAY 2 41994 43
O K 2 n UE 488.. ,
RESOLUTION NO. 94-6$
MAY 2 4..1994.
e. Indian River Boulevard/
53rd Street
signalization; and
Northbound
modify right -turn lane to
one right-turn/through lane
one throu h lane
Eastbound
• • 00111ra=
one left -turn lane
f. 53rd Street/Prosect
Driveway
Southbound
one right -turn lane
3: In recognition that
BOOK 9? Fxsr- 489
.w
Southbound
rthntoUgli/left-t • •
]fight -turn/
e
Westbound
one right -turn lane
service on US i between Fourth Street and Oslo
Road, the applicant will provide a monitoring study
of actual traffic conditions on this US 1 segment
each winter season following issuance of the first
until project buildout. If the level of service is
determined to be below level "D" (peak season, peak
hour, peak direction), discounting all new traffic
from other vroiects within Indian River Countv, no
turtner building permits shall be issued for the
project until required roadway improvements to
achieve level of service "D" on the above described
segment of US 1 have been programmed for
construction.
All above configurations shall be permitted and
constructed in accordance with City,'County, and State
criteria. No certificates of occupancy shall be issued
for any portion of the Harbor Town Center project until
the intersection improvements under a, b, c, d, e, f, and
g above have been completed, as certified by the Indian
River County Public Works Director.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Macht and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Adams , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Ken Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ay_
This Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 24 day of May , 1994.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVE CY, FLORIDA
J ,
C I , John ippin
ATTEST: '
Je y K. Ba ton County Clerk
44
PIIBLIC HEARING — PAVING & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 1ST PLACE
BETWEEN 27TH AVE. AND 32ND AVE. IN VERO BEACH HOMESITES
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this Public Hearing has been properly advertised, as
follows:
5 TO
AVENUE
BEACH
AND
OF
WHEREAS. Courtly Pubk has petitio ed for Road Pavvinggaand
bhproverment far tet Placa between 27th Avenue
and 32nd Avenue in Vero Bearh Homestes SubdivF
dm.
WHEREAS. the constrruecclikin of paving and drain.
age Improvernents auah Yr d to CIapbteyr �8, Section 206.0assessnient 1 throuordinggh
206.09, kdan River County Code; and cost esti•
Ins and preliminary
rolls; haw been
�pleted by Public W proep nt; acrd the
eb ovemanttss q SIXTY-EIGHT THOU-
SAND. WWHUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS and
FIFTY464E CENTS ($88.760.59); and
e
WHEREAS,
HERE shat s8� assessment Imided her.
any. =Owner of property
verift the area bemefted, be h an pwrounntt
(7596) Of to � cost of the pro of (5,41,570.44)
which the number of lineal feet of rad frontage
owned by the given owner bears to the total number
of heal feet of road frontage wift the arias spar
de9tr bem3fited and five parcemt (25%) of the
toted tpro)sct17.1 .9015) wiY amore from
g Account
• WHEREAS, the special essesanrhemt dal become
due and at the Office of the Tax Collector
of Irden FWw ChM &W Ciftwiladon of tmepe�Il eaPanhardpuaaft �i
a t to Section 206.08, Indian RMer County Code;
WHEREAS, any spedd assessment not. paid
b and�ths 60 Mety� at �m established Interest
Board of Ccudy Commiasiouers at the One of
ll18ti0rh Of to final 8ssesarr ent roll, and shelf be
rh tr p is21 iftiallirrmts, the find to from the due and
be due year1r, and
after axw(Wation of the nature and
anticipated usage of the propp�e�
the Board of Ccunrf Con-mmissbrars�,
mined that to folowng describedslat
re0etre a direct and special bereft Mase im.
provenment to wit
Lots 11 fhrcuph 16 and Lot 18, Block S;
Loa 1 and 3 thrcxigtm 8, Mock C; Vero
Beach Hnxnesites 1M Ora "A" Pat Book
3 Page ver
as recorded in hden Ri
Loa 1
0rohr0hm 15, Block Q Loa 18
through 30, Bbdk F. Vero Beach Hme-
Stes Unit No. 1, Pat Book 3, Page 33 as
recorded h tmdm River County Fbrad.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMYSSIONERS OF IN.
DUN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA, as fclowe:
1. The foraging recall are affirmed and ra--nod
In their me".
POvWrwft to 1st Paoe between 27th Avenue and
Avenue in Vero Beach Hanrheeftes 8tnbdvWw
9herstollore 11 fit, es rks Pd* WoProject No.
Wed terra out -
as heandreby all o edcable a �
of Chsp.
ter 206, et seq. Indian FU County
The foregoing resolution wasofferedCo mis-
sbe EMM was seconded bey C moved.Its
Adana and. The upon
being put to .loin vote. t e vvpote vies as kill
CharmanVionnan Kenneth R. Maaht Aye
a(�e
Comm issuer Fran S. Adams Aye
CONnissictia Ricard N. Bid Aye
The Chairman t erekh m dedeclared the resoluta
Paced andO�OFdCOLWTY CAMS
OF INDIAN RIVER COL TY. FLORIDA
Attest BY-a,IOFW W. Till Chalman i
-sJEFFREY K. BARTON, Clerk
BY -5 -Dian An, D.C.
May 1
1097939
MAY 241994
PUBLIC NOTICE -
IST PLACE
RESOLUTION NO. 94-55
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND
PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF
PROPERTY ON IST PLACE BETWEEN
2fTH AVENUE AND 32ND AVENUE IN
VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION
AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS
MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE
HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND AD-
VISABILITY OF MAKING PAVING AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO SAID
PROPERTY AS TO THE COST THEREOF,
AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT
THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT
THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED
AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED
THEREBY.
WHEREAS. the Board Of County Camndsabera
of Indian River County has, by ResoArtlon No. 94-
54, determined that if Is necessary for the pubic
welfare of the citizens of the cwA* and partipu"
as to
within
_9
deradiage Improvements be made to said property
WHEREAS, the Board d Courq Commissioners
has caused an aseeserh 1 1 rel to be campistad and
filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHERlM Section 20&06 Code, negL*" the Board fCof Caadty Conn
sbrhers slat fix a fame and place at which the owe•
ers of the properties to be assessed or any other
d a co�u�dc� h before m
".-Propriety and avned schisatft of making paws and
cod thereof as to the now payments blarefas to a
and as to prtohpearlaynou t thereof to be assessed
CW —NOW, TTHERff ROE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN.
DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as flows:
1. The Canty Commissbrh dal meat at the
Canty Commission clambers in the County Adml►
iatredmet the how of 9.05 A.M. an Tues-
day. May 24. at which time the aware of the
properties to be assessed and any other interested
persma may appeer before said Commission ant
be heard
in regard to said p�perty The area to be
Ste mmore11P and �partdeibed� t the specialty �
Amrnet� and the assessment roll with regard.
to asseserhena.
2 �pwa:: Irterested In the caretruc8m of
said improve anis and the special assessments
egatat the Ixapeties to be sped* beneflad may
assessed theessessmer 8 pea and specl-
'
tar said
In 11'a
of
the cog taw at of the perk to the
Boardar�mryy week day from 8:30 A.M. Wil 5:00 P.M.
3. Notbe of the time and pace of the pubic hear.
Ih9 dal be given by the Dembno of Public.
arks by two purdcatms in the Vero Beach Press-
tlon � be at desats weak weak The lith datapubliof
the hes The Indian Rim I;o" rdDeparartment of
Public shall give properW
to be sped* meneed at I� ten days notice in
wrl" . of such time and Phos, ~ shall be
saved by maBng a copy of erdh rhOtoe to each of
such owrara at ha tad known address
The re was moved for adoption by Com.
commi9ebner Ad � � p� a
vote, the vote was as folowa:
C hair an JohnKW.i
Tn Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Matt Aye
Commissbner Fran S. Adams Aye
Conmissioner Rkftd N. Bird Aye
Commkisioner Carthis
dyn K. cluly pa thisEggert declared the � resolutlm '
AApprrili "
BOASThe C=hwan CO
INDIAN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
e W. TIPPIN.
Chairman
Attest:
pCerlk
May 10,1994 1097918
45 BOOK 92 PAGE 490
L- -.A
F-
_ MAY
241994
goof 92
Farr 49�.
The
Board reviewed the
following memo dated 5/11/94:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
V4
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, C.E.T.
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Paving & Drainage Improvements to 1st Place between 27th
Avenue and 32nd Avenue in Vero Beach Homesites
DATE: May 11, 1994
On April 19, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 94-54 providing for
certain paving and drainage improvements to 1st Place between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue
in Vero Beach Homesites. A petition was received from the properly owners on this road. Owners
of 30 parcels out of 44 parcels signed the petition making it 689o' in favor of having this road paved
On April 19, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners adopted another Resolution 94-55 setting
the date and time for a Public Hearing to discuss the advisability, cost and amount of the assessment
against each property owner. This hearing is scheduled for May 24, 1994.
It is recommended that motions be made to approve the assessment roll, and confirming resolution
with changes, if any, made after input at the May 24, 1994 Public Hearing. Revised confirming
resolution and assessment roll will be forwarded to Chairman of the Board for signature. The
Assessment Roll and assessment plat are on file with the Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioner's office.
Commissioner Eggert advised that she received a few calls from
property owners in the area about the big change in ownership since
the petition was circulated 3 years ago. -
Michelle Gentile, civil engineer, explained that owners of 30
parcels. out of 44 parcels signed the petition making it 68% in
favor of having this road paved.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that this petition
paving project was held up until after the water line was completed.
EV
Chairman Tippin opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Mike Tirpak, 66 32nd Avenue, referred to the following letter
he wrote in opposition to the petition paving project:
Michael D. Tirpak
166 32nd Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32968
ccr
����:0�•`6`�
May 17,�9�4'��I?`ry'i;`d
iG'.Y2�i�ili;iSiata''.irs ,,�..�:�Lf
Board of County CommissionersitS
of Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Mr. John W. Tippin - Chairman
Lt:I:Yi:
RE: Proposed Paving & Drainage-Iaiprov_ements on First Place
Mr. Tippin:
.�.�r
Eme6g;. Sent.'isk
Lie
The purpose of this letter is to appeal
for a nullificationOP,-the-�
petition for the paving of First Place
between 27th and 32nd Avenues.�����
I strongly oppose the proposed paving project and understand how cow �[ v
practically impossible it is for minds
to be changed in the final hour
after preliminary efforts have been undertaken. In spite of that, I still
feel compelled to respond by detailing
my objections.
As this has taken on a legal character, presumably the petition has
become a legal document. I urge you not to pass this motion on such a
poorly prepared piece of evidence. For instance, on the cover page,
Section II. Boundaries, is not even filled in. That leaves the open
opportunity to challenge that the petition be thrown out or that the
boundaries were manipulated to obtain the percent of approvals necessary
to proceed.
In Section III. Improvements, no improvements are listed or proposed.
Surely we are not inclined to the approving of "Blank Checks".
Since the petition is now over three years old, some whose signatures
Appear have sold and no longer have a valid interest. At the
Informational Meeting, Michele Gentile explained that the petition is
updated for recent sales. As of my face to face with Mr.Davis last week,
he said sales -were irrelevant and they were proceeding with the three
year old signatures. Sounds like the County right hand doesn't agree with
the left hand.
The last page of the petition was mailed away to New Jersey for
signatures. The Bergers' signatures must be worth quite a bit in terms of
percentage since it appears they own many properties an First Place.
However, despite written request of the Dept. of Engineers, they failed
to have their signatures notarized. Your approval of this project should
-- not hedge on such shoddy paperwork.
Finally on the subject of the petition, I remember when the man came
around.with the clipboard soliciting signatures he only asked for road
paving. That fact is reinforced in writing on the petition pages which
were mailed away for approvals. Now that this is coming before your Board
MAY 241994
L-
47
BOOK 92 FAF
tim 241994
1 92 Pic ,X93
it is being presented as Drainage and Road Paving. I contend that none of
the persons who signed the petition are approving Drainage Improvements
but only Pavin4 as the solicitor described. If this project is to be
approved, then the County needs to bear the full financial cost of the
Drainage Improvements and can only share the paving cost with property
owners. If the County is not prepared to pay 100% of the Drainage, then
scrap the project.
When I made the decision to purchase property in Vero Beach Homesites I
retained an attorney to assist in research as to the non-existence of any
homeowners association or property owners association which could affect
how I would be able to enjoy freedom on my own property. If the Board
honors this petition with its approval, then they are bestowing rights
and priviliges where they should not exist. At the same time I am sure
each family had the responsibility to be informed buyers when they chose
to live in this subdivision. How can they claim to be unhappy or
unsatisfied with the choice they made?
Since there are no Covenants, Restrictions or Documents forming a
cohesive bargaining body in the Homesites, then the required two-thirds
signatures on the petition should be given less consideration. The
Preamble says "Freedom for All" and not "Freedom for two -Thirds". Sixty
seven percent of the people should not be able to extort thousands from
my wallet to fund your responsibilities. The community style of living
also offers another safeguard in that most limit Special Assessments to
no more than the current Annual Assessment. If the Board feels so
inclined to permit the sixty seven percent to prevail and effectively
allowing them'to function as a body, then the Board should restrict
itself to complete the project and only assess each owner an amount up to
but not to exceed the homeowners annual property tax. If that level of
funding is short, scrap the project. Seventy -Five percent share of
Drainage Improvements and Paving is an excessive financial burden on
people who are still shocked by the recent water project fees.
I have to also think that none of the County Commissioners are qualified
to pass judgement on this project and assess the people due to the
Conflict of Interest. As mentioned earlier, drainage is.a County
responsibility and the swales should be under constant inspection and
maintenance. Just as you would not pay to improve my yard, why should we
people pay to improve your roadway. There is the conflict of interest.
Upon approval we will pay again for Drainage Improvements, something you
should be doing already. Our loss is your gain.
There are also other worthwhile points to be made against this project.
Earlier I mentioned that as buyers we picked where we chose to reside.
Originally coming from Philadelphia, I am tired of all concrete and
asphalt. The sand street adds greatly to the country -like atmosphere and
should be preserved the same as the sand streets on the barrier island
were spared a few years ago. Living on the corner lot*at 32nd Avenue
(which is paved) I see cars speeding every day sometimes at speeds near
60 miles per hour. Any child in the area would not have a chance to
survive under these speeding maniacs.
48
To close, I wonder why a beach mouse or scrub jay can derail a major
development project, but I, a living, thinking, educated, tax paying,
law-abiding human being probably don't have a snowball's chance. This
proposed project is not state mandated, not a health concern and will
change the pristine country neighborhood forever. I implore you to
excercise good judgement and strike it down. At the very least, use the
wisdom of Solomon and cut the project in half, pave 27th to 29th and
leave any end in sand.
Looking forward to hear what the Board has to say at the May 24th meeting.
See you all there.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Tirpak
Attorney Vitunac advised that notarizations of signatures on
petitions are not required.
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman Tippin
closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Bird asked if we can assume that all the property
owners were notified of this public hearing, and Director Davis
confirmed that notices were sent to all property owners. Mr.
Tirpak is the only one who contacted us with an objection. Most of
the lots are 60 feet wide, but some people own 2 lots. The
assessment for a 60 -ft. lot would be $1,017.60.
Discussion ensued on how the benefit area is determined.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 94-69, confirming the assessment roll for
certain paving and drainage improvements to 1st
Place between 27th Ave. and 32nd Ave. in Vero Beach
Homesites.
49
MAY 2 4 1994 RooK 92 F -a ;r 494
MAY 2 4 1994
Roar 92 F-acF 495
Confirming (Third Reeo.) 1/5/94(ENG)RES3.MAG\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 69
A RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING
THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 1ST PLACE BETWEEN
27TH AVENUE AND 32ND AVENUE IN VERO BEACH
HOMESITES.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County adopted by Resolution No. 94-54, providing for certain
paving and drainage improvements to 1st Place between 27th
Avenue and 32nd Avenue in Vero Beach Homesites; and
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which
said special assessments shall be made and how said special
assessments are to be paid; and
WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by
Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County passed Resolution No. 94-55, on April 19, 1994, which
set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners
of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons
would have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints
as to said project and said special assessments, and for the
Board to act as required by Section 206.07, Indian River
County Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public
hearing was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal
Newspaper on May 10th and May 17th, 1994, (twice one week
apart, and the last being at least one week prior to the
heating), as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County
Code; and
WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at
least ten days prior to the%hearing, as required by Section
206.06, Indian River County Code; and
50
RESOLUTION NO. 94-69
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County on Tuesday May 24 1994 9:05 A.M. conducted the public
hearing with regard to the special assessments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY.
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their
entirety.
2. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment
roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain
legal, valid, and binding first liens against the
properties assessed until paid in full.
3. The County will record the special assessments and this
resolution, which describes the properties assessed and
the amounts of the special assessments, on the public
records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of
the validity of the special assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Rird , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Marht , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 24 day of May , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDI R VER COUN. , FLORIDA
r
By 2 %s
JOHN W. I ,
Jhairman
IZ t:
Je # K. � a4t4on,� C erk
Attachment: ASSEBSKENT ROLL
MAY 241994 51 9
MAY 241934
Boor
92
FAGS 9i
PUBLIC
HEARING
- PAVING & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO
63RD
AVE.
BETWEEN 4TH ST. & STH ST. IN PINE TREE PARR SUBDIVISION
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this Public Hearing has been properly advertised, as
follows:
THE
OF INDIAN RIVER COUN•
AETTING A TIME AND
BTM
AND
uW rnvmrvum AND DRAINAGE IM.
EMENTS TO SAID PROPERTY AS
THE COST THEREOF. AS TO THE
NER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR. AND
TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE
%TALLY � ASSESSED AGAINST EACH
WHEREAS, the Board of County CamrbSiorWa
Of. k= Cantu has. by Resolution No. 94-
52, kieterrrmhed that R Is necessary for the pubic
Wetiare of the ictlzene of tthee, county and Pwftd"
:j the area desrx or T and � � Z
drsirtage hmprovarnents be manta la said property;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Canty Cates
hes tensed an assent roil to be completed and
filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHEREAS. Section 206.08, Indian River County
Code. M Wren tet the Board ofCOMI&
lai
akxnere afix 8 time and place at which the own -
are Of the properties to be asseInterested thinek ssed
aror any other
B�oaard sbefore the
of COUmY Cona�amerri end be h to
the PrOW" and therand
eof adv to said making Property, as to the
cost . as to the mamer of payment therefor,
and as to the amount thereof
to be az ed
a NOW , ch THMO E- BREltad t RESOLVED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COtMiSSIDNERS OF IN
DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as fdbws:
1CONnimb chambers in the Ogarty COMMISSIM Shall
Comity atm
et the herr of 9:05 A.M. an Tuesday, May
24.1 e< which time the owners of the proper-
ties to be assessed and arty other htarestad per
�d MayWeerard to � said C MWSIM and be
he red and the The area to be im-
ftw
proved
mac parties' ba ..
Ment and the roll ra�gard to the
Spam assessmarft
2 In the construction of said
hWcvmrmft and the the MOPWMN to be specialassassrt against
the assessment plat may bmelt
sessed assessmentdhe pan and
estinwe of
�e � at the
Of the Clark to the
card
an of week
day from
88:30 AK until 5:00 P.M.
y the Department Pubiicd 131800 Of this Washo
Pressjounij
Newspaper a week i�begbep,a one weak poria to the daft of the hoThe last publication ar.
Vm(arks shelf give the owThe Indian Rim waf each propertyDepartmant oy to Public
spechaly assessed at least tan days notice ilk wr"
Or �g a ime copy off such raft to each of, which Mall such served
p
by
Wtll Owners at hte last known adMess
The resolution was moved for adoption by Cam.
missioner Adorns. and the motion was smeoorded by
upon being pmt to a vote,
the vote was as follow
Chairman John W. Tipph A
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht ye
Canrrmfssioner Frani B. Adams Aye
Aye
C mrissiOM Richard N. Bid
The � K. Eggert Aye
adotlpt�dthbn Ye
� ABOARD OF CIwNTY 19�NERS
1994okrtlork
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
W. T
Bhairma iN PM,
Attest
BBy44 Albin ClerkC.
May 10. 17,1994 D.C.
1097981
BOARD. OF
OF MDLAm
►YN% OF
OF ANNUAL
"MMAS, the County unum
has b pautionedfor q� WOEd
kwovennernt for 83rd Avenue beftwomeen 4th Street
and 8th Street in Phetree Park SubcvisiorL
WHEREAS. the oorgstrpJdm of paving and drain.
auU&tW by Chepterage knpmvwwft W zuu. Section�20901—t1rgwph�
mates , Indan River Canty Coda; and cost eau
melee and Wdmi wy assessment rob have been
fled by the Pubic Works Departned; and the
cost
:drainlirrovementIE UN REDTWEa THOUSAND, TWO DOLLARS arid
CENTS
124.228.W, and'
her-
eunder �. t special assessment potdded hler-
witHn the area for� record owner a property
e�1 benefited, be h an arrokad
p5%1 of seventy-fift
of total Dost of the pra)act 03.17
which the ember of ineei feet of road frontage
owned by the ym owner bears to the total number
of lineal feet of road
Dost ftedOf.witdn 5
arm am
c�+r benefited and pmc�t
P611 �become
and pabyJaA�tWot �dclue"EREM' theS31.0 .5713) w� Co. ham
of I River at � Office of the WWWOM Truk Collector,
firial ^�sp�tY (90) after the
ant to Section 206,08, hmtierm giver Comely Cods
and
WHEREAS, any spacial assessment not paid
wift beyondthninety shall bear intgneat
tme due data at a �
established by the
B=d of County COMMISaionsrs at the time of
preparation of the flail assessment ram, and shall be
payable In two2) equal fit, the fiat to be
made tvwelve (1w months from the due date and
subse
and
WHrarafter Oxwndrnafl to be due of the nab" and
antickum usage °fpoposed
the Board Of Camined , rrnty misskmnera
that ft following described
recshall
eivedied benefit o6 mn these -
PrOvements, to wit
ardd 21. 199dand 20, �i a Mock Ai' LOU 21.
19 and -20, Black C. Lots 1 and $ 19 and
20, Black D: Lots 1 and 2. 19 and 20,
LZ Black E: L 1 and 2 19 and 20, Block F,
LOW I and 2. and 2, 199 and 20, Blacand kOH Loot 11 and 16,
Block J: Lots 1 and 18. Black K of Pinetree
Park PIN Book4
Suabdi3 vision, UNo. 2 as receded h
Page 48 of btdiari River Cora.
Lots I and 2. 119d
9and 20, Mockand 8; Block ' Lots ; Late 1and 2
19 and 20, Block C; Lots 1 and 2, 19 and
20. Black D;' Lots 1 and 20, Bkn2. 19 and 20,
Black E; Late 1 and 2, 19 and 20, Black F:
and 2. ate I 19 and 19 andck N Phetraa Park
8"cilvlaon Unit NM 1 as recorded In Plat
oak 3. Page 38 of Indian RWar Canty,
52
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 9Y THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMM;SSK)NERS -OF fiW
DUAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as followws:
I- The h their 0mgO oNrecitals v p N8 affirmed and ratified
pot AP 83rd A -verve = 4m tin S and
Bth Street h Pimetree Park Subdivision heretofore
as Pubic Works Project No. 9039 is
above Wowed subject to the lemma agined
�Ripvxple of 000"rThe twegoi g ration waspy Can"t
Skiner Adam . who adoption. 1?n rnoelon
put to a vote. t�h vote was as follows.
lohnYi0trma n Karelia R. Medrt Aye
�
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Riclo N. Bid : Aye
Avg
Pawed and The firmanadopted� this �deeclare claw of Awil.;� resolution
AReat
4-WIroy K. Barton. Clark
BY4e Diane Albin, D.C.
May 10, 1994 1097894
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/11/94:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P
Public Works I7irect0
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, C.E.T.
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Paving & Drainage Improvements to 63rd Avenue between
4th Street and 8th Street in Pine Tree Park Subdivision
DATE: May 11, 1994
On April 19, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 94-52 providing for
certain paving and drainage improvements to 63rd Avenue between 4th Street and 8th Street in
Pine Tree Park Subdivision. A petition was received from the property owners on this road. 26
property owners out of 42 property owners signed the petition making it 62% in favor of having this
road paved.
On April 19, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners adopted another Resolution 94-53 setting
the date and time for a Public Hearing to discuss the advisability, cost and amount of the assessment
against each property owner. This hearing is scheduled for May 24, 1994.
It is recommended that motions be made to approve the assessment roll, and confirming resolution
with changes, if any, made after input at the May 24, 1994 Public Hearing. Revised confirming
resolution and assessment roll will be forwarded to Chairman of the Board for signature. The
Assessment Roll and assessment plat are on file with the Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioner's office.
Michelle Gentile, civil engineer, advised that this petition
paving request was done some years ago with 67% of the owners in
favor of the paving project. It was redone recently and it came in
at 62%.
Chairman Tippin opened the.Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
53 -
MAY 2 4 1994 MOR 92 FA'1F. 498
I
,MAY 24 1994
Bm 92 F,AGF 49 9
Michael Ray, 545 63rd Avenue, emphasized that the original
petition is almost 4 years old now, and a lot of the people who
wanted the paving are now opposed to the project. He didn't
understand how the County arrived at 62% when he calculated it as
54%. With the water and impact fees being assessed to them, this
paving assessment will cause an undue hardship on him and others.
Robert Williams, 426 63rd Avenue, stated he is one of the
owners who have changed their position on the paving project and
who now are against it. He is opposed to the paving because the
County has added drainage improvements to the project and because
this street will be turned into a speedway creating a safety
problem for the children. Mr. Williams appreciated getting water
lines, but did not want any more improvements to his property
because his taxes are too high now.
Elizabeth Mason, owner of a vacant lot on 63rd Avenue, didn't
really oppose the paving, but felt the impact of the water
assessment is enough for now.
Mike Harrison explained that he lives on the corner of 4th
Street and 66th Avenue and is concerned about the paving because of
the safety of children playing in the street. He would prefer that
the street not be paved, and pointed out that his figures show that
the approval is only 27 percent:
PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
63RD AVENUE, PINE TREE PARK
SYNOPSIS OF ACCOMPANYING PETITION AND PETITION REVISION
BASIC DATA
TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS ----------- 41
TOTAL FRONT FOOTAGE ON 63RD AVE. ---------- 4,270 FT.
ORIGINAL PETITION
NUMBER OF OWNERS FOR PROJECT -------------- 22 OR 54%
TOTAL FRONT FOOTAGE FOR PROJECT ----------- 2,250 FT. OR 53%
ORIGINAL PETITION AS CURRENTLY REVISED
NUMBER OF OWNERS FOR PROJECT -------------- 11 OR 27%
TOTAL FRONT FOOTAGE FOR PROJECT ----------- 19050 FT. OR 25%
OF THE ORIGINAL 22 PROPERTY OWNERS SHOWN ON YOUR PETITION THAT SIGNED
FOR THE PROJECT, 11 HAVE NOW REVERSED THEIR DECISION. THE MAJORITY OF THE
it OWNERS STILL "IN FAVOR" ARE ABSENTEE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE NOT
RESPONDED TO THE REVISION PETITION AND OF THE 11 STILL IN FAVOR OF THE
PROJECT, TWO ARE NO LONGER VALID PROPERTY OWNERS.
SUGGESTION=
BASED ON THE ABOVE STATISTICS, THIS PROJECT SHOULD NOT PROCEED: -
54
Robert Hall, 765 63rd Street, calculated that only 17% of the
owners are in favor of the paving project. He felt most of the
people are now against the project because of the addition of
drainage improvements. Going to a 60 -ft. right-of-way would result
in the loss of natural foliage. He urged the Board not to do this
project.
Kelly Beal of 4th Lane advised that there are approximately 25
children who board the school bus on that street every morning and
people are already driving too fast down that street. -With the
street paved, it will only get worse. When they first moved there,
it was a country setting and they don't want to lose that.
Betsy McMann, 442 7th Place, was concerned about the safety of
her two children if the road was paved. She was also concerned
about losing some of the natural foliage that is now in her front
yard.
Diane Greto, 6306 4th Place, agreed with everything her
neighbors have said in their opposition to the paving and drainage
project. She would lose three beautiful oak trees with a 60 -ft.
road right-of-way.
Elizabeth Mason came to the podium again to state that she was
never polled. She is opposed to the paving project.
Mrs. Gentile advised that phone calls to Mrs. Mason were not
returned.
Chairman Tippin asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
There being none, he closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Eggert had a real problem in approving a project
that doesn't have 66-2/3 percent support.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to deny the petition paving
project.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked about the drainage
situation in that area, and Director Davis explained that we would
require another 30 feet on either side for the swale system.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
55
MAY 2 41994
Pn,% 02 F{QF.500
I
mP 211994 mu 92 F�,Au l
Commissioner Macht felt the residents who expressed their
objections this morning had prepared their arguments very well.
Discussion ensued on how to make people better understand the
process of petition paving. The Board directed staff to attach a
generic cross section description of the project to the petition.
Chairman Tippin asked to see a copy of the informational
brochure that staff sends out to people seeking a petition avin
P g
of their street.
PIIBLIC HEARING — ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE RELATING TO ELECTRICAL
TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES: PROVIDING FOR PIIBLIC MEETINGS
The hour of 9:05 a.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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that theatiached copy of advertisement, being
a?A /4&/2
In the matter of
In the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of .
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
br l..Q.
A ,subscribed before me this day f A.D. 19
.• .•.•••. ms's
•
My Co... • G = BARBA SPRAGUE. TARy PitRL14Business Mana
J
• aPires ; m ' State of Florida My Comrnrs
• une 29, 1997 . eron txP. June 29. 1997
N• No. CC 2 •
• Lpti57 •
• EA) -
•'resigma: -�'' �t/ j ✓1 ��C�'
���•• �F FLO� r`'� NOWY: BARBARA C. SPRAGUE
56
T -PUBLIC t10TICH
;The
Tl er BCoowddt�r�of%'- Fftr'11 CMwft*rw8 of been
PUBLIC Fd AAWOechediJed�1' for9A5MVon
'TUESDAY, MAY 24;1 1994; °to+' dtsaae end aorei W
the
folorrtp ordrw=enti
tled
Mt AN 0 DINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER ! COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE CODE OF
INDIAN RM91 OOUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ADDITION
y SECTION 303.28 RELATING .TO ELECTRICAL
TRANSMISSION ' LINE ROUTES: PROVIDING FOR
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON SAID ROUTES. ; -
Anyone who may wish to appeal ary dedebn wNrh
I. may be made at ft meetlng w8 meed to ensue
that a verbaft record of the waved np Is made,
Mich hch ft appeal Is bane NtYroan
nY,.d 6*10ze q= YA*:h
tll� who reeds a pdW aooammWathn for
wtth mead g" N Act° (A theme or
8000, ExL 408, at least 48 )Mn in adve w of the
-Mey
6. 1994:�'�"w �. y 109MT14YrM... va .w.
807
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/17/94:
TO: Board of Countvctrin�
y ommissioners
Q" P
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: May -17, 1994
RE: Power Pole Siting Ordinance
The attached ordinance was* presented to the Board last year for
consideration and was approved in concept, but action was postponed
until a bill could be filed in the Florida Legislature. The bill passed
the Florida House but not the Senate. In December, 1993 the Board
directed this office to bring this ordinance back if the Legislature
failed to take action.
Since state law forbids the regulation of power pole "siting as a land
development regulation, this ordinance attempts to provide some
protection to the local homeowner by requiring public hearings for
siting transmission and distribution lines when other public hearings
are not required by Florida law.
This ordinance would apply to lines between 68 kilovolts and 230
kilovolts.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Rachel Scott of Florida Power & Light introduced senior
attorney Jean Howard, senior engineer Dan Collata, and Ralph
Edmundson, supervisor of transmission lines.
Jean Howard, senior attorney for FP&L, read aloud the
following letter of objection to the proposed ordinance:
57
MAY 24 1994, MOO 92 Ae;.50
MAY 241994
FPL
J.W. Tippin, Chairman
Indian River County Commission
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
nox 92 P F503
P.O. Box 029th, Miami, FL, 33102-9100
(305)552-3929
May 18, 1994
Re: Proposed Ordinance Requiring Notice and Public Hearing of
Utility Prior to Final Route Selection of Transmission
Line
Dear Mr. Tippin:
Florida Power & Light Company respectfully submits these written
comments on the proposed ordinance, identified above, to be
included in the record of the public hearing advertised for May 24,
1994 at 9:00 a.m.
Florida Power & Light Company has a long and proven record of the
care that it takes in selecting routes for transmission lines and
is proud of its record in meeting its legal obligation imposed by
the state legislature to provide reasonably sufficient, adequate
and low cost and efficient electric service to each person applying
for such service. Transmission lines are necessary and they can be
difficult to route.
The state has determined that an affordable and reliable supply of
electricity is a matter of public welfare and a matter of the state
police power. § 366.01, Fla. Stat. (1993).
State law requires not only that FPL meet this service obligation,
but that FPL act in good faith in selecting the routes for the
transmission lines. The state law requires that FPL not "make or
give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any
person or locality, or subject the same- to any undue or
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect." § 366.03,
Fla. Stat. (1993). In order to meet these state requirements, FPL
considers several factors in locating transmission lines including:
alternative routes, cost, environmental concerns, long range
planning, safety and sound engineering practices.
In addition to the declaration in chapter 366, Florida Statutes
that the provision of electric service is a matter of state --not
local police power, the legislature has expressly declared that the
linear facilities of public utilities (the poles and wires
constructed or to be constructed on established rights-of-way) are
not "development," and, therefore, are not subject to local
government land development regulations'-- include zoning. §§
163.3164(5); 380.04; 163.3164(22), Fla. Stat. (1993).
Under Florida law, with respect to transmission lines between 68
kilovolts and 230 kilovolts, it is the province of the electric
company to lay out, locate and maintain its transmission lines
provided that it acts in good faith and in accordance with state
law and policy.
58
There is a reason behind this state policy. That reason is simple.
In Florida there are -67 counties and over 390 cities. If each
local government had the right to impose its own requirements with
respect to transmission facilities, a hodgepodge of methods of
siting and construction could result and costs and resulting
capital requirements could mushroom. Delay in construction and,
therefore, in service availability and reliability would ensue.
Locally influential citizens might convince the local elected
officials that the line ought to be built in the neighborhood of
someone with less political influence or to exclude the line
altogether from the boundaries of the local government. The
Florida Supreme Court has.recognized this concern in the case of
Florida Power Corporation v. Seminole County, 589 So.2d 105, 107
(Fla. 1991) in finding that the regulation of the electric utility
is a matter of state not local concern. Further, as the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania stated in Duquesne Light Company v. Upper St.
Clair Township et. al., 105 A2d 287 (Pa. 1954)-- one of the cases
cited with approval by the Florida Supreme Court in the Florida
Power Corporation case, supra,-- Local authorities not only are
ill-equipped to comprehend the needs of the public beyond their
jurisdiction, but, and equally important, those authorities, if
they had the power to regulate, necessarily would exercise that
power with an eye toward the local situation and not with the best
interests of the public at large."
Transmission lines, unlike substations or generating plants, must
cross several different local government jurisdictions in order to
transmit or transport the electricity. There must be alignment
between the different local jurisdictions. The lines must be built
according to sound engineering practices and in a cost effective
manner. The state-wide interest of public welfare could be negated
by the perceived local interest.
A local government has the authority, pursuant to section 337.401,
Florida Statutes (1993) to issue permits for utility use of road
rights-of-way to ensure that the presence of the utility facilities
on the road right-of-way does not interfere with the traveling
public. This permitting authority, however, is not regulatory
authority. The local government may not regulate the route
selection of the transmission line either through its land
development regulations or its general police powers. Because the
local government has no jurisdiction over route selection for
transmission lines, the local government has no jurisdiction to
require that the electric utility provide written notice of such
route or appear upon mandate at a public informational meeting.
Whether it is the electric utility, a religious group or an
individual, a local government may not simply mandate that the
group or individual appear before the Commission and justify itself
or its actions to the public.
As stated above, FPL takes pride in its work. FPL is striving to
improve its operations to continue to provide reliable low-cost
electricity. FPL will, on occasion and as FPL deems prudent, hold
voluntary meetings with local residents to explain FPL plans and
construction needs. This voluntary and case-by-case basis is
critical. FPL must preserve its right to act free of local
government politics in order to meet state requirements and FPL's
operational requirements. FPL provides electric service to all or
part of 35 different counties and approximately 175 different
municipalities. FPL must protect its ability and right to build
lines according to sound engineering practices and in a cost
effective manner.
MAY 2 41994 59 nu 92 FAGc 504
I
MAY 2 41994 Boa 92 PataE 505
FPL, therefore, respectfully objects to this proposed ordinance. If
the ordinance is adopted, FPL regretfully will be unable to comply.
FPL wishes to maintain good relations with its customers and with
all local governments within FPL's service area. While FPL must
object to this ordinance, FPL can promise you that it will
determine the location of any future transmission lines in Indian
River County in good faith and according to FPL's statutory
obligation to provide reasonably reliable, adequate, efficient and
cost-effective electric service.
Very truly yours,
X414
e_ -`Jean G. Howard, Attorney
for Florida Power & Light
Company
Attorney Howard assured the Board that FP&L is very concerned
about local concerns, but they feel very strongly that adopting the
proposed ordinance is not the solution.
During lengthy debate of the issue, the Commissioners
reiterated their belief that people need a forum to express their
concerns about high-voltage power lines going through their -
residential neighborhoods.
The following people spoke in support of the proposed
ordinance:
Chris Gannow, 700 25th Street, SW
Bruce Barkett, local attorney
Nancy offutt, Board of Realtors
Brenda Kramer, 730 25th Street, SW _
Polly Schwey, 1958 33rd Avenue
Cecil King, 1746 25th Street, SW
Bonnie Rohani, 644 25th Street, SW
Polly Schwey felt the ordinance should require a time certain
for a meeting to be held within 30 days or so because it takes
,
weeks to prepare for these meetings. People need to consult
engineers and attorneys because it is a very detailed, technical
matter to bring alternatives to the Board.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board adopt Ordinance
94-15, relating to transmission line routes and
provision for public meetings on said routes, with
the following changes: (1) "... public
informational meeting to be held within 60 days in
the County Commission Chambers." (2) ... publish
notice of meeting approximately 14 days before -
meeting."
Commissioner Macht asked if levying of a charge for the
utility to place a notice in the paper would make the ordinance
more vulnerable, and Attorney Vitunac stated that it"would not.
Commissioner Bird suggested the County run the ad, but
Commissioner Adams preferred that we make the utility run the ad
and we will put it on our Agenda as a public discussion item.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 94-15
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING TITLE III OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ADDING SECTION 303.28
RELATING TO ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE
ROUTES; PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS ON SAID
ROUTES.
WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the interest of public
health and safety to have full information on electrical transmission line
routes;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION I. AMENDMENT
A new section 303.28 of the Code of Indian River County, Florida,
is added to read as follows:
Section 303.28 - Public Meetings for Transmission Line Routes
Before any electric utility makes a final route selection in Indian
River County for the construction of an electrical transmission line designed
to operate between 68 kilovolts and 230 kilovolts, the utility shall notify
61
MAY 2 4 1994
�oOK 92 un 506
MAY 241994 Bou 92 muF507
the County in writing. Within 30 days from receipt of the notice, the County
shall have the right to send written notice to the utility requiring the
electric utility to hold a public informational meeting within 60 days in the
County Commission Chambers at which interested persons may comment concerning
the proposed route selection. The meeting shall be advertised at the expense
of the electric utility in a local newspaper of general circulation in other
than the "legal advertisement or classified" section at least once approx-
imately 14 days- before the meeting. The advertisement shall contain a map
showing the proposed general location of the route. The electric utility
shall be required to attend such public meeting(s) and answer questions
concerning the route selection.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective on becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, on this 24th day of May, 1994.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on
the 5 day of May , 1994, for a public hearing to be held on the
24 day of May , 1994, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and
adopted this 24 day of May , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDI�IVER COUNTY, FLORIVA ,
st:
By
John W.
Ti
PPn
Jerey f K. Barton, Clerk Chairman
,;Y,
/
ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this 2nd
day of June , 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Acknowledgment for the Department of State received
on this 6th day of June , 1994, at 10:00 a.m.FpIAXXand filed
in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida.
62
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 400 OF COUNTY CODE
WITH RESPECT TO CATEGORIES OF SKILLS REQUIRING A COMPETENCY CARD
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this Public Hearing has been properly advertised, as
follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Publish" Daily
Vero Baas+. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
up that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach ProSeJOurnd. a dalty newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Horne; that the attached copy of advertieement, being
ate/
In the matter of A
M the court. was pub
fished in said newspaper in the issues of / L
Affiant turthar says that the said Vero Beach Press,lounal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River Canty. Florida. and that the sold newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Flonda. each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the past office in Vero Bonn. in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, far a period atone year next Free mg tris first Pubacatton of the attaWmd Copy of
advertamlenC and afban further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commrssbn or refund fm the purpose of seounng this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. t/y/rand
Swoewvread subscribed before me this ', - day o A.D. 1--'& 41
PgP�
?0P ���dA,9r:yc� c.t;rRAo .,,ppV,yotletfguetneasMa
' M ' G•L StWw moa Yr Vwnmam ka ,we.28.1ta7
YComm.
•�aeq 11197 A .�..�.,.
91F;i�=: pQ •= B Na : BARBARA C. sPRAM* {
OF FLOP'\• ••
l The Road -d4waay-amerteaaea a • •Mal
IiWa Ootaay, fbfa4laIstly 4ol a
mi Nft Merng aaeaYtrA
an rusty.
MM 21, 19941-10 lease 1e Job"* propow
adrrtbaam
+ mp fadeMail Qla bgtlC .N q M�
%1 M•�wd b sen flat a vapor teood b
fie Vadeb- Is madb Nada eO+oes'lssalnrI
ata aaiaeae upon what or appea Y mea.
MsyL19%_ - . 118
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/94:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 18, 1994
RE: PUBLIC HEARING - May 24, 1994
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENTITLED:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AMENDING CHAPTER 400 OF THE INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY CODE WITH RESPECT TO
CATEGORIES OF SKILLS REQUIRING A
COMPETENCY CARD, ESTABLISHING A
PREREQUISITE FOR ACTIONS AGAINST A
REGISTERED CONTRACTOR, AND CREATING
A PRESUMPTION FOR WORKING FOR
COMPENSATION.
This item came before the Board on May 3, 1994 and was approved for
_ public hearing. The attached ordinance amends Sections 400 of the
Indian River County Code as described above.
REQUEST: Staff recofnmends approval of the attached proposed
ordinance.
63
MAY 2 4 1994 Max 9 FiLr. 50
MAY � 4-1994
92 PA -UE 509
Commissioner Bird understood that this ordinance would not
establish any additional requirements, and Building Director Ester
Rymer explained that this ordinance doesn't change the way we
enforce our present ordinance, it just lists the categories of
skills requiring a competency card.
Chairman Tippin opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Steve Hall, local representative of the Associated General
Contractors, felt this ordinance will strengthen Chapter 400 of the
County Code.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 94-16, amending Chapter 400 of the County
Code with respect to categories of skills, etc.
ORDINANCE 94- 16
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AMENDING CHAPTER 400 OF THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY CODE WITH RESPECT TO CATEGORIES OF
SKILLS REQUIRING A -COMPETENCY CARD,
ESTABLISHING A PREREQUISITE FOR ACTIONS
AGAINST A REGISTERED CONTRACTOR, AND
CREATING A PRESUMPTION OF WORKING FOR
COMPENSATION.
WHEREAS, experience has shown that certain procedures governing
the regulation of contractors need to be modified,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
64
II
U
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.
a) Section 400.01(1) which currently reads as follows:
M
(1) No person shall engage in the business of construction,
contracting or subcontracting as regulated by Florida Statutes
or in a category as tested by Block and Associates without a
valid certificate of competency issued by the Indian River
County Building Department unless certified under Florida
Statutes.
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 400.01. Certificate required. -
(1) No person shall engage in the business of construction,
contracting or subcontracting as regulated by Florida Statutes or
in a categories
listed in
Appendix A to Ordinance No.
94- t 6( copies
of which are
available
in the Clerk's office and
the Building
officials office) without a valid certificate of competency issued by
the Indian River County Building Department unless certified
under Florida Statutes.
b) Section 400.08. which currently read as follows:
Any person . may bring charges against a registered
contractor. Such charges shall be made in writing and sworn
to by the building official shall mail a copy of such charges
to the accused within fifteen (15) days from the receipt
therefor and shall serve notice upon the accused and upon all
interested persons of the date fixed for a hearing on such
charges before the building code board of adjustment and
appeals. The accused shall have the right to appear
personally or with counsel and to produce witnesses and
evidence in defense. If after hearing the evidence the board
determines that the accused is guilty of the charges brought -
against the accused, the appropriate board may suspend or
cancel the contractor's registration. In lieu of suspension or
revocation the board may provide for a fine. _
is hereby amended to reads as follows:
Section 400.08. Suspension or revocation of registration;
hearing; appeal.
1. Any person, after having received a favorable decision in a
court of competent jurisdiction against a registered contractor, may
bring charges against said contractor. Such charges shall be
made in writing and sworn to by said person. The building
official shall mail a copy of such charges to the accused within
65
M
AY 2 41994 Boa 9 F'Uf 510
L.- I
MAY 2 4 1994 BOOK 92 PACE 511
fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof and shall serve notice
upon the accused and upon all. interested persons of the date fixed -
for a hearing on such charges before the building code board of
adjustment and appeals. The accused shall have the right to
appear personally or with counsel and to produce witnesses and
evidence in defense. If after hearing the evidence the board
determines that the accused is guilty of the charges brought
against the accused, the appropriate board may suspend or cancel
the contractor's registration. In lieu of suspension or revocation
the board may provide for a fine.
2. The building official may bring charges under the procedures
of paragraph 1 of this. section without seeking a court
determination.
c) Section 400.03 which is "reserved" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Section 400.03. Presumption Working for Compensation.
Any time a person is doing work for another person other than a
family member, there is a rebuttable presumption that the work is
being done for compensation. For the purposes of this section
family means a member of the immediate family which includes
spouse, children, parent, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, grandmother, grandfather or legal
guardian.
eLPnrJ+TnAr A e1917LVID Al2TT.TrrV
If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining
portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the
legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
M
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 24 day of May , 1994.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on
the 5 day of May , 1994, for a public hearing to be held on
the 2 4 day of M a v 1994, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert seconded by Commissioner
Bird and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin A y e
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B
John W. T pi , rman
Attest By
Clerk^ , K, L3/FRTi"
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida,
this 2nd day of June , 1994.
Effective date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State received
on this 6th day of June , 1994, at 10 :00 a.m/jpxmx and filed in
the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Comm ssioners of Indian
River County, Florida.
Attachment: Appendix A
MAY 24 1994
67
Indian River Co Approved
Date
Admir4 -
.77 y
Legal
Budget
Dept
Risk Mgr.
Boob 92 FAGF 512
r
_I
MAY 24 1994
MOK 92 PAIGE 513
PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE AMENDING COUNTY CODE TO PLACE ADDITIONAL
RESTRICTIONS ON COUNTY PARKING FACILITIES
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this Public Hearing has been properly advertised, as
follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Dolly
Vere Beach. Iridian River County, Plovido
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authorfiy, personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
.• •'I911
d '. " •� •�
.Ittrlb8 � B
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily —paper published
at Vero Beach M Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advarth ement, being
i Mg. •DAY. flaikilk• '�eireifi"i��
i pgp� , �^• � "� TIS
a b alll0t/�. wttbwl� Aid
L
moo?&MIMM ' 'IM +WWF .
10"
In the matter of '6'
W 04 yMW ••'. r.W 'OF, IFIE
snDG
11�L10H j
`oouNrr �coE VN ADOLWIar
In the cam, was pub -
1B11aryy••D
d
fished In cam newspepar in the team of //`A,l� .J~. /A'Q%�
�IIBIBB
1 X994, ofl"teed. ,y'tefWtllely
11M1e7pPe�N�Bed
;1098598
_ Allienl further as" that the said Vero Beach PreseJourral Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, M sem Ioban River County, Florida, and that the sold newspaper has herelofoe
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mall matleral the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian RNer Corn•
• ty, Florda, lm a period of one year nest preceding the first publication of Ike attached copy of
advenlsemenC and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount. rebate. mesion or refund for the purpose of securing this
adverlieernerd for publication in the said newspaper.
�QM�Ii"�i,wbscribe0 beloro me this day ol._1.A.D. tg
S, �7�
t+� ,6 p _ V r Z• ,-
',
rCPQ.• tiO l q,9 '�yc ,•
= SARWC SMAC II:... NWAIW ruatKISaetnaaa Mena04
• Myr,t. •Gs laro,lrwa+.wre..+w..�twa..2a.tri
FOR FL0k rr.n.. nARanRAa ermAaue
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/17/94:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 17, 1994
RE: PUBLIC HEARING - May 24,
1994
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENTITLED:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY
AMENDING SECTIONS 307.04
AND 307.06 OF THE
=z INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE
TO • PLACE
ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS
ON , COUNTY PARKING
FACILITIES.
This item came before the Board on May 3, 1994 and was approved for
public hearing. The attached ordinance amends Sections 307.04 and
307.06 by adding additional restrictions on County parking facilities.
REQUEST:
ordinance.
Staff recommends approval of the attached proposed
68
s � �
Commissioner Eggert understood that these additional
restrictions won't interfere with the ability to charge for parking
in the future, and Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien advised
that this probably is the first step to be able to do that.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
Public Hearing..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 94-17, amending Sections 307.04 and 307.08
of the County Code to place additional restridtions
on county parking facilities.
ORDINANCE 94- 17
_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AMENDING SECTIONS 307.04 AND 307.06 OF THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE TO PLACE
ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON COUNTY PARKING
FACILITIES.
WHEREAS, the County has limited regulations with respect to the
use of county owned or leased parking areas; and
WHEREAS, the need for additional and specific regulations is
necessary due to recent construction, in particular, the new courthouse
parking garage,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
SECTION 1. - AMENDMENT.
Sections 307.04 and 307.06 of the Code of Ordinances of Indian
River County is amended to read as set forth in Appendix "A" to this
ordinance.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative, _ or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining
MAY 24 1991
W
L, A
r
MAY
2 4 1994 boas 92 PACE 515
portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the
legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of -
Indian River County, Florida, on this 24 day of May , 1994.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the q day of Mg , 1994, for a public hearing to be held
on the 2 4 day of M a 1994, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner A rf;,m S , seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
JoWn W. ippin; n
1�
Attest By
Clerk k 131r -W -t
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida,
this 9 n a day of June , 1994.
Effective date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State received
on this 6th day of June 1994, at 10:0oa.m/lgxmx and filed in
the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida.
70
APPLICATION FOR SECTION 9 (URBAN MASS TRANSIT ACT) GRANT FUNDS
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961.��,,``�� 562 2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER1� JOAl ila�
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J.
Schumann. Jr. who on oath says that he uB s ire at Manager
ero of the
'Vero Beach Press-iournal. a Indian River County, Florida, thae that P
l�i.47n� ?./Ilcz�1
billed to
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s).
0
o �
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
day A.D
C.
r.c r
m My LM8r11. Em�es . BARRAM C. SPRAGUE N nAM M1BtlG'� 1Y1SRSgC3
W Pores Aly Camm•m EjP. 29. 1W
No. GwuCS72 1pn N- COM72
(SEAL) QF O� — y NWmy BAaeAaAe sPRA(311E
\0—d JY�(
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider submittal of an
application for Section 9, Urban Mass Transit Act, Funds.
The Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners is considering the submittal of an Urban
Mass Transit Act Section 9 grant application. As proposed,
the application requests a $150,000 grant. These funds .
will be passed through to the Indian River County Council
On Aging and matched by $150,000. The funds will be
used to continue the Council On Aging's Community Coach
'(modified fixed route) program and to -increase the
Council's demand responsive transportation program.
Specifically, funds will be used:
• To increase service routes and availability of
service
• To begin a pilot project for a seasonal Saturday
variable fixed route
To increase hours of service.
A public hearing at which parties in interest and
citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held
by the Board of County Commissioners in the County
Commission Chambers of the Indian River County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida on Tuesday, May 24, 1994 at 9:05 a.m. .
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 mode, which •
includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this
meeting must contact the county's Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension
223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of. County Commissioners
By: -s- John W. Tippin, Chairman
M39
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/16/94:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP RAS
Community Development Director
DATE: May 16, 1994
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR"AUTHORIZATION TO
SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR SECTION 9
(URBAN MASS TRANSIT ACT) GRANT FUNDS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 24, 1994.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
As a result of the 1990 Census, the City of Vero Beach and the
densely populated land surrounding the City were designated as an
urbanized area. With this designation have come several changes.
One was the establishment of the Indian River County Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO). Another change is the eligibility of
local governments within the urbanized area to apply for and
receive Section 9, Urban Mass Transit Act, funds.
71
MAY 2 41994
booK 92 516
►. I
r
{SAY 241994
Grants under
acquisition,
facilities,
used in mass
50% match is
the Section 9
construction,
equipment, an
transportation
required.
BOOK 92 PAA17,
program are available for*the planning,
improvement, and operating costs of
d associated capital maintenance items
service. For operating cost grants, a
While only public agencies may be designated recipients and apply
for Section 9 funds, a private provider may receive Section 9 funds
through a designated recipient which applies for funds on behalf of
the private provider. Consistent with this allowance, the Indian
River Council On Aging has prepared a Section 9 Grant application
and is now requesting that the Board of County Commissioners apply
for Section 9 funds as a designated recipient on behalf of the
Council On Aging.
The Council On Aging is requesting a $150,000 Section 9 grant, and
proposes to match that with $150,000 of the County's annual
contribution to the Council On Aging. No additional county funds
are requested or needed. A copy of excerpts from the application
is attached. The complete application is on file in the Board
office.
As proposed, the Council on Aging will use 'the entire $300,000
(grant and match) to fund its Community Coach and para -transit
service. These funds will replace a private grant that has
supported the Community Coach since its inception; the funds will
also supplement transportation disadvantaged funding. The proposed
grant would be for one year, beginning in October, 1994.
Applications may be submitted annually thereafter.
ANALYSIS:
According to Section 9 grant application requirements, a designated
recipient must hold a public hearing to obtain the views of
citizens on the proposed grant application. In keeping with that
requirement, staff has published a notice of this meeting and has
scheduled this item as a public hearing.
If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the application
will then be reviewed by the MPO Technical Advisory Committee, the
MPO, FDOT District 4, FDOT Central Office, and the Federal Transit
Administration. The MPO has included the proposed $150,000 in
Section 9 funds as well as the local match in its FY 94/95 - 98/99
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a necessary prerequisite
for submittal of a Section 9 application.
The proposed -application will not cost the county any more money
than it has provided the Council On Aging in the past. In fact,
this grant will allow the Council On Aging to leverage county funds
to provide more transportation services to the county's residents.
By so doing, the Council will be meeting an identified need within
the County.
To apply for Section 9 funds, the Board of County Commissioners
must adopt the attached resolution and authorize the chairman to
execute necessary self -certifications and standard assurances.
Copies of these are attached to this agenda item. All have been
reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution authorizing the filing of the Section 9 grant
application. Staff also recommends that the Board authorize the
chairman to execute the necessary self certifications and standard
assurances required by the Section 9 program.
72
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 94-70, authorizing the filing of an
application with the U. S. Department of
Transportation, for a grant under the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.
RESOLUTION NO. 94 - 70
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER- COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN
APPLICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, FOR A GRANT UNDER THE URBAN MASS
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to make
grants for a mass transportation program of projects and budgets;
WHEREAS, the contract for financial assistance.will impose
dertain obligations upon the applicant, including the provision by
it of the local share of project costs in the program;
WHEREAS, it is required by the U.S. Department of
Transportation in accord with the provisions of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the U.S. Department of Transportation
requirements thereunder; and
WHEREAS, it is the goal of the applicant that minority
business enterprise be utilized to the fullest extent possible in
connection with this project, and that procedures shall be
established and administered to ensure that equipment contracts, or
consultant and other services meet these goals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
1. That the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is
authorized to execute and file applications on behalf of
Indian River County with the U.S. Department of Transportation
to aid in the financing of planning, capital and/or operating
f assistance projects pursuant to Section 9 of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.
2. That the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is
authorized to execute and file with such application an
` assurance or any other document required by the U.S.
Department of Transportation effectuating the purpose of Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
l'IAY 2-41994 73
poof, 92 FAsE518
r
MAY 2 4 1994 BOOK 92 DCC 519
3. That the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is _
authorized to furnish such additional information as the U.S.
Department of Transportation may require in connection with -
the application for the program of projects and budget.
4. That Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is
authorized to set forth and execute affirmative minority
business policies in connection with program of projects and
budgets procurement needs.
5. That Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is
authorized to execute grant agreements with the U.S.
Department of Transportation for aid in the financing of the
planning, capital and/or operating assistance program of
projects and budget.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Eggert , and
the motion was seconded by
Bird , and, upon being put
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice -Chairman Ken Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 24 day of May , 1994.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDI*RIEROUNTY FLORIDA
BY:ippi , C a rman
caCounty Commissioners
ATTEST:)
JefTFey K. Barton, Clerk
State of Florida
Countty •of India�}River
43P tJa.�* mac.
74
BRUCE BARKETT'S APPEAL OF INTERPRETATION OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
ROAD R/W FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/94:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI
ISI HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. e t g,
Community Deveel�ljjopm Director
FROM: Stan Boling,/AICP
Planning Director
DATE: May 18, 1994
SUBJECT: Bruce Barkett's Appeal of a Planning and Zoning
Commission's Decision on an Interpretation of the
Subdivision Ordinance Road Right -of -Way Frontage
Requirement
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 24, 1994.
BACKGROUND:
Recently, on behalf of property owner Robert VanVorst, attorney
Bruce Barkett requested planning staff's interpretation of the
county's road frontage requirement as applied to his client's
parcel (see attachment #1). The subject parcel is located on
Hedden Place (see attachment #2), and is part of an older,
unplatted "subdivision" that has no platted road rights-of-way or
easements. Also, it is staff's understanding that there is no
official organization (e.g. property owners association)
responsible for maintaining Hedden Place.
County planning staff's interpretation of the LDRs is that
subdivision ordinance section 913.06(1) prohibits creation of
parcels that have no frontage on either a dedicated public road
right-of-way, or a private platted road right-of-way, or a roadway
historically and currently maintained by the county (see attachment
#3). Since Hedden Place is not a dedicated or county -maintained
right-of-way, staff's position is that Mr. VanVorst I s- parcel (which
fronts only on Hadden Place) cannot be further divided without the
platting of Hedden Place.
On behalf of his client, Mr. Barkett appealed staff's
interpretation and has stated that "...staff is in error based upon
the plain meaning of the words used in the applicable sections of
the LDRs, specifically sections 912.06(3)(c) and 913.06(1)(c)" [see
attachment #4]. This appeal was considered by the Planning and
Zoning Commission at its April 28, 1994 meeting. At that meeting,
the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-1 on a motion to
---omerturn staff's interpretation and grant the appeal. Since four
' S
MAY 2 4 1994 Boor. 92 PACE 50
r
MAY 241994
BOOK 9- PAGE 521
affirmative votes are necessary for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to take action, the Planning and Zoning Commission
failed to grant the appeal. Subsequently, on May 5, 1994, Bruce
Barkett filed an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's
decision. Pursuant to LDR section 902.07 (see attachment #5), the
Board of County Commissioners is now to consider the appeal of the
Planning and Zoning Commission's decision.
Besides the appeal of that decision, itself, Mr. Barkett has'also
requested a waiver from the administrative fees charged by the
county for appeals. Since fees are established by a Resolution of
the Board of County Commissioners, the fee waiver request was not
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission but will be
addressed later in this report.
ANALYSIS:
•History, Purpose, and Importance of the Road Frontage Requirement
Within Indian River County, single family development is the most
predominant land use type and has significant impacts. Since each
single family unit must be developed on its own, individual lot,
single family development regulations apply primarily at the time
lots are created. To regulate lot creation, Indian River County,
like many other counties, regulates subdivision development and lot
splits. Two of the major components of the county's subdivision
and lot split regulations are access and traffic circulation. By
establishing road frontage requirements for new lots, the county
ensures that new lots are properly laid -out in relation to a
coordinated and maintained roadway system.
For over 20 years, the county has regulated lot splits by requiring
that all newly created lots have frontage on a public road right-
of-way or a private platted road right-of-way.. This road frontage
requirement is similar to requirements of other counties in the
region, including Brevard and St. Lucie counties. In fact, St.
Lucie County requires that new lots resulting from lot splits front
on roads that are paved to county standards.
As is the case in other counties, Indian River County's requirement
is intended to ensure proper access to newly created lots from a
roadway that is a part of an overall, coordinated roadway network.
In addition, the requirement ensures that the new lots front on
road rights-of-way that:
(a) Are maintained by the county or by a property owners
association that has maintenance responsibility; and
(b) Are properly dimensioned and aligned in a manner that allows
future improvement (e.g. paving) of the roadway; and
(c) Are dimensioned and legally established in a manner that
accommodates future utilities and drainage improvements within
the rights-of-way.
Thus, the road frontage requirement ensures that future development
on created lots can be served by roadways that are adequately
maintained, that are capable of being improved, and that are served
by utilities and drainage.
The road frontage requirement was originally enacted to prohibit
,the creation of new lots where those lots would be inadequately
served by narrow, unmaintained roadways laid -out without county
review and approval. This prohibition is intended to minimize
76
_ M
traffic on sub -standard roads to avoid creating de facto
substandard subdivisions that could require complicated and costly
retro fitted improvements.to solve maintenance, traffic, drainage,
and utilities problems. The degree of difficulty in addressing
development problems "after -the -fact" increases with the number of
lots and lot owners involved. The road frontage requirement
reasonably regulates such increases.
Over the years, the road frontage requirement has been applied to
hundreds of lot splits and proposed lot splits throughout the
county. Planning staff estimates that this requirement is applied
to lot split proposals on an average of 10-20 times a month.
Therefore, the requirement has served and continues to serve as an
important regulatory tool to ensure that newly created lots and
parcels have direct access to dedicated, maintained road rights-of-
way that are part of a coordinated roadway system.
•LDR Road Frontage Requirement Wording
This appeal is being reviewed. under the LDRs in effect at the time
of the appeal. The LDR in question is section 913.06(1) of the
subdivision ordinance, a regulation which is essentially repeated
in LDR section 912-.06(3)(e) of the single family development
ordinance (see attachment #6). It should be noted, however, that
on April 5, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners unanimously
adopted an emergency ordinance to clarify the LDR road frontage
wording (see attachment #7). At the same meeting, the Board
directed staff to review the road frontage LDR requirement through
the normal LDR amendment process. Staff is initiating this review
as part of the next, round of LDR amendments. The Board adopted the
emergency ordinance to ensure that the results of the Board's full
consideration of the road frontage issue, rather than the outcome
of the appeal, would apply to other lot split proposals. Because
of the emergency ordinance action of the Board, this appeal is now
an isolated case.
Even though the emergency ordinance limits the effect of any
decision made in this case, the issue is still restricted to the
question of the wording of the county's land development
regulations. While the applicant's purpose is to obtain the right
to split a specific parcel, the issue before the Board does not
involve the referenced parcel or the characteristics of that
parcel. Instead, the issue is narrowly.drawn and limited to the
specific interpretation or meaning of LDR section 913.06(1) and the
applicability of that provision to any parcel in the county.
The LDR wording which is the subject of this appeal is written as
a list of unlawful, prohibited activities. Each prohibited item
within this list [paragraphs (A), (B), (C)] is itself a paragraph
which may address negative or prohibited activities. To avoid a
wording construction that would use double negatives, section
913.06(1) was constructed so as to provide a list of standards or
requirements that must be satisfied. In condensed form, section
913.06(1) is worded as follows:
"Section 913.06. Compliance required; exceptions
(1) Unlawful activity. It shall be unlawful and subject to the
penalties provided herein for any person to:
(A) Create a subdivision without first complying with the
provisions of this chapter...
(B) Divide property by any means for the purpose of sale or
transfer of title unless each of the resulting parcels has at
least the minimum area and width requirements...
MAY 2 4199477
GOOK U Fa�GE 522
r
MAY 2 419-9.4 BOOK 92 PACE 523
(C) Divide property after December 8, 1973 by any means where a
resulting lot has frontage on: a dedicated public right-of-
way, private platted right-of-way (street), or a roadway -
historically and currently maintained- by the county, as
referenced on the county road grading map, less than:
1. Sixty (60) continuous feet...
2. The minimum lot width..."
•Interpreting the Wording
It is staff's position that paragraph "(C)" must be read in its
entirety and that the words "less than" apply to each of the three
roadway types referenced prior to the words "less than". Thus, in
staff's opinion, the logical reading of this section is as follows:
(1) It is unlawful for any person to:
(A) Create a subdivision without first complying with the
provisions of this chapter...
(B) Divide property.... unless each of the resulting parcels
has at least the minimum area...
(C) Divide property after December 8, 1973 ... where a
resulting lot:
1. has less than (a certain amount) of frontage on a
dedicated public right-of-way, or
2. has less than (a certain amount) of frontage on a
private platted right-of-way (street), or
3. has less than (a certain amount) of frontage on a
roadway historically and currently maintained by
the county as referenced on the county road grading
map.
In its entirety, the wording of section 913.06(1) implies that
there are only three types of road rights-of-way upon which a newly
created lot may front. Thus, under this reading, it is staff's
opinion that an affirmative answer to "(C)1." -and "(C)2." and
"(C)3.11, as paraphrased above, would indicate that a lot split has
no road right-of-way frontage and, therefore, would be unlawful.
Therefore, sufficient frontage on either a public road right-of-
way, or a private platted right-of-way, or a county maintained road
is a pre -requisite for a lawful lot split.
It is the opinion of the appellant that paragraph "(C)" does not
need to be read in its entirety. According to the appellant, one
need only read as- far as the first portion of paragraph "(C)" to
conclude that the minimum frontage requirements apply only in
circumstances where a parcel fronts on a public road right-of-way,
or a private platted right-of-way, or a county maintained road.
Thus, under the appellant's reading, the road frontage requirement
simply does not apply if a road does not fit into one of these
categories, as is the case with Hedden Place.
•Reviewing the Appeal
Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the review of this appeal.
Under 902.07, the Board'of County Commissioners is to make findings
in the following four areas:
78
M M -
I
L. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning -Commission)
— fail to follow the appropriate review procedures?
2. Did the reviewing official (Planning -and Zoning Commission)
act in an arbitrary or capricious manner?
3. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission)
fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed
development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation
or public health, safety and welfare?
4. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission)
fail to evaluate the application with respect to the
comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian
River County?
In staff's opinion, the planning staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not fail in any of these four areas and made a
logical decision in its interpretation of section 913.06(1).
1. There seems to be no contention regarding review procedures.
Mr. Barkett spoke with staff and was verbally given staff's
interpretation.- In response, Mr. Barkett wrote staff,
explaining his disagreement with staff's verbal
interpretation. Staff responded to Mr. Barkett in writing
with the justification for staff's interpretation. Mr.
Barkett then filed a written appeal, which was processed, and
considered by -the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to
LDR section 902.07. Mr. Barkett's appeal of the Planning and
Zoning Commission's decision is now being processed pursuant
to LDR section 902.07. Therefore, staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission did not fail in regards to review
procedures.
2. The appellant contends that staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission erred in their reading of the ordinance. Staff's
position, however, is that its reading of the ordinance is
logical. The main contention between staff and the appellant
is how 913.06(1) applies or does not apply to rights-of-way
other than the three types previously described in this
report.
In staff's opinion, section 913.06(1) as a whole supports
staff's reading of 913.06(1)(c). For example, section
913.06(i)(B) requires all newly created lots to have the
minimum lot width prescribed by the applicable zoning district
regulations. By definition (see attachment #8), minimum lot
width is measured in relation to a front yard which, by
definition is measured in relation to street right-of-way. As
used in section 913.06(1), the only items recognized as
constituting "street right-of-way" are the three types of road
right-of-way previously described. In fact, 913.06(1)(c)2
specifically excludes private access, ingress/egress or other
easements from being considered street right-of-way.
Therefore, in staff's opinion, 913.06(1) requires street
right-of-way frontage for all newly created lots and
recognizes only the three types of road right-of-way
previously described. Most of the wording of section
913.06(1)(c) is constructed in a manner that describes the
minimum amounts of frontage required.
The appellant's reading of section 913.06(1) is illogical
since, under the appellant's reading, a stricter standard of
review would apply to parcels having frontage on any of the
three roadway types than would apply even to land locked
parcels, those having no frontage on any type of roadway or
easement. Therefore, staff's reading of the ordinance is not
arbitrary. On the contrary, staff's reading is logical and
has a logical regulatory effect.
79
MAY 24 1994
BOOK 92 PACE &4
MqY 2 4` 1994
Boa 92 FxE 525
3. Staff's interpretation and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's decision did not fail to take into account the
effects of the interpretation on generaltraffic circulation
and properties surrounding lot splits. In fact, staff's
interpretation recognizes that the importance of the subject
regulation is to ensure proper road right-of-way frontage to
serve newly created parcels and that the regulation has been
consistently applied for many years. The appellant's
interpretation would actually provide property owners with an
incentive to create parcels without proper road frontage.
Such an incentive would be contrary to the county's objective
of ensuring that every newly created lot has adequate access.
4. Since the purpose and intent of the LDRs and the Comprehensive
Plan is to ensure adequate access and traffic circulation to
serve new -development, staff's interpretation is consistent
with the Plan and the LDRs. Therefore, staff did not fail to
evaluate the applicant's request in light of the LDRs and
Comprehensive Plan.
•Request to Waive Fee For Appeal
On October 23, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed
administrative fees charged for project reviews and other planning
division functions, including the processing of appeals. At the
1990 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution
No. 90-165, which established a $500.00 review fee for appeals of
staff determinations. The Board's policy at the time of adopting
the review fees was to have fees cover most of staff's costs in
processing various request types. The basis for the $500.00 fee
for determination of appeals and variances is indicated in the
attached 1990 report (see attachment #11). Since appeals are
almost always heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners (as is the case with the Barkett
appeal), more staff time is involved than indicated in the 1990
back-up material staff time chart. Thus, the present fee seems
justified based upon the amount of staff time spent -processing an
appeal.
In essence, the $500.00 appeal fee is indicative of the costs of
processing an appeal. There is no basis for distinguishing the
Barkett appeal from other appeals, in terms of the review fee.
Therefore, in staff's opinion, the fee waiver request should be
denied.
'Summary
In staff's opinion, its reading of 913.06(1) and the Planning and
Zoning Commission's action are logical and have a logical result.
The applicant's way of reading 913.06(.1) has an illogical result in
relation to the purpose and intent of the road frontage
requirement. Staff's position is that staff and the Planning and
Zoning Commission did not fail in relation to any of the four
appeal review criteria. Therefore, the appeal should be denied,
and staff's interpretation should be upheld. Furthermore, in
regards to the appeal fee waiver request, the current fee appears
justified and should not be waived.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Make a finding that staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission did not fail in any of the four review areas.
2. Deny the appeal and uphold staff's interpretation.
3. Deny the request to waive the administrative fee for appeals
of staff determinations.
80
® M r
s
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, referred
to slidefilms of Hedden Place as he expounded on his arguments set
out in the following letter:
BRUCE D. BARKETT
CALVIN B. BROWN
WILLIAM W. CI►LDWELL
GEEOiUM G. CO{ L*". JR.•
STEPFIEN CdA`ELLV.
MICHAEL J. GARAVAOLIA
DOROTHY A. HUDSON -
BRADLEY W ROSSWAV
0
*BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE LAWYER
• •BOARD CERTIFIED W WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES -
Collins, Brown & CalJweH
CHARTERED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
756 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32963
PLEASE REPLY TO: _ Lr
POST OFFICE BOX 3698 M
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32964 C%
407.231-4343
FAX' 407.ZM-5213
February 9, 1994
-a
Mr. Robert Keating
County Planning Department
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Lot Split on Hedden Place
Tax I.D. No. 05-33-39-00001-0100-00006.0
Dear Bob:
! PLEASE REPLY TO:
SOUTH BEACH OFFICE:
212S W040WA W WAY
SUITE Zoo
-v BEACH, FL 349
V
407.291.4745
FAX: 407.234.5489
I have discussed with John McCoy, Stan Holing and Will Collins`'
the possibility of splitting the above -reference¢ lot on Hedden
Place-. It is a 1.14 acre parcel with 300 feet of -frontage on
Hedden Place, which appears to have been created as a result of
access easements, instead of public or private right-of-way
dedications. I believe, however, that Hedden Place has public
utilities in it.
The seller and real estate professional represented to my
client (Mr. Van Vorst) that the property could be divided into two
residential lots, and my client purchased it with that
understanding. He then built a house on the north one-half of the
property. He would like to convey the south one-half to his
sister, who is confined to a wheelchair. Bach of the resulting
lots would have more than 150 feet of frontage on Hedden Place, and
each would be greater than one-half acre in size (larger than the
average Hedden Place lot).
When I discussed this matter with Stan and John, we looked at
Section 913.06(1)(C), which prohibits dividing property where a
resulting lot has frontage on a dedicated public right-of-way,
private platted right-of-way, or roadway maintained by the county,
less than a specified number of feet. for access,
ingress and egress, or for other purposes are not considered
publicly dedicated road rights-of-way.
81
MpY 24 494
BOOK 92 PA -U-5206
r
MAY 2 4 1994 aoo� 92 PAGE 517
Mr. Robert Keating
February 9, 1994
Page Two
That ordinance, on its face, applies only to a resulting lot
which has a frontage on a dedicated public or private right-of-
way. Hedden Place is not such a road.
I also discussed Section 912.06(3)(C). with Stan. That
ordinance prohibits dividing property where a resulting lot has
frontage on a dedicated public or private right-of-way less than
60 contiguous feet or has no frontage. Again, access easements,
and easements -for ingress and egress are not considered .road
rights-of-way. That ordinance also does not apply, because the
code defines "frontage" as "lineal distance measured along abutting
public or private rights-of-way", and "right -of way" is defined to
include land used for a street, utility installations, access for
ingress or egress, or other purpose by the public or by certain
designated individuals, which would include the property owners on
Hedden Place. Therefore, 912.06(3)(C)'s prohibition against
creating a lot which has no "frontage" does not apply, because
frontage on Hedden Place is "frontage" under. your code's
definitions.
Therefore, I request the county's position on this matter.
I believe Mr. Van Vorst should convey one -half -of his property to
his sister. I should add that Stan looked it up, and the parcel
has has not been split since 1983, therefore, the one-time split rule
would permit this. I also believe the ordinances do not prohibit
it. -
Very truly yours,
Bruce Barkett
BB:bh
cc: Pulliam G. Collins II, Esq.
Stan Boling
Robert Van Vorst
Community Development Director Bob Keating emphasized that we
tell people every day what they need in order to divide a lot, and
our position is that zero frontage on a road meets the "less than"
criterion-. When you go through the answers compiled by Planning
Director Stan Boling, which is the way the ordinance is actually
worded, and you have zero frontage on any of those types of lots,
then you don't meet the criterion to be able to split your property
and it is a prohibitive action. That is our position in this -case.
Attorney Barkett maintained if that was all true, the County
would not have had to pass the emergency ordinance. It is clearly
unclear. What it says is that they can split the lot unless they
have frontage on one of those roads and the frontage is less than
60 feet.
82
Attorney Vitunac explained that his office was asked to look
at this and the mere fact that Attorney Barkett found a different
interpretation caused him to believe that the wording was
ambiguous. He had then advised that we could solve it quickly
through an emergency ordinance, which is what we did. Attorney
Barkett is right; this appeal will affect only the piece of
property owned by his client, but we still are able to say honestly
that the Code we were operating under said what Director Keating
thought it should. Otherwise, our Code would prohibit lot splits
on platted roads and good roads with less than 60 feet but allow
splits on lots that had no road frontage whatsoever. That is
illogical and he didn't think. that the Court requires us to find an
illogical meaning in this. However, he felt that is the Board's
prerogative. Attorney Vitunac noted that this whole issue is
coming back before the Board under the LDRs late this summer, and
if the Board doesn't like this type of regulation, then we can
change it again. If the Board's decision today is against this
lot, the applicant can reapply under the new ordinance, if there is
one, in 6 months.
Chairman Tippin just wanted to find some loophole so that this
man could do what he wants to do, and Attorney Vitunac advised that
if the Board wanted to find a loophole, he could find that what
Attorney Barkett is saying is correct, because he has found a
loophole.
Commissioner Bird was all for this gentlemen being able to do
what he wants to do, but there is a tremendous precedent that has
been established in the past to deny people's requests for splits
on lots that are not even on a road, just trails or easements.
There are all kinds of sympathetic reasons why we might want to do
that, but staff has been pretty consistent in not allowing that to
happen and this situation is not unique.
Attorney Barkett addressed the two precedents brought to his
attention -- the Ketchum situation and the Mt. Pleasant Baptist
Church. In contrast to those two precedents, the Hedden Place
situation is completely opposite. Those two precedents just don't
apply, because the roadway serves all the purposes that staff has
identified.
Director Keating explained that the initial ordinance was
adopted for good reasons, because every easement or every road out
there that is not platted is not particularly like Hedden Place.
Split lots result in more properties with more trips on the road
and the road requiring constant maintenance and grading. It
further results in a lot of requests for road improvements. Other
MAY 24-1994 83
BOOK 92 PAGF.528
F,
MAY 241994
BOOK 92 PA -E 52,9
counties have more stringent requirements in that they require the
road to be paved prior to the lot being split.
Commissioner Adams understood then that the problem is that
Hedden Place is not platted, and Attorney Barkett pointed out that
the problem is the way staff is interpreting the ordinance. Hedden
Place is not one of the types of roads referred to. All the
property owners on Hedden Place own to the middle of the road and
they have given each other a 20 -ft. easement from the center of the
road outward. -The easement runs with the land and that is in the
deed, which can be traced back to 1957.
Commissioner Adams understood that would make it a private
access easement where the property owners voluntarily contribute'to
its maintenance. However, the problem is that we don't allow for
that type of usage in our ordinance.
Planning Director Stan Boling advised that there are a total
of 6 parcels on Hedden Place that could be split, and that includes
Mr. VanVorst's parcel.
Commissioner Macht asked if staff is saying that if we grant
this appeal, we would have no grounds to deny additional split
requests.
Attorney Vitunac explained that the emergency ordinance that
was adopted makes it clear that you can not do what Attorney
Barkett wants to do.
Commissioner Adams understood then that nobody else will be
allowed to split until they plat the roadway, but Attorney Barkett
doubted the owners would ever do that because they love where they
live and love the road and the way it operates. He felt the County
should love it, too, because it doesn't cost them anything for
maintenance.
Attorney Vitunac reiterated that we changed the ordinance
because it was ambiguous.
Commissioner Macht asked if we would be setting a precedent if
we approved the split, and Attorney Vitunac advised that there
won't be any more of this in the future, as far as he could tell,
because the law is changed and there are no other appeals pending
at this moment. The new ordinance makes it clear that Attorney
Barkett cannot do this lot split. If this request was approved,
the other five owners on Hedden Place would not be allowed to split
their lots.
Commissioner Adams was concerned about Mr. VanVorst's RS -6
zoning since he is being made to keep over an acre for just one
home.
84
Director Keating stated that he doesn't have to keep more than
an acre there; his principal option is to plat the road, and that
is what applies to everyone else in such circumstances.
Attorney Barkett pointed out everyone would have to join in
the platting of the road, but they like the road the way it is now,
especially if they are going to have to pave it and make it 60 feet
wide. Right now it is 30 feet wide and perfectly adequate. They
have a 40 -year track record of good performance and maintenance.
He pointed out that the only letters received in this matter were
from people in support of Mr. VanVorst's application.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that the Board is here today to
either uphold or disagree with staff's interpretation of the
ordinance.
Attorney Vitunac advised that it is his opinion that staff is
interpreting and applying the ordinance correctly and consistently
in this situation, especially for the reason given in the paragraph
marked with a star in staff's memo. Otherwise, to get around the
restriction on lot splits, a lot would be required to have no road
frontage at all, and that just doesn't make sense.
Attorney Barkett maintained that wasn't true because property
like that has not been able to split since 1983.
Commissioner Bird was sympathetic to what the applicant wants
to do, but he could not disagree with staff's interpretation of the
ordinance that they are applying in this situation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird , SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, that the Board deny the appeal.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams still felt uncomfortable
that there wasn't a way to solve this today, but perhaps something
could be worked out in the LDRs where we could accept that type of
road.
Commissioner Bird agreed that if in reviewing the LDRs we find
that we could accept this type of situation, then we can amend the
LDRs and the applicant can come back and reapply. -It is possible
then that the applicant would be granted the ability to split his
property because we would determine that the type of road that they
have created there is acceptable.
That being the case, Commissioner Macht asked whether we could
carry over the fee that he is required to pay. (No response was
given to his question.)
Commissioner Bird anticipated that staff and others are going
to make a lot of arguments at that time and give reasons why we
should not find that type of road acceptable.
85
MAY 241994
BOOK, 92 PAcE530
I
MAY 2 41994
Attorney Barkett emphasized that is the problem. Staff is
going to tell you, if that comes up, that 30 -ft. roads are
inadequate and they don't want them because ultimately these people
may come to the Board and ask the County to pave their roads but
then resist giving up more right-of-way, and resist this and resist
that. Attorney Barkett understood that planners go to school and
learn what is nice, but he felt they live in an ivory tower. He
stressed that Hedden Place works, but when it comes back before the
staff, they are not going to like Hedden Place and they won't want
to put in an exception. He emphasized that if the Board kills the
appeal today, it is dead unless staff changes their position
completely. However, he can tell from his experience that they are
not going to. He was sorry about that, but Hedden Place works.
Even if it doesn't work in a textbook, it works in this situation.
Director Keating advised that during the LDRs review, staff
will bring forward data and analysis, logical arguments, and cite
specific instances. All we are saying today is that this should
not be an arbitrary decision relating to one case and that if this
is a good thing to do, it should be available to everyone.
Chairman Tippin believed this is an exceptional exception. He
also believed that you could make exceptions to the law without
thinking that if you do it once, you have to do it every time,
because every circumstance is quite different.
Commissioners Bird and Eggert did not agree that this
situation was unique.
Commissioner Macht understood then that because this is not an
unique situation, if the Board grants this exception, a lot of
other people could cite this exception in asking for an exception
for a similar situation.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
passed by a 4-1 vote, Chairman Tippin dissenting.
86
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL OF IRC - ANNUAL AUDIT - BUDGET
AMENDMENT 017
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/23/94:
TO: Members of the Board f
of County Commissioners E
DATE: May 23, 1994
SUBJECT: SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ANNUAL AUDIT - BUDGET AMENDMENT 017
EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Substance Abuse Council of Indian River County is required to have an annual audit
pursuant to the Federal Anti -Drug Abuse grant. They do not have sufficient funds to have
the 1992/93 audit done.
Staff is recommending we allocate $3,000 toward the Substance Abuse Council of Indian
River County to have an ` fiudit done so we can continue to receive funds of
approximately $130,000 from ,the Federal Anti -Drug Abuse grant.
RECOMMENDATION 3
o
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve a budget
amendment in the amount of $3,000 from General Fund Contingency to the Substance
Abuse Council.
OMB Director Joe Baird didn't anticipate the same problem for
next year due to the new management in the Substance Abuse Council.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 017, allocating $3,000 toward the
Substance Abuse Council annual audit, as recommended
by OMB Director Baird.
MAY 2 4 1994 87 �oBoa9 2 PnE 532
_I
MAY 2 41994
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
F*
BOOK 92 PAGE533
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 017
DATE: May 23. 1994
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
$25,000
4. Florida First Start
$49,999
5. Just Say No Program
GENERAL FUND/Agencies
TOTAL
$185,088
Substance Abuse Council
001-110-562-088.69
$3,000
$0
GENERAL FUND
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$3,000
ANTI—DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING — 1994/95
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/23/94: _
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 23, 1994
SUBJECT: FY 1994195 ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT FUNDING
EMERGENCYAGENDA ITEM
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
r BACKGROUND
For the previous four fiscal years, Indian River County has been allocated grant funds from ;
the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) to fund local anti-drug abuse
programs. The Board funded the following programs last year.
Agency
Amount
1. Substance Abuse Council of Indian River County
$18,509
2 Multi -Agency Drug Enforcement Unit
$63,880
3. Fellsmere Health Coalition
$25,000
4. Florida First Start
$49,999
5. Just Say No Program
$27,700
TOTAL
$185,088
88
The County Administrator's Office received a letter dated March 17, 1994 from FDCA
stating that Indian River County.has been allocated $130,141 in federal grant funds for FY
1994/95, $11,567 less than last year, to fund local anti-drug abuse programs. The county will
provide the 25% matching requirement which will bring the total amount available to
$173,521. The letter also requested the Board to serve as the coordinating unit of
government in applying for the funds. The Board, during its April 5, 1994 regular meeting,
accepted the invitation to serve as the coordinating unit of government and named
Joseph A. Baird, Office of Management and Budget, Director, as the contact person.
CURRENT
After soliciting for new grant proposals and evaluating the seven (7) proposals that were
received totaling $300,896.14, the Substance Abuse Advisory Council is recommending that.
the Board approve the following five (5) anti-drug abuse programs and their corresponding
funding levels for FY 1994/95:
'Indicates a continuation from the previous fiscal year.
State share totals $130,141, County share totals $43,380, and the grand total of all five
projects is $173,521.. If a project cannot be implemented due to the budget cuts, then the
money allocated for. the project will be redistributed to other projects already listed. The
two programs that- were not recommended for funding are Teens United for Fun and
Project Reach Out Self -Help.
Staff recommends the Board approve the Substance Abuse Council's recommendations and
authorize the Board chairman to sign the grant applications and other necessary related
documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Substance Abuse Council's recommendations and
authorized the Chairman to sign the grant
applications and other necessary related documents.
89 -
MAY 2 4 1994 hocK 92 pn(5 4
I
State Share
County Share
Program to be Funded
Implementing Agency:
75%
25%
Total
In House Ja$ Program
Indian River County
$27,467
$9,156
$36,623
Conflict Resolution
Program
School Board
$33,410
$11,136
$44546
Fellsmere Coalition for a "
Drug -Free City'
City of Fellsmere
$18,750
$6,250
$25,000
Multi -Agency (MACE)
Drug Enforce. Unit*
IRC Sheriff Department
$37500
$12500
$50,000
Substance Abuse Council of
Indian River County' -
Indian River County
$13,014
$4,338
$17,352
TOTAL
$130,141
$43580
$173521
'Indicates a continuation from the previous fiscal year.
State share totals $130,141, County share totals $43,380, and the grand total of all five
projects is $173,521.. If a project cannot be implemented due to the budget cuts, then the
money allocated for. the project will be redistributed to other projects already listed. The
two programs that- were not recommended for funding are Teens United for Fun and
Project Reach Out Self -Help.
Staff recommends the Board approve the Substance Abuse Council's recommendations and
authorize the Board chairman to sign the grant applications and other necessary related
documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Substance Abuse Council's recommendations and
authorized the Chairman to sign the grant
applications and other necessary related documents.
89 -
MAY 2 4 1994 hocK 92 pn(5 4
I
MAY 2 4 1994 boa 192 FxE5.3
IRC COUNTY FACILITIES' INSURANCE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/23/94:
TO: Jack' Price, Personnel Director
FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manage
DATE. 23 May 1994
SUBJECT: County Facilities' Insurance
4 _
The following is written to clarify some of the issues recently raised during discussions
of the County's .facilities insurance coverage policy.
According to Thomas W. Rynard's Insurance and Risk Management for State and
Local Governments, published by Matthew Bender, "Undbr the various governmental tort
liability statutes, the risk of liability is, perhaps, greatest in the context of injuries on public
property." Mr. Rynard goes on to discuss the history of such liability, explaining that
"under the govemmental/proprietary distinction, if the property was used solely for
governmental or 'public' purpdses, there was immunity from liability for injuries occurring
in connection with the property. In contrast, if the property was used for a proprietary
function, i.e., an income was derived from the property or the activity was one carried
on by private individuals, then general principles of negligence would apply as
sovereign Immunity would not be -available to the local- government" (Emphasis
added).
When the County adopted its modified self-insurance program in 1990, as drafted by
Siver Insurance Management Consultant's legal staff, it was for these reasons and based
upon Florida statutes and case law that insurance requirements for leases, franchises and
use agreements involving the use of County -owned facilities or operations in the public
way were included (AM 1000.6, pages 7 and 8 of 8). General liability is required for
bodily injury and property damage; workers' compensation and auto liability are also
required, N applicable.
When the County leases property for government business, its liabilities follow the lease
requirements. In the instance of the Verb Lake Estates volunteer fire department
property, the County is required, among other things, to maintain insurance coverages
and provide maintenance. Special risks are attached to such a lease. Unlike a library,
for example, which is designed for public use, an Emergency Services' station Is primarily
focused on housing the equipment necessary for emergency response, including such
items as trucks, personal protective equipment, and tools, all of which may present
danger to those who are untrained in their use. The County has a duty to protect its
firefighting and emergency response assets. It also has a duty to protect the untrained
public from injury in such a setting; this Is why the public cannot go unescorted through
Emergency SeMm' stations. When the volunteer station is used for meetings of the
volunteer firefighters, it is understood that chose in attendance are trained In the use of
the equipment on hand and that they have a dear understanding of the dangers posed
by improper use. Additionally, these volunteer firefighters are covered under the workers'
compensation statute when they are acting within the course and scope of their volunteer
firefighter duties.
Special events held at parks or the fairgrounds also require insurance coverages by the
sponsoring group. For example, the Firefighters Association provides coverage naming
the County as an additional Insured for their annual fair. Another user group, the Farm
Bureau, entered into an agreement with the County in which they donated an exhibition
building in exchange for the County providing special events insurance for activities they
sponsor at the site such as a youth livestock show. Hobart Park's picnic pavilion is
available for group rental; the permittee agrees to hold the County harmless for injury or
damage as a result of the group's organized activity.
In summary, the.County's Board -adopted administrative policy provides for the insurance
coverages required for use of County facilities. With liability generally following ownership
and/or control, it is important that public facilities be used and insured appropriately to
best protect the common interests of all taxpayers. Buildings such as -.libraries and
community centers are designed for public gatherings. Other facilities, such as
Emergency Services' stationse are designed for emergency response centers and are
best used by trained emergency responders. Recreation and exhibition areas such as
the fairgrounds and Hobart Park pavilion are designed for specific uses by organized
groups. Other recreation areas are on a first-come, first-served basis for individuals, and
the County relies upon its statutory and case law protections for liability.
Administrator Chandler advised that this is an informational
item and no action is needed.
Personnel Director Jack Price explained that, basically, we
are just using everything the way it is designed to be used.
Discussion ensued regarding public organizations using County
buildings for meeting places, and Administrator Chandler advised
that we require them to have public liability insurance.
AWARD OF BID 40-64 - CR -512 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS• AND CR -510 & CR -
512 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/94:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P
Public Works Dirccto
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P %C
County Engineer
SUBJECT: IRC Bid No. 40-64
CR 512 Corridor Improvements and CR510/CR 512 Intersection Improvements, Bid
Award
DATE: May 18, 1994
91
MAY 2 41994
Boa 92 fAu 536
L_ I
MAY 2 41994 B 43
The Board of County Commissioners previously approved the award of CR512 Corridor
Improvement and CR510/CR512 Intersection Improvements contract to Martin paving Company.
This award took place on May 12, 1994. This agenda item is to formally present the contract
documents for execution. The re -bidding caused a departure from the standard practice, so this is
being submitted at this time for formal execution.
Alternative 1. - The Board of County Commissioners directs the chairman to execute the contract
documents on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners for Indian River County.
Alternative 2: - The Board of County Commissioners not direct the chairman to execute the contract
documents.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Funding to come from Account No. 101-153-541-067.38 for
CR512 Corridor Improvements, IRC project No. 8612; and from Account No. 101-153-541-06739
for CR510 and CR512 Corridor Improvements, IRC project No. 9222.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with Martin Paving Company, as set out
in staff's recommendation.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
CENTRAL REGION EFFLUENT DISPOSAL PROJECT - CHANGE ORDER #2
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/2/94:
DATE: MAY 2, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SE ICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CENTRAL REGION EFFLUENT DISPOSAL PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -90 -23 -ED
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID NO. 3072
92
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners awarded the
aforementioned project to Speegle Construction, Cocoa, Florida, in
the amount of $1,713,000.00, and on January 25, 1994 approved Change
Order No. 1 in the amount of $5,094.11. This increased the contract
value to $1,718,094.11. The project has been completed, and Change
Order No. 2 and the final pay request are being submitted for
approval.
ANALYSIS
Change Order No. 2 consists of an additional flow meter signal
conditioner at Grand Harbor, additional seed and mulch on the added
clearing area, installation of a 10 -inch plug valve at Grand Harbor,
and deletion of one pond access ramp. The total amount of Change
Order No. 2 is $6,518.58. This change order will adjust the
contract value to $1,724,612.69. Payment to the contractor to date
is $1,512,894.78, leaving a balance of $211,717.91, which includes
10t retainage. The contractor has requested approval of the change
order and final pay -request.
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
Change Order No. 2 and final payment of $211,717.91 to Speegle
Construction, Inc., for services rendered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 2 and final payment of $211,717.91
to Speegle Construction, Inc., as recommended by
staff.
CHANGE ORDER #2 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SEWER SERVICE TO SR -60 AND 90TH AVENUE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/11/94:
DATE: MAY 11, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTS 1
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAS
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SEWER SERVICE TO SR 60 AND 90TH AVENUE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -92 -12 -CS
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
93
: MAY 2 4 `1994 wK %"���
MAY 24 1994`
BACKGROUND
bm 92 FAa 53.9
On April 21, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County unanimously authorized staff to proceed with the necessary _
surveys, in-house design, and assessment of this project to provide
sewer service. (See attached minutes and agenda item) This project
has been on hold while obtaining necessary easements.
ANALYSIS
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. Three
properties will benefit from sewer service. Mr. Hale, the owner of
the corner property, had originally agreed to execute a developer's
agreement. The. owner of the westernmost property wishes to
participate in this special assessment project and connect to this
service. The Environmental Health Department supports this project,
and the letter is attached. The map, which is also attached,
displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. The total
estimated cost to be assessed is $37,342.00. The cost per square
foot is $0.3111833.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolutions and
set the public hearing date.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolutions 94-71 and 94-72, providing for sewer
service to SR -60 and 90th Avenue and setting a
public hearing date of 6/14/94.
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 71
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR SEWER SERVICE TO S.R. 60 AND 90TH
AVENUE; PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED -COST, METHOD: -
OV. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has determined that the improvements herein described are necessary to
promote the public welfare of' the county and has determined to defray
the cost thereof by special assessments against certain properties to be
serviced by sewers at S.R. 60 and 90th Avenue, hereinafter referred to
as Project No. US -92 -12 -CS;
94
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY -COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that sewers shall be installed to
provide service for three properties, which are located generally
as described above, and the cost thereof shall be specially
assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 206.01
through 206.09 of the Code of Indian River County.
2. The total estimated project assessment cost of the above-described
improvements is shown to be $37,342.00 or -$0.3111833 per square
foot to be paid by the property specially benefited as shown on the
assessment plat on file with the Department of Utility Services.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.3111833 per square foot
shall be assessed against each of the properties designated on the
assessment plat. This assessment may be raised or lowered by
action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public
hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced County
Code.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid in
full within 90 days after the date of the resolution of the Board
with respect to credits against the special assessments after
completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without
interest.
If not paid in full, the spepial assessments may be paid in ten
equal yearly installments of principal plus interest. If not paid
when due, there shall be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of the principal
not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special assessments
shall bear interest at a rate of 8% from the Credit Date until
paid.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services
a plat showing the area to be assessed, plans and specifications,
and an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements. All of
these are open to inspection by the public at the Department of
Utility Services.
95
MAY 2 41994 KOK,f�,,a
� I
MAY
24
1994
Boa 92
PnE541
6.
An assessment
roll with respect to the special assessments
shall
promptly be prepared in connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County
Utility Services Department shall cause this resolution (along with
a map showing the areas to be served) to be published at least one
time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing
required by Section 206.04.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin
_ Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 24 day of May, 1994.
Attest:
JeffrQy R. Barton,,_ Clerk �t
f3Y.�ct�u��tc..16, .bLge
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDI RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
John yin
Chairman
W.
Time and Place (Second Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 94-. 72_
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF
PROPERTIES LOCATED GENERALLY IN THE AREA OF S.R. 60
AND 90TH AVENUE AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY
APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND
BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF
CONSTRUCTING A SEWER SERVICE, AS TO THE COST
THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND
AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED
AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has, by Resolution No. 94- 71 , determined that it is necessary for the "
public welfare of the citizens of the county, and particularly as to
those living, working, and owning property within the area described
hereafter, that sewer service main be installed to serve three
properties hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.3111833 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an assessment
roll to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 206.06, Indian River County Code, requires that
the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which
the owners of the properties to be assessed or any other persons
interested therein may appear before the Board of County Commissioners
and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of constructing such
sewer service, as to the cost thereof, as to the manner of payment
therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be*assessed against each
property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission Chambers
in the County Administration Building at the hour of 9:05 a.m. on
Tuesday, June 14, 1994, at which time the owners of the properties
to be assessed and any other interested persons may appear before
said Commission and be heard in regard thereto. The area to be
improved and the properties to be specially benefited are more
MAY 241994 97
Boa 92 PA. i;F 54
A� 241994 wK 92 P JE54
particularly described upon the assessment plat and the assessment
roll with regard to the special assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and
the special assessments against the properties to be specially
benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be
assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for
said improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the
office of the Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30
a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given
by two publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week apart.
The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the date
of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of Utility
Services shall give the owner of each property to be specially
assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time and
place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice to
each of such property owners at his last known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 24 day of May, 1994.
Attest:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
By: 4 /ck*, b 4''
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Jahn W. Tippin
Chairman
rW'
U
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT —WATER'S EDGE ASSOCIATES (FLORAVON SHORES
SUBDIVISION)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/11/94:
DATE: MAY 11, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY �ERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. 4OFI
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRE INEER
BY: DEPARTMENT SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AND WATER'S EDGE ASSOCIATES
BACKGROUND
a
Attached is a proposed developer's agreement with Water's Edge
Associates for reimbursement of construction of off-site utilities
on US 1 to serve the Floravon Shores subdivision in front of lot 35.
(See attached exhibit.) The proposed construction consists of a
subregional lift station and gravity sewer sized to serve the
surrounding area. For details, please reference the attached
agreement and location map.
ANALYSIS
Looking at the overall proposed service area, reimbursement to the
developer is based on hydraulic proportion for the lift station and
on a square -footage basis for the gravity sewer. Exhibits A and B
of the attached agreement show details based upon cost-sharing. The
total estimated project cost is $64,358.00; of this, the County's
portion is $53,387.99. This reimbursement ultimately will be
recovered through an assessment to the surrounding properties when a
future gravity collection assessment project in Floravon Shores
is begun. In the interim, funding will be from the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the
Board of County
the developer as
costs through a
MAY 2 4 1994
Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Commissioners approve the attached agreement with
presented and authorize recovery of the project
future assessment project.
W
MAY 2 41994 92 ma545
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Developer's Agreement with Water's Edge
Associates, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WATER EXPANSION PLAN - PHASE III - CONTRACT 1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/13/94:
DATE: MAY 13,1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. NT
DIRECTOR I VICES
PREPARED H. D. "D OSTER;�P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER EXPANSION PLAN PHASE III/CONTRACT I
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -91 -15 -DS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUND
On June 22, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
approved the subject project. (See attached agenda item and minutes.)
The total estimated cost approved for Phase III was $2,166,044.27,
which included a $474,159.80 estimate of Contract 1. On September 21,
1993, the contract was awarded in the amount of $372,643.50.
Construction of the subject project has been completed and the
contractor, Tri -Sure Corporation of Auburndale, Florida, has made
application for' final payment. (See attached change order and pay
request.)
ANALYSIS
All Indian River County requirements have been met, final certification
has been submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection,, and
clearance has been received.
! 4
The original contract price was $372,643.50. Change Order No. 1, which
increases the contract price by $1,303.05 results in a final contract
price of $373,946.55. The change order was necessary due to an
additional wet tap in lieu of the removal of a large thrust block, and
minor field adjustments. The contractor has previously billed
$318,951.09 leaving a balance of $54,995.46.
The Department of Utility Services recommends the approval of Change
Order No. 1, and of the final payment request of $54,995.46 as paymept
in full.
100
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 and Tri -Sure Corp.'s final
payment request of $54,995.46, as set out in staff's
recommendation.
CHANGE ORDER 1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS WATER EXPANSION SERVICES - SURVEYING PROPOSAL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/16/94:
DATE: MAY 16,- 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL CES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN,.P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER Pi
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS, WATER EXPANSION SERVICES
SURVEYING PROPOSAL APPROVAL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -01 -DS
BACKGROUND
On April 19, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
subject project and authorized an in-house engineering design to be
completed by the staff of the Department of Utility Services. (See
attached agenda item.)
ANALYSIS
Since the surveying cost will exceed $10,000.00 per the Consultant
Competitive Negotiation Act, we must negotiate with our No. 1 ranked
surveying firm. The staff has completed negotiations with Masteller
and Moler and Reed, Inc., for the required survey services. The
negotiated fee for these services is $23,000.00.
The services consists of surveying the entire project area and
delivering the product in the form of a reproducible copy and
electronic computer data. The product will be delivered in 90 days
after the Notice to Proceed is issued. This fee will be paid from an
assessment fund. In the interim, it.will be funded through the impact
fee fund.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of
the agreement with Masteller, Mo.ler and Reed, Inc., to survey the
subject project in the amount of $23,000.00.
MAY 2 4 1994
L_
101
Boa 92 f 1546
Fl -
MAY 2 4 1994 ma 92 PAGE547
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the agreement with Masteller, Moler and Reed, Inc.
to survey the subject property in the amount of
$23,000, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
NORTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT - PHASE II - ENGINEERING DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION - CAMP DRESSER MCKEE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/9/94:
DATE: MAY 9, 1994
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL VICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRaCJE-ITYNGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE II
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -94 -03 -WC
BACKGROUND
In November 1993, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
approved a contract with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., for the design
of the first phase of this project (see attached agenda item and
minutes). The first phase of the subject project is complete and the
Utilities Department is now ready to begin Phase II. Phase I of this
facility included high service pumps, ground storage, emergency power
and a temporary chlorination facility. All of these, except for the
chlorination facility, will be reused in Phase II.
The engineering services contract for Phase I included all design
associated with the above. A preliminary engineering report for the
entire facility and a membrane pilot study (to begin in late May) to
determine the best membrane to be specified for the plant as well as
site plan permitting was also included. The Utilities Master Plan
calls for the construction of a three million gallon.North County Water
Treatment Plant to begin in 1995. Therefore, we have negotiated an--
engineering
n`engineering services contract with CDM for the design of Phase II of
this project.
ANALYSIS
The estimated construction cost of this project is $7,008,146. The
negotiated fee for engineering services, which includes engineering
design, inspection and contract administration is $839,000.00. For
breakdown of costs, please see table below:
102
s
*Site plan permitting $ 17,673.67
*Preliminary Engineering Report $ 35,000.00
Design, Permitting and Bidding
Architectural and Structural
Administration (during construction) $672,000.00
Inspection $167.000.00
Total Engineering Cost $891,673.67
*From Phase 1 Work Authorization
Design, permitting, bidding and administration are set at 9.5% of
construction with inspection costs at 2.4%. Total project engineering
costs equate to 12.7% of the projected project construction cost. This
phase of the plant is for the construction of a three million gallon
per day (MGD) treatment facility. However, many of the plants
facilities must be oversized to accommodate the build -out capacity of
12 (MGD). For details of this oversizing, see Table 2.2 of the attached
engineering contract.
We have investigated the costs of other similar projects within the
state of Florida and have found our negotiated engineering fee -to be
below other comparable projects engineering costs.
Please reference table below:
1)
Construction
City of Vero Beach 7.33 million ±
(3MGD capacity)
2) Ft. Myers
3)
4)
5)
Jupiter
(6 MGD cup with)
retrofit
Boyton Beach
(4 MGD capacity
build -out 16 MGD)
Plantation
(12 MGD capacity)
13.5 million +
13 million ±
16.8 million ±
11.5 million +
Engineering %
1.2 million ± 16.0 ±
2.03 million ± 15% ±
1.82 million ± 14% ±
2.5 million ± 14% ±
*0.7 million ± 6.1% ±
* this was for design only and the project required an additional
expenditure of over $350,000.00 by the City for correction of
problems during and after construction.
The Utilities Department will be bringing two additional engineering
service contracts to the Board of County Commissioners within the next
few months for facilities associated with this project. They are as
follows:
A. Well field permitting follow-up and design of the first
three wells associated with this treatment plant. The
estimated construction cost for this project is $300,000.00.
B. Survey services for the in house design of the brine
discharge line from the treatment plant to the Indian River,
with an estimated construction cost of $600,000.00 ± 30% due
to unknown routing at this time.
In summary, the staff of the Department of Utility Services feels the
negotiated fee with CDM is well within acceptable limits for a project
of this magnitude and level of difficulty. We are, therefore, coming
103
MAY 241994
Boa, 9 2 f ' F 18
I
I
MAY 2 41994
wf, 92 ?AcE 549
to the Board of County Commissioners for approval to begin the design
and construction of Phase II of this project. Funding for this project
will be from the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of
the proposed agreement with CDM and the project design and construction
as presented.
Commissioner Eggert had a question regarding the percentage
being higher than what we have been seeing in the past, and
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that it was not high for
the design of this particular plant which is not standard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the agreement with CDM for the project design and
construction, as set out in staff's recommendation.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD _
DISCUSSION RE COMMISSIONER/CHAIRMAN NON-VOTING ROLE ON ADVISORY
COMMITTEES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/16/94:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
DATE: May 16, 1994
RE: COMMISSIONER/ CHAIRMAN OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES
NON-VOTING ROLE
Currently, Commissioners chair a number of advisory committees. I
suggested in the past that this Commissioner/ Chairman be made a
non-voting member in order to avoid even the appearance of control of
a committee's action by a Commissioner.
In light of the recent letter from the Taxpayers' Association touching
on this subject, it appears appropriate to revisit the matter. Attached
is a proposed ordinance which could be scheduled for a public hearing
if that is the pleasure of the Board.
104
Commissioner Macht expressed his great reluctance to vote in
committees when he might have to vote against the same matter in
BCC meetings after circumstances have changed. He was sure it has
happened to all of the Commissioners at some time. He felt the job
of Chairman was to keep the discussion in order and to listen to
all the options presented on a topic. He urged the Board to
schedule a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Adams didn't worry about changing her vote at a
BCC meeting if circumstances warrant it. She felt if she is going
to chair a committee, she should have the right to vote.
Commissioner Bird agreed that chairmen should vote. He
recalled that there were numerous times when he voted one way in
committees and another way as a Commissioner at the BCC meetings.
Chairman Tippin could see both sides.
Commissioner Macht commented that it appears there is no
interest in going forward with a public hearing to consider the
ordinance.
Chairman Tippin announced that the consensus is that the
chairman's role on advisory committees will remain as is.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT MEETING
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the
Board would reconvene as the District Board of Commissioners of the
Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
ATTEST:
1`
. K. Barton, Clerk
i John W. Tippiil, Chairman
105 rrl
MAY 2 41994