HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/9/2002MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF cOUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chaiinian
John W. Tippin, Vice Chaiuuan
Fran B. Adams
Caroline D. Ginn
Kenneth R. Macht
District 2
District 4
District 1
District 5
District 3
James E Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER
BACKUP
PAGES
INVOCATION Rabi Wayne Koman
Messianic Temple Shofar Yisrael
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Comm. John W. Tippin
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA /
EMERGENCY ITEMS
AD �: 5. Certificates of Appreciation for members of Space Needs Committee
13.E. Treasure Coast Sports Commission
ADDITIONAL BACKUP: 8.
9.A.2.
PaFOCLAM.ATIU r and PRESENTATIONS
None
APPROVAL OF MINU TES
Regular Meeting of June 11, 2002
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
St. Johns Water Control District — Notice of Election of
Robert Lindsey to Board of Supervisors to Serve the
Expired Term of Jeff Bass
Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated June 27, 2002) 1-12
CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
C. Gifford Health Center
(memorandum dated June 27, 2002)
BACKUP
PAGES
Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Lot 2, Block 24, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 5A, 7855 91st Ave.
(memorandum dated June 28, 2002)
Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Ocean Oaks West Residential Subdivision Development
(memorandum dated June 28, 2002)
Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Lot 6, Block 21, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 4, 7975 92nd Ave.
(memorandum dated June 28, 2002)
Right -of -Way Acquisition — 41St St. between 43rd Ave. and
58th Ave. — Danny R. Darnell
(memorandum dated July 2, 2002)
Out -of -County Travel to Tallahassee by Commissioner
Ruth Stanbridge, July 23-24, 2002
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Representative of Rep. Irving Slosberg s office would like to
address the Commission regarding the Don Slosberg Dnver
Education Safety Act
(memorandum dated June 28, 2002)
PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR ALL
UI�'INCORPORATED COUNTY PROPERTIES IN THE
NORTH BARRIER ISLAND NORTH OF CR510 THAT
ARE CURRENTLY ZONED AS MULTIPLE -FAMILY
RES I t )ENTIAL DISTRICTS (RM -3 OR RM -4) TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (RS -3 OR RS -6,
RESPECTIVELY) AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE
County initiated request to rezone all RM -3 and RM -4
zoned properties in the unincorporated area of the North
Barrier Island north of CR510 to RS -3 or RS -6
Final Hearing (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated June 27, 2002)
PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.):
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REGARDING TREE PROTECTION AND
LAND CLEARING REQUIREMENTS; AMEI\-DING
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs)
CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS, AND CHAPTER 927
TREE PROTECTION AND LAND CLEARING; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE
County initiated request to adopt revisions to the
County Land Clearing and Tree Protection Ordinance
(memorandum dated June 25, 2002)
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
BACKUP
PAGES
PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
Scheduled for Public Hearing July 16, 2002:
Consideration of Option Agreements for Sale and Purchase
of the Hallstrom Properties, Inc., and St. Lucie Develop-
ment Corporation parcels of the Hallstrom Farrustead site
(Legislative)
(no backup)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
Emergency Services
None
General Services
None
Leisure Services
None
Office of Management and Budget
None
Human Resources
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
G. Public Works
1. County Road 512 / Phase III / Denton Right -of
Way Acquisition
(memorandum dated June 10, 2002)
2. Vero Lake Estates Stouuwater Improvements,
Phase I - Letter from Ms. Sandy Seese requesting
the 86th St. Canal be culverted at 96th Crt.
(memorandum dated June 25, 2002)
I N8
BACKUP
PAGES
104-134
135-137
Utilities
1. Bobbi J Subdivision, 36th Court (North off 1st St.
SW) Petition Water Service — Preliminary Assess-
ment Resolutions I and II
(memorandum dated June 28, 2002)
Human Services
None
138-149
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Updates
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.):
E. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
BACKUP
PAGES
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
Solid Waste Disposal District
None
Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meetingwill 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 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us
Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office,
Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library
Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 — rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00
p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until 5:00 p.m.
Meeting broadcast same as above on AT & T Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian.
•
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF JULY 9, 2002
1. CALL TO ORDER 1
2. INVOCATION 1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRI4 SENTATIONS 2
6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 11, 2002 2
7. CONSENT AGENDA 3
7.A. Reports 3
7.B. Approval of Warrants 3
7.C. Resolution No. 2002-043 Conveying Property to Indian River County
Hospital District for the Gifford Health Center - Property Platted as Vero
Beach - Burial Park 12
7.D. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 2, Block 24, Vero Lake
Estates, Unit 5A, 7855 91st Avenue (MGB Construction) 16
7 E Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Ocean Oaks West Residential
Subdivision Development 17
7.F. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 6, Block 21, Vero Lake
Estates, Unit 4, 7975 92nd Avenue 19
7.G. Right of Way Acquisition - 41s` Street between 431 Avenue and 58th
Avenue - Danny R. Darnell 20
7.H. Out -of -County Travel by Chairman Stanbridge to Tallahassee July 23-24,
2002 - Florida Communities Trust - Lost Tree Islands 22
1
•
BIC I iia I 0 O
8.A. REPRESE,.NTATIVE OF REPRESENTATIVE IRVING SLOSBERG'S OFFICE{
ADDRESS REGARDING THE DORI SLOSBERG DRIVER EDUCATION
SAFETY ACT 23
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-022 - REZONE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE NORTH BARRIER ISLAND NORTH
OF CR -510 TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 25
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISIONS TO THE COUNTY LAND CLEARING
REQUIREMENTS AND TREE PROTF4CTION ORDINANCE 36
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING JULY 16,
2002 - CONSIDERATION OF OPTION AGREEMENTS FOR SALE AND
PURCHASE OF THE HALLSTROM PROPERTIES, INC. AND ST. LUCIE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PARCELS OF THE HALLSTROM
FARMSTEAD SITE (Legislative) 50
11.G.1. COUNTY ROAD 512 - PHASE III - DENTON RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACQUISITION (INITIATION OF F,MINENT DOMAIN) 50
11.G.2. VERO LAKE ESTATI- S STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I
- MS. SANDY SEESE REQUEST FOR 86TH STREET CANAL TO BE
CULVbRTED AT 96TH COURT 54
ll.H.1.
RESOLUTION NOS. 2002-044 AND 2002-045 - PETITION WATT -,R
SERVICE - BOBBI J SUBDIVISION - 36TH COURT (NORTH OFF 1ST
STREET SW) - RESOLUTIONS I AND II 56
13 E COMMISSIONER MACHT - COMMENTS ON THE TREASURE COAST
SPORTS COMMISSION AND CONFIRMATION THAT HE SHALL
CONTINUE- AS THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE THEREON 66
14.A. EMERGIHNCY SERVICES DISTRICT 66
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 66
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 67
2
•
0
•
July 9, 2002
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, July 9, 2002. Present were Ruth Stanbridge, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice
Chairman; Commissioners Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney;
and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. INVOCATION
Rabi Wayne Koman, Messianic Temple Shofar Yisrael, delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chairman Tippin led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY
ITEMS
Chairman Stanbridge announced the addition of two items. Item 5, Presentation of
Certificates of Appreciation to Space Needs Committee Members, and 13 E , Treasure Coast
Sports Commission under Commissioner Macht's matters.
July 9, 2002
1
v
Lin
•
Chairman Stanbridge also announced that additional backup was presented for the
following items: 8. and 9.A.2.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously made the above
changes to the agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Commissioner Ginn advised she wold like to make presentations of Certificates of
Appreciation to Space Needs Committee members. She gave a brief history of the
committee's work and accomplishments. She called the members up and presented the
certificates to the following W. Kent Barcley, Vero Beach Mayor Sandra Bowden, Penny
Chandler, Frank Coffey, Bill Glynn, Joe Idlette, Art Jewett, Bill Johnson, Ed Netto, Dr. Ruth
Twitchell, and Ital Veron. Messrs. Gene Winne, Chuck Mechling, Bill Mills, and Charles
Sullivan, Sr. were not present.
On behalf of the committee, Frank Coffey presented floral arrangements as tokens
of appreciation to their chairman, Commissioner Ginn, and to Reta Smith, the Committee's
secretary.
6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 11, 2002
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of June 11,2002, there were none.
July 9, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the minutes
of June 11, 2002, as written and distributed.
2
•
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Ginn requested 7.H. be separated for discussion.
7.A. Reports
The following report was received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the
Board:
St. Johns Water Control District - Notice of F lection of Robert
Lindsey to Board of Supervisors to Serve the Expired Term of
Jeff Bass
7.B. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 27, 2002:
TO:
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: June 27, 2002
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of
County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board,
for the time period of June 21, 2002 to June 27, 2002.
Attachment.
EMF: BP
•
July 9, 2002
3
OIC MOTIO\ by Commissioner Adams, SECO\DFD BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the list
of warrants issued by the Clerk for the period June 21-27, 2002,
as requested.
CHECK
NUMBER
0021819
O 021820
O 021821
0021822
O 021823
0021824
O 325707
O 325708
0325709
O 325710
O 325711
O 325712
O 325713
0325714
O 325715
O 325716
O 325717
O 325718
O 325719
O 325720
O 325721
O 325722
O 325723
0325724
0325725
0325726
0325727
0325728
O 325729
O 325730
O 325731
0325732
O 325733
0325734
O 325735
0325736
O 325737
O 325738
0325739
O 325740
0325741
O 325742
0325743
0325744
O 325745
0325746
July 9, 2002
NAME
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769
KNOWLES, CYRIL
GERRY, RAYMOND
JONES, CYRIL
UNUMPROVIDENT INSURANCE
ANDERSON, FRED
BROXTON, LYDIA
BAXTER, JERE L
BEUTTELL, PETER M
SILKEN GROUP
BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
BOUYSSOU, STEPHANE H
BREVARD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHRTY
BROWN, HUBERT
BABCOCK, DEAN
BROWN, KIMBERLY AND FPL
CORR, RHODA L
C P E ASSOCIATES
CAPAK, GERALD T
CARONE, PAUL
CAPPELLUTI, RICHARD
CARLUCCI, LEONARD A
DOOLITTLE,JAMES A & ASSOCIATES
DOVE, E WILSON
DOYLE, CHERYL
DEEHAN, WILLIAM F
DESRUISSEAUX, N ROB
EDGEWOOD PLACE (305-113)
EVANS, ALFRED
FOGERTY, GEORGE A
FORD, ROBERT J
GASKILL, ROBERT
GIFFORD GROVES, LTD
GRACE'S LANDING LTD
HOLM, LEO
HUNLEY, J MICHAEL
HODGES, GINA
HUITRON, GLORIA
JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES
JULIN, PAUL
JOHNSTON, PATTIE
JACKOWSKI, MICHAEL
JONES, NIC.TCETA AND FPL
JACKSON, RONALD
JONES, ALPHONSO
4
CHECK
DATE
2002-06-20
2002-06-20
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-26
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
CHECK
AMOUNT
4,027.91
1,859.55
1,039.84
783.76
307.36'
3,959.54
258.00
232.00
275,00
278.00
731.00
230.00
176.00
2,393.95
912.00
232.00
18.00
245.00
5,474.00
413.00
372.00
395.00
392.00
2,241.00
426.00
292.00
304.00
368.00
359.00
267.00
288.00
388.00
282.00
6,208.00
6,553.00
410.00
481.00
306.00
240.00
3,156.00
386.00
323.00
795.00
34.00
497.00
312.00
e
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 325747
O 325748
O 325749
0325750
O 325751
O 325752
O 325753
O 325754
O 325755
O 325756
O 325757
O 325758
O 325759
O 325760
O 325761
O 325762
O 325763
O 325764
O 325765
O 325766
O 325767
O 325768
O 325769
O 325770
O 325771
O 325772
O 325773
0325774
0325775
O 325776
O 325777
0325778
0325779
0325780
O 325781
0325782
0325783
O 325784
0325785
O 325786
0325787
0325788
0325789
0325790
0325791
0325792
O 325793
O 325794
O 325795
O 325796
O 325797
O 325798
O 325799
O 325800
0325801
O 325802
O 325803
O 325804
NAME
KDNOWLES, MARK OR ANNA
LAWRENCE, TERRY A
LANGLEY, PHILIP G
LLERENA, EDWARD D
L INDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS
LAPPERT, ANN OR RONALD
LEIFER, BRUCE
LEWIS, CHARLES
M 0 D INVESTMENTS
MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM
MALGERIA, PRISCILLA
MEAD, THOMAS H OR HELEN S
NORMAN, DOUGLAS OR BARBARA
ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AND
P ICKERILL, JOHN
PALMER TRAILER PARK
P IERSON, JOHN H DBA
PALUMBO, LOUIS
PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF
REAGAN, WILLIE C
RAUDENBUSH, ERNEST
RIVER PARK PLACE
ST FRANCIS MANOR OF VERO BEACH
SCROGGS, BETTY DAVIS
SACCO, JACQUELINE AND/OR
STUART HOUSING AUTHORITY
SANDY PINES
SHELTON, ROBERT L
SANGBUSH, DONALD
STARCK, MICHAEL R
STRIBLING, WILLIAM JR
SUNDMAN, IVAN
TOWN & COUNTRY LEASING
TEDDIE TRUST, THE
THERIEN, RICHARD C
ULISKY, WILLIAM B AND
VERO FIRST CORPORATION
VALENTINO, ANTHONY E
BLAKE, SALLIE (WYNN)
WALTERS, KEVIN
WOODIN, RICHARD
WILLIAMS, EDITH
WESSENDORF, FRED
WOODS OF VERO BEACH
YORK, LILLY B
YORK, DAVID
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
AMERICAN BUSINESS INTERIORS
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO
ARMFIELD-WAGNER APPRAISAL
ATCO TOOL SUPPLY
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
A T & T
CHECK
DATE
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-21
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
CHECK
AMOUNT
255.00
182.00
757.00
323.00
9,068.00
307.00
521.00
266.00
995.00
234.00
431.00
328.00
372.00
906.59
341.00
277.00
308.00
573.00
440.59
870.00
292.00
7,573.00
3,025.00
313.00
298.00
424.59
6,922.00
205.00
414.00
383.00
275.00
371.00
246.00
382.00
307.00
37.00
1,082.00
355.00
314.00
344.00
272.00
237.00
459.00
9,160.00
249.00
408.00
1,037.35
980.00
151.00
384.32
182.70
731.45
13.50
900.00
179.00
4,710.05
61.00
19.49
•
July 9, 2002
5
n'
tin
CHECK
NUMBER
0325805
0325806
O 325807
0325808
0325809
O 325810
0325811
O 325812
0325813
0325814
O 325815
O 325816
O 325817
0325818
O 325819
O 325820
0325821
O 325822
0325823
O 325824
O 325825
0325826
0325827
0325828
O 325829
0325830
0325831
0325832
0325833
0325834
0325835
0325836
0325837
0325838
0325839
O 325840
O 325841
O 325842
O 325843
0325844
O 325845
O 325846
0325847
O 325848
O 325849
O 325850
O 325851
O 325852
0325853
O 325854
O 325855
O 325856
0325857
0325858
0325859
O 325860
July 9, 2002
NAME
ADDISON, GLEN
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
ARCO GARAGE DOOR CO
A T & T
AIR COMPRESSOR WORKS INC
ANCOR CORE INC.
AMERICAN RED CROSS
ACE TOOL CO
ALLSTATE PAYMENT PROCESSING
AERC.COM, INC
ABSOLUTE PROTECTION TEAM
ALLIED TRAILER SALES & RENTALS
ADT
AMERIGAS
AUTO SUPPLY CO WEST
A W M CONSTRUCTION, INC
ALARM PARTNERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
BREATHING AIR SYSTEMS DIVISION
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
BURGOON BERGER
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
BRODART CO
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
BEACHLAND HEATING AND
BEVERAGE STOP, THE
BOOKS ON TAPE INC
BROGNANO, WILLIAM
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
BERTON, SOLOMON
BUILDERS SHOWCASE, INC
BRANDES, MICHAEL
B & S SOD INC
BLACKMON, SHANITA
BUSHNELL CORP
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF IRC
BALL, LAUREN
CAMERON & BARKLEY CO
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
CAREER TRACK SEMINARS
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO
CONSUMER REPORTS
CAMACHO, LUZ
CATHOLIC CHARITIES
CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
CHILBERG CONSTRUCTION CO
CLIFF BERRY,INC
CALL ONE, INC
CUES, INC
CES
CDW GOVERMENT INC
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
CHECK
DATE
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
CHECK
AMOUNT
461.66
126.70
150.00
36.54
74.86
320.40
5,678.00
139.31
8,962.17
380.70
107.00
150.00
82.50
180.00
2,865.65
5,855.00
180.00
6,455.55
46.50
42.65
213,108.83
3,767.88
500.00
84.02
2,707.24
105.96
3,550.00
80.00
125.50
500.00
54.04
7.41
500.00
22.00
50.00
141.63
25.00
4,939.88
175.00
180.83
4,483.68
149.00
5,7966.25
13,365.04
500.00
26.00
50.00
5,233.37
334.60
5,241.00
105.00
50.00
302.50
1,661.81
1,212.51
627.00
A
6
r
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 325861
O 325862
O 325863
0325864
O 325865
O 325866
O 325867
0325868
O 325869
O 325870
O 325871
O 325872
O 325873
0325874
O 325875
O 325876
O 325877
0325878
O 325879
0325880
0325881
O 325882
O 325883
0325884
O 325885
O 325886
O 325887
O 325888
O 325889
0325890
0325891
0325892
O 325893
O 325894
O 325895
O 325896
O 325897
O 325898
O 325899
O 325900
0325901
O 325902
O 325903
O 325904
O 325905
O 325906
O 325907
O 325908
O 325909
O 325910
O 325911
O 325912
O 325913
O 325914
O 325915
O 325916
O 325917
July 9, 2002
NAME
CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN
CLEVELAND GOLF CO., INC.
CALLAHAN, RONALD L
CITGO PETROLEUM CORP
CUTTER & BUCK
COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORP
CALLAWAY GOLF BALL CO
CARLISLE, CARRIE L
CHILL, JULIE
CHITTENDEN, ROBERT
DELTA SUPPLY CO
DEMCO INC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC
D ICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
D IRECTOR, KENNETH L MD PA
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, .INC
DOW, HOWELL, GILMORE,'
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
DUNKELBERGER ENGINEERING &
DADE PAPER COMPANY
DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
D ISNEY'S VERO BEACH RESORT
DATASTREAM SYSTEMS INC
DETAIL TURF INCORPORATED
D IGIACOMO, ANDREW
DELL MARKETING L.P.
D -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
ERCILDOUNE BOWLING LANES
ELDRIDGE, MYRA A
ELPEX, INC
EDLUND & DRITENBAS
EXCHANGE CLUB CASTLE
ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES INC
EVERGLADES FARM
ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS OF
F W& P C O A TRAINING OFFICE
FEDEX
FISHER SCIENTIFIC
FLORIDA BAR, THE
FLORIDA ALCOHOL AND DRUG
FLORIDA BOLT AND NUT CO
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
FELLSMERE POLICE DEPARTMENT
F & W PUBLICATIONS INC
FACTICON, INC
FACSSE
FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH
FIRSTLAB
FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE
FLORIDA COPY DATA
FOUNTIAN TOWERS, L L C
GALE GROUP, THE
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
GENERAL GMC, TRUCK
7
CHECK
DATE
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
CHECK
AMOUNT
2,414.61
474.15
25.14
3,810.35
603.96
2,116.50
1,512.00
84.64
91.78
1,531.97
12.58
1,443.32
2,325.10
331.31
634.45
26.50
135.62
1.,614.20
182.79
500.00
46,030.50
449.87
84.63
100.00
1,999.00
16,475.80
500.00
96,248.00
6.00
203.50
56.00
765.96
6,684.33
6,184.39
2,689.38
191.03
72.25
300.00
72.13
257.81
365.00
40.00
112.15
6,542.03
61.59
25.00
166.25
1,200.00
70.00
166.34
1,046.00
1,592.98
93.00
19,635.25
88.34
69.04
658.79
•
CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE AMOUNT
0325918 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 36 . 20
0325919 GREENE INVESTMENT 2002 - 06 - 27 11976 . 56
0325920 GIFFORD GROVES , LTD 2002 - 06 - 27 11086 . 00
0325921 GINN , CAROLINE D 2002 - 06 - 27 27 . 96
0325922 GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTE 2002 - 06 - 27 91966 . 67
0325923 GOLLNICK , PEGGY 2002 - 06 - 27 119 . 00
0325924 GIBSON , JAMES 2002 - 06 - 27 112 . 88
0325925 GOLF AFFILIATES SCORECARD CO 2002 - 06 - 27 3 , 132 . 50
0325926 GLOMASTER SIGN CO , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 30 . 00
0325927 GRAPHX PRINTING 2002 - 06 - 27 287 . 00
0325928 GREASE INSPECTORS 2002 - 06 - 27 289 . 95
0325929 GEM- DANDY , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 505 . 58
0325930 GIFFORD CENTRAL LITTLE 2002 - 06 - 27 50 . 00
0325931 GEARY , BOB 2002 - 06 - 27 955 . 00
0325932 GARAGE EQUIPMENT 2002 - 06 - 27 594 . 71
0325933 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES 2002 - 06 - 27 1 , 227 . 23
0325934 HILL MANUFACTURING 2002 - 06 - 27 154 . 86
0325935 HELD , PATRICIA BARGO 2002 - 06 - 27 301 . 00
0325936 HIBISCUS CHILDREN ' S CENTER 2002 - 06 - 27 2 , 083 . 33
0325937 HACH COMPANY 2002 - 06 - 27 198 . 65
0325938 H C WARNER , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 3 , 036 . 00
0325939 HARRIS SANITATION , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 64 , 141 . 56
0325940 HOLIDAY INN WEST 2002 - 06 - 27 186 . 00
0325941 HYNES , RICHARD MD 2002 - 06 - 27 900 . 00
0325942 HUSSAMY , OMAR MD 2002 - 06 - 27 61 . 20
0325943 HOLIDAY BUILDERS 2002 - 06 - 27 31020 . 66
0325944 HINTON ' S CARPET CLEANING 2002 - 06 - 27 720 . 00
0325945 HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER 2002 - 06 - 27 48 . 80
0325946 HARRIS , GREGORY PHD CVE 2002 - 06 - 27 595 . 70
0325947 HURLEY , ROGNER , MILLER , COX AND 2002 - 06 - 27 101 . 50
0325948 H 0 K DESIGN + BUILD , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 72 , 176 . 00
0325949 HAZELLIEF , ELIZABETH 2002 - 06 - 27 168 . 00
0325950 HORN , SUSAN KELLER 2002 - 06 - 27 50 . 00
0325951 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2002 - 06 - 27 62 , 082 . 16
0325952 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2002 - 06 - 27 225 . 00
0325953 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 689 . 80
0325954 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2002 - 06 - 27 45 . 00
0325955 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 2002 - 06 - 27 1 , 846 . 82
0325956 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES 2002 - 06 - 27 20 . 63
0325957 INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 2002 - 06 - 27 571 . 00
0325958 INDIAN RIVER ALL - FAB , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 632 . 65
0325959 INTERNATIONAL GOLF MAINTENANCE 2002 - 06 - 27 76 , 100 . 63
0325960 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 2002 - 06 - 27 150 . 00
0325961 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTHY 2002 - 06 - 27 1 , 666 . 66
0325962 INFORMATION TODAY INC 2002 - 06 - 27 305 . 05
0325963 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA 2002 - 06 - 27 545 . 61
0325964 JONES , ELVIN JR 2002 - 06 - 27 54 . 08
0325965 KELLY TRACTOR CO 2002 - 06 - 27 52 . 04
0325966 KIMLEY - HORN & ASSOCIATES , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 41912 . 90
0325967 K_RUPP , JOHN P 2002 - 06 - 27 348 . 20
0325968 K S M ENGINEERING & TESTING 2002 - 06 - 27 580 . 00
0325969 K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 2002 - 06 - 27 32 . 96
0325970 KLEIN , BURY & ASSOCIATES , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 614 . 15
0325971 KELLY , CHERRY 2002 - 06 - 27 35 . 00
0325972 KAPPA , JORGE 2002 - 06 - 27 106 . 70
0325973 KAY SPARROW , INC 2002 - 06 - 27 81 . 90
July 9 , 2002
8
. _ . . � , �
-7 7 b 7 � _ . .
� . , : . . � .� x. r � :
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 325974
O 325975
O 325976
O 325977
0325978
O 325979
0325980
0325981
O 325982
O 325983
O 325984
O 325985
O 325986
O 325987
O 325988
O 325989
O 325990
O 325991
O 325992
0325993
O 325994
O 325995
0325996
0325997
0325998
O 325999
O 326000
O 326001
O 326002
O 326003
O 326004
O 326005
O 326006
O 326007
O 326008
O 326009
O 326010
O 326011
0326012
0326013
0326014
O 326015
0326016
O 326017
0326018
O 326019
0326020
0326021
0326022
0326023
O 326024
O 326025
0326026
O 326027 P
O 326028 P
O 326029 P
O 326030 P
O 326031 P
NAME
LESCO, INC
LEGG, DEBBIE
LAUFFEER, LAWRENCE
L IBERTY FLAGS, INC
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
L B SMITH, INC
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
LABOR FINDERS
LOWE'S COMPANIES,INC
LANGSTON, HESS, BOLTON,ZNOSKO
LEGEND PROPERTIES, INC.
LANDERS & PARSONS, PA
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
MIKES GARAGE
MAX DAVIS & ASSOCICATES
MATRX MEDICAL INC
MAC PAPERS, INC
MORA, CHRISTOPHER R
MURRAY, HELEN LMHC
MARTIN COUNTY PETROLEUM
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
MAROONE CHEVROLET INC
MCGRIFF, SHARON
MERCURI, DEBRA
MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC
MURPHY, DEBBIE
MARTIN, CRISTI
MCCULLY, WILLIAM KEITH
MERCEDES HOMES INC
M G B CONSTRUCTION
MARVIN'S MANAGEMENT &
MOORE, AQUILLA
MCGARRY, LAURA
NOLTE, DAVID C
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC
NICOSIA, ROGER J DO
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL COMMUNI-
NAPLES BEACH HOTEL & GOLF CLUB
NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY
NAPIER, WILLIAM MATT
NORTRAX SE L.L.C.
NORTHSIDE AGAPE MINISTRIES
NATURCHEM, INC
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
OSCEOLA HOME CARE SUPPLY
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
OSCEOLA PHARMACY
ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO
ON ITS WAY
PARAGON ELECTRIC, INC
PARKS RENTAL INC
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
ETTY CASH
ERKINS MEDICAL SUPPLY
RO SELECT SPORTS USA
ORT CONSOLIDATED
AK -MAIL
July 9, 2002
CHECK
DATE
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
9
CHECK
AMOUNT
106.00
50.00
500.00
844.63
1,227.73
143.18
1,078.00
2,132.08
210.68
2,156.09
78,740.58
577.50
19,100.16
125.00
204.00
22.40
445.77
118.54
80.00
1,412.16
78.96
23,602.00
580.00
67.28
79.10
185.21
35.00
151.39
500.00
500.00
950.00
50.00
53.50
233,576.92
93.60
1,500.00
34,036.67
65.00
178.00
188.61
296.40
1,163.19
3,657.27
4,041.15
569.49
70.95
136.51
124.68
2,272.50
481.20
618.00
247.09
312.82
169.98
12.75
393.34
16,209.84
3.10
u
•
13
CHECK
NUMBER
0326032
0326033
O 326034
0326035
O 326036
O 326037
O 326038
0326039
0326040
O 326041
O 326042
O 326043
O 326044
O 326045
O 326046
O 326047
O 326048
0326049
O 326050
0326051
O 326052
0326053
0326054
O 326055
O 326056
0326057
O 326058
0326059
0326060
0326061
0326062
0326063
0326064
0326065
O 326066
0326067
O 326068
O 326069
O 326070
0326071
O 326072
0326073
O 326074
0326075
O 326076
O 326077
0326078
0326079
O 326080
0326081
0326082
0326083
O 326084
O 326085
O 326086
O 326087
O 326088
0326089
NAME
PAGE, LIVINGSTON
PHARMCHEM LABORATORIES, INC
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES
PUBLIX PHARMACY #0385
PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES, INC
PUBLIX PHARMACY #0642
PERSONNEL PLUS INC
PROFORMA
REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING SVC
P B S & J
PEREZ, VICTOR
PER -SE TECHNOLOGIES-PHYS SVCS
PERKINS PHARMACY
PRICE CHOPPER, INC
PHILLIP WILSON SEMINARS
QUEEN, FLOYD D
PARRS AND SONS INC
RINKER MATERIALS
RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
REDSTONE, MICHAEL
RECORDED BOORS, LLC
R & G SOD FARMS
RELIABLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE
RCL DEVELOPMENT
ROTECH OXYGEN AND MEDICAL
REXEL CONSOLIDATED
REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING
ROYAL, THOMAS
ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET
R S MEDICAL
READ, BONITA
RICHARD KELLEY PROCESS SERVER
ROTH, STEVE
RINKER MATERIALS
RORKE, LUCY B M D
SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE
SMITH, SAMUEL PATRICK
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
REXEL SOUTHERN
ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
SUNCOAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC
SUNRISE TRACTOR & EQUIPMNT INC
SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC
JA SEXAUER INC
SORIANO, RAFAEL
SPALDING
SELIG INDUSTRIES
SOLINET
SHIELDS, CHERRYLE
SYSCO OF SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
SWANA
SAWGRASS, JIM
ST EDWARDS SCHOOL
SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE
July 9, 2002
CHECK
DATE
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
10
CHECK
AMOUNT
75.00
300.00
3,199.00
2,138.61
86.90
500.00
174.95
570.00
43.70
214.48
10,546.00
25.00
16,168.23
34.27
153.50
250.00
25.72
4,916.45
9,745.12
205.00
1,584.84
78.13
95.40
195.00
8,450.00
500.00
35.00
101.22
200.68
128.76
851.47
80.00
461.99
90.00
39.00
52.50
4,400.00
2,558.13
68.10
4,964.16
195.00
196.35
7.58
75.95
199.09
59.08
346.80
135.84
17.60
772.40
762.60
477.33
33.82
258.94
125.00
200.00
100.00
91.28
•
• •
CHECK
NUMBER
0326090
O 326091
O 326092
O 326093
O 326094
O 326095
0326096
O 326097
O 326098
O 326099
O 326100
O 326101
0326102
O 326103
O 326104
O 326105
O 326106
0326107
O 326108
0326109
0326110
O 326111
O 326112
0326113
O 326114
O 326115
O 326116
O 326117
O 326118
O 326119
O 326120
O 326121
O 326122
O 326123
O 326124
O 326125
0326126
0326127
O 326128
O 326129
O 326130
O 326131
O 326132
O 326133
0326134
O 326135
O 326136
O 326137
O 326138
O 326139
O 326140
0326141
0326142
0326143
0326144
0326145
O 326146
O 326147
July 9, 2002
NAME
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
SPHERION
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL
ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DIST
SKATE FACTORY
SORIANO, SORCIRE
STERICYCLE INC
SUNNYTECH INC- FL
SEYBERT SALES INC
TIMOTHY ROSE CONTRACTING
SMITH, TERRY L
TREASURE COAST REFUSE
SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST
TREASURE COAST SPORTS
THORNTON, DANIEL L & CAROLYN C
TOTAL TRUCK PARTS INC
WILLIAMS, TABITHA
THORTON, FAYE
TESTAMERICA INC
UNIVERSAL SIGNS & ACCESSORIES
U S FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
U S KIDS GOLF
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO FURNITURE MART, INC
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
VERO BOWL
VERO BEARING & BOLT
VERO COLLISION CENTER
VERO BEACH SURGERY CENTER
VINE, DAVID DDS
W W GRAINGER, INC
WAL-MART PHARMACY INC
WAL-MART PHARMACY INC
WILLHOFF, PATSY
WILLIAMS, ROBERT AND
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
WILLOW BEND BOOKS & FAMILY
WALGREEN COMPANY
W W GRAINGER INC
WALKER, KEITH
WODTKE, RUSSELL
WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE
WILLIAMS, LATOYA
WESTON REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT
YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC
ZORC, R & SONS BUILDERS INC
NORMAN, J. CLINTON
LAUER, RAYMOND
BRAY, ROBERT
ROSENBERG, LORETTA
ZORC, RICHARD
MCEWAN, GEORGE F
DIGGS, JUSTIN P
11
CHECK
DATE
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
CHECK
AMOUNT
100.00
57.00
668.00
700.00
1,619.75
41.03
282.50
1,672.79
216.40
53,119.20
47.27
79.86
97.79
2,686.84
200.00
71.32
82.40
25.00
3,627.00
4,591.65
5,635.28
1,327.80
3,286.53
9,462.50
708.22
127.35
39.39
88.80
500.00
75.00
1,017.00
13.94
2,869.65
7,410.00
29.00
129.64
85.90
90.00
130.00
293.97
616.00
203.70
20.98
12,615.05
30.00
22.62
1,596.45
82.40
500.00
295.50
500.00
326.81
571.00
524.88
82.38
77.50
12.04
67.22
8
CHECK
NUMBER
O 326148
0326149
0326150
0326151
O 326152
0326153
0326154
O 326155
0326156
0326157
0326158
0326159
0326160
0326161
O 326162
O 326163
0326164
O 326165
O 326166
O 326167
O 326168
O 326169
O 326170
0326171
O 326172
O 326173
O 326174
O 326175
O 326176
O 326177
NAME
FLINCHUM CONSTRUCTION INC
BURGOON BERGER CONST CO
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
STEWART, LARRY R
RUIZ, ROBERT
SPIKES, CAROLYN
HOWDER, DIANA L
GAGNON, WILLIAM
SMITH, RICHARD L
KELLY, CHAD
RATSEY, COLIN
THULIN, MORGAN
WELLINGTON, HOMES
SEA OAKS INVESTMENT LTD
ALRUTZ, L SCOTT
MENESES, IVONNE
BRACKETT PARKER & ASSOC
CHANNING CORP XXIX
LURIA IMPROVEMENTS LLC
ST AIME, LEHOTER
BURTON, HEATHER
MILES, JOHN G
COPPIN, LINDA
BRANNON, ROSEMARY
WEATHERINGTON, MARY
KELLY, TROY
READ, BONITA
MEYER, DAVID
SIMMONS, MICHAEL J
SHAW, JOSEPH D
CHECK
DATE
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
2002-06-27
CHECK
AMOUNT
200.00
72.91
37.12
64.69
45.37
46.42
84.02
157.67
38.73
37.19
52.00
64.02
27.68
34.70
35.41
9.89
76.80
29.54
213.96
9.78
55.05
58.10
38.35
7.90
30.66
6.08
105.91
12.07
81.73
57.94
1,602,773.42
7. C. Resolution No. 2002-043 Conveying Property to Indian River
County Hospital District for the Gifford Health Center - Property
Platted as Vero Beach - Burial Park
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 27, 2002:
July 9, 2002
12
• •
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: �;� William G. Collins II — Deputy County Attorney
DATE: June 27, 2002
SUBJECT: Gifford Health Center
In the fall of 2001 the County Commission was approached by the Indian River
County Hospital District concerning the possible conveyance of approximately
31/2 acres west of 28th Avenue and north of 45th Street for a new Gifford Health
Center. The property had been platted as a cemetery in the early part of the
century but had been abandoned since the 1940s. In 1994 the County took over
possession of the property. The southern portion of the 10 -acre parcel has been
developed as a park site and also is the site of the historic Macedonia Baptist
Church.
The County Commission authorized the Hospital District to file suit in the name of
the County seeking good title to the property by virtue of adverse possession for
the statutory period of time The quiet title suit ended with an Order vesting title
to the property in the County.
By letter dated May 16, 2002 the Indian River County Hospital District requested
a conveyance of the north approximately 31/4 acres of the property to the Hospital
District for the establishment and operation of the new Gifford Health Center
Such conveyances are authorized by Florida Statute 125.38. The statute
requires a resolution be adopted by the Board approving such conveyance.
In order to vacate and annul the plat of Vero Beach - Burial Park, staff is
requesting authorization to replat the property into two tracts, with the southern
portion of the property being designated for park and recreational purposes as it
is currently utilized and with the northern approximately 3'/ acres being
designated as a tract to be conveyed to the Indian River County Hospital District
for the Gifford Health Center.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve the attached resolution authorizing the conveyance to the Indian
River County Hospital District of the northerly +/- 31/2 acres.
Authorize the staff to proceed with a replat of the Vero Beach - Burial
Park. The name of the replatted property would be "Martin Luther King
Jr. Community Center" unless the Board prefers some other appellation
for the property.
WGC/nhm
cc: Alan Polackwich, Esq.
July 9, 2002
13
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECO\DED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2002-043 authorizing the conveyance of certain
property to the Indian River County Hospital District and
authorized staff to proceed with a replat of the Vero Beach -
Burial Park to "Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center".
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 043
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY TO THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County owns
certain property platted as Vero Beach — Burial Park by virtue of a judicial decree
quieting title in Indian River County by adverse possession; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Hospital District, an organization not-for-
profit organized for the purposes of promoting community interest and welfare has
made application for the County's conveyance of the north approximately 31/2 acres
of the property to the Hospital District, to be used for the establishment and
operation of the new Gifford Health Center; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is satisfied that such
property is required for such use and is not needed for County purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Hospital District has borne the expenses
of the quiet title suit in order to quiet title to the entire 10 -acre Vero Beach — Burial
Park parcel in the County,
July 9, 2002
14
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 043
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The staff of Indian River County is authorized and directed to prepare
for approval by the Board a replat of the Vero Beach — Burial Park for the purposes
of delineating a tract on the north end of the property as a health center tract, and
2. That in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and the previous
consideration of the Indian River County Hospital District bearing the expenses of
the suit to quiet title in the name of Indian River County, conveyance of
approximately 31/2 acres on the northern portion of the replatted property is hereby
approved, and the Chairman of the Commission is hereby authorized to execute a
deed of such property to the Indian River County Hospital District.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner G-1 nn , and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman Aye
Fran B. Adams Aye
Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Kenneth R. Macht
July 9, 2002
Aye
15
Aye
•
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 9th day of July, 2002.
ATTEST: Jeffrey . e rton, Clerk
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By(
Ruth M. Stanbndge, Chairman
HTai • . 1 CI t p Yy: w:y.
7.D. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver dor Lot 2, Block 24,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 5A, 7855 91st Avenue (MGB Construction)
The Board reviewed a memorandum of June 28, 2002:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director!
AND
Christopher J. Kafer, Jr , P
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P E , Civil EngineerCG
DATE:
June 28, 2002
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 2, Block 24,
Vero Lake Estates Unit 5A, 7855 91St Avenue
REFERENCE: Project No. 98080152-31257
July 9, 2002
16
• •
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
MGB Construction, Inc has submitted a building permit application for a single-family residence on
the subject property. The site is located in an AE special flood hazard zone base flood elevation
22.9 ft. N.G.V.D. In the attached letter from the applicant s engineer dated revision June 74, 2002 a
waiver of the cut and fill requirements is requested. The lot area is 1.08 acres. The volume of the
100 -year floodplain displaced by the proposed grading plan is estimated to be 1,081 cubic yards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The waiver request has been reviewed by staff and appears to meet the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4. of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance for lots located in the
Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit
Alternative No. 1
Grant the cut and fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the cut and fill waiver. Require an on site retention area be provided to compensate for the
proposed floodplain displacement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ATTACHMENTS
Letter from Ronald G. Keller, P E , dated revision June 24, 2002.
Calculations for cut and fill
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously granted the cut and
fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4, as recommended in the memorandum.
7.E. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Ocean Oaks West
Residential Subdivision Development
The Board reviewed a memorandum of June 28, 2002:
July 9, 2002
17
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH•
James W. Davis, P E , Public Works Direct
AND
Chnstopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Enginee
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: David A. Hays, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Ocean Oaks West
Residential Subdivision Development
REFERENCE: SD -01-12-25 / LDP Application No. 2000080158-31050
DATE: June 28, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Schullce, Bittle Sc Stoddard, L.L.C., on behalf of Ocean Oaks West Development Corp., the
developer of Ocean Oaks West Residential Subdivision Development is requesting a waiver of the
cut and fill balance requirement of Section 930.07(2)(d) of the Stoiinwater Management and Flood
Protection Ordinance as provided for in the Section. The project is located on the west side of the
State Road A -1-A, across from Ocean Oaks and just north of Round Island Park. The site is located
in special flood hazard area Zone AE with a base flood elevation of 5 feet N.G.V.D. The ten-year
still water elevation is 2 7 feet The code requires capacity for any volume of the base flood that
would be displaced by the higher of the 10 -year still water elevation or 4.0 feet. The proposed
displacement of the floodplain below 4 0 feet for which the waiver is requested is 6,403 cubic yards
as indicated in the attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated January 10, 2002.
ALTERNATIVES AND A_AALYSIS
The project meets the cut and fill balance waiver criteria provided in Section 930.07(2)(d)1 of being
situated in an estuarine environment within the 100 year floodplain along the Indian River and in
staff's opinion it appears that all other Stoiinwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance
requirements can be met without adverse impact on other lands in the estuarine environment.
A separate request for a Land Development Permit has been received by the Public Works
Department.
Alternative No. 1
Approve the cut and fill balance waiver request.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the waiver request and require re -design to accomplish an on-site balance of cut and
fill.
July 9, 2002
18
• •
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard dated January 10, 2002.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously granted the cut and
fill balance waiver, as recommended in the Memorandum.
7.F. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 6, Block 21,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 4, 7975 92nd Avenue
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 28, 2002:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
James Chandler
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P E
Public Works Director
AND
Christopher J. Kafer, Jr , P
County Engineer �
David B. Cox, P E , Civil Enginee�tJ C
Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 6, Block 21,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 4, 7975 92nd Avenue
Project No. 2002040132-31295
DATE: June 28, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
CONSENT AGENDA
MGB Construction has submitted a building permit application for a single-family residence on the
subject property. The site is located in an AE special flood hazard zone, base flood elevation 23.0 ft.
July 9, 2002
19
N.G.V.D. In the attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated June 25, 2002, a wailer of the
cut and fill requirements is requested The lot area is 1.06 acres The volume of the 100 -year
floodplain displaced by the proposed grading plan is estimated to be 546 cubic yards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The waiver request has been reviewed by staff and appears to meet the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4. of the StolLlwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance for lots located in the
Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit.
Alternative No. 1
Grant the cut and fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the cut and fill waiver. Require an on site retention area be provided to compensate for the
proposed floodplain displacement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Altemative No. 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Ronald G. Keller, P.E., dated June 25, 2002.
2. Calculations for cut and fill
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously granted the cut and
fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4, as recommended in the memorandum.
7. G. Right of Way Acquisition - 41s1 Street between 43rd Avenue and
58t Avenue - Danny R. Darnell
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 2, 200»
July 9, 2002
20
• •
TO:
THROUGH•
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
James W. Davis, P E , Public Works Directo
AND
Chnstopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Engine
Ronald L. Callahan, Right -of -Way Agent
Right -of -Way Acquisition
41st Street between 43rd Avenue and 58th Avenue
County Project No. 0016
Danny R. Darnell
July 2, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
An additional 60 -feet (see Exhibit "A") of right-of-way is needed along the south boundary of the
subject property that borders 4151 Street to accommodate a road improvement project. Currently,
there is 40 -feet of existing road right-of-way and the acquisition of the additional 60 -feet will
attain the 100 -foot ultimate right-of-way for this location. The proposed right-of-way parcel
measures 60' x 97.5', which is 5,850 square feet The property owner has executed a contract at a
price of $1.00 per square foot, which is based on a current appraisal of the subject property,
zoned RMH-8.
The total contract price is $6,000.00. The price for the land is $5,850.00, which is calculated by
multiplying 5,850 square feet times $1.00 per square foot. The balance of the contract price
($150.00) is compensation for a tree house, which is situated in the proposed right-of-way. There
are no attorney's fees. There is a $300.00 appraisal fee associated with this right-of-way
purchase.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
None.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the $6,000.00 purchase and
authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
Funding will be from Account # 315-214-541-066.12
ATTACHMENTS
1. Two "originals" of the Purchase Contract
July 9, 2002
21
L.. J
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
$6,000 purchase and authorized the Chairman to execute the
contract with Danny R. Darnell, as recommended in the
Memorandum.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.H. Out -of -County Travel by Chairman Stanbridge to Tallahassee
July 23-24, 2002 - Florida Communities Trust - Lost Tree Islands
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 2, 2002:
DATE: July 2, 2002
TO:
FROM: Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
RE• Trip to Tallahassee
Member of the Board of County Commissioners
There is a good possibility that the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Governing
Board will be considering increasing the percentage match towards purchase of the Lost
Tree Islands at their July 24, 2002 meeting in Tallahassee. The Conservation Fund has
felt that it be advisable for me to plan to attend this meeting with them. Therefore, I
request travel outside the county for July 23 — 24, 2002.
Commissioner Ginn requested this be separated in order to change it so that any
Commissioner who wishes to attend may attend. particularly because she wished to attend.
July 9, 2002
22
• •
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved out -of -
county travel by Chairman Stanbridge and any other
Commissioner (who wished to attend) to Tallahassee July 23-
24, 2002, as requested.
8.A. REPRESENTATIVE OF REPRESENTATIVE IRVING
SLOSBERG'S OFFICE ADDRESS REGARDING THE DORI
SLOSBERG DRIVER EDUCATION SAFETY ACT
The Board reviewed backup submitted and a letter of June 28, 2002:
Florida House of Representatives
Repre..eutative Irving Slosberg
District 39
Reply to;
9045 LaFontana Blvd., B-17
Boca Raton, FL 33434
(561) 637-7097
June 28, 2002
Dear Ms. Gunther:
402 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
(850)483.1302
New drivers put all motorists at risk. However, Florida's youngest, most inexperienced
drivers lack the funding for effective driver's education programs. This is why the Florida
Legislature passed the "Dori Slosberg Driver Education Safety Act" during the 2002
Legislative Session to give student drisers the resources to fund successful driving
programs in our schools.
We would like Indian River County to pass tnis ordinance, which allows the Cornrnission
to add a 53 surcharge to each civil traffic violation. This does not include parking tickets.
This ordinance would nave brought 565,298 to Indian River County in 2000.
I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Commission to implement this
wonderful piece of legislation. I am enclosing two newspaper articles for your review.
Please contact myself or Desiree Morel, my Legislative Assistant, at (561) 637-7097 to
begin tne implementation process. We would like to address the Commission about this
legislation at your upcoming meeting.
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Representative Irving "Ixv" Slosberg
District 89
July 9, 2002
23
Lawrence Victoria, an aide to Representative Irving Slosberg, explained the purpose
of the bill written in the above letter. He specified that Representative Slosberg wanted
language that the Traffic Magistrate cannot waive this fee.
Conunissioner Adams asked for clarification and was advised that the fees collected
in our county will be added to the monies already in the schools' Drivers' Ed programs. She
understood that the policies and procedures will be developed by Administrator Chandler
and the grants will be used for direct educational expenses for both public and private
schools.
Clerk of Circuit Court Jeff Barton explained that the Clerk's responsibilities would
be to collect the fines and send the funds to the County at the end of each month. The
County would then disburse the funds as grants to schools that make application. Clerk
Barton further advised that his office will not charge a fee. He had spoken earlier to both
judges who handle the cases and reported they are in favor of the program.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn to direct the County
Attorney to write up the ordinance and advertise it for public
hearing.
Commissioner Macht spoke in opposition because he believed the additional S3 fee
would be adding an administrative burden to the system and have a negative financial impact
on young people who just slip up occasionally.
July 9, 2002
THI-. CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried 4-1. (Commissioner Macht opposed)
24
ems e
• •
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-022 - REZONE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE NORTH BARRIER ISLAND
NORTH OF CR -510 TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
PROOF OF PUBLICA CION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF HIE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Memorandum of
June 27, 2002 as follows using location maps and other visual aids on the ELMO (see
backup file). He explained the requirement for two public hearings when the County
initiates rezoning property.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP ' TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert M. Keating, AI /
Community Development Dirt(ofo
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP Si/7-
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Randy Deshazo; Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 27, 2002
RE• County Initiated Request to Rezone all RM -3 and RM -4 zoned Properties in
the Unincorporated area of the North Barrier Island north of CR 510 to RS -
3 or RS -6 (RZON 2001-02-0097) [FINAL HEARING]
It is requested that the following infozntation be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 9, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a county initiated request to rezone approximately 120 acres of residential property in the
unincorporated area of the North Barrier Island from Multiple -Family Residential districts (RIM -
3 and RM -4) to Single -Family Residential districts (RS -3 and RS -6 respectively). Of these 120
acres approximately 115 acres, consisting of 62 lots are zoned RM -3, while the remaining five
acres consisting of three lots, are zoned RM -4.
July 9, 2002
25
The subject properties, depicted in the figure below, are located north of CR 510, mostly on the
east side of A1A. As shown in the figure, the subject properties have been grouped into two
areas: Area 1 comprises all of the RM -3 zoned properties and Area 2 comprises the RM -4 zoned
properties.
The purpose of the rezoning is to ensure that future development on the North Barrier Island will
be compatible with surrounding land uses, which are predominantly single-family residential
developments.
Backround
In 2001, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to rezone all multi -family zoned
properties on the North Barrier Island north of CR 510 to single-family residential districts.
Since the board's directive involves a county initiated, rather than a property owner initiated,
rezoning action staff sent a letter to all affected property owners on May 8, 2001 to ask if they
support the proposed rezoning In response to that letter only one property owner indicated that
he opposed the rezoning, and that owner has since sold his property. One other owner indicated
that he had questions regarding the proposed rezoning and staff contacted that owner. The owner
stated that he had concerns regarding how the rezoning might impact potential future
development of his property, and staff informed him that the rezoning would not impact future
development on his property, given the small size and particular configuration of the parcel.
Rezoning Procedures
State law provides special requirements for county initiated rezonings, such as the subject
request, that involve more than 10 acres. Among those special requirements are the following:
o The Board must hold two advertised public hearings, one of which must be after 5:00
P M. on a week day unless the Board by a majority plus one vote elects to conduct that
hearing at another time of day; and
o The second Board hearing must be held at least 10 days after the first Board hearing and
must be advertised at least five days pnor to the second hearing.
On May 9, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve this request. On June 11, 2002, the Board of County
Commissioners held the first public hearing on this item. At that time, the Board voted 5-0 to
hold the second and final public hearing on this rezoning request at 9:00 A M. on July 9, 2002.
This is the second and final Board of County Commissioners public hearing on this matter. At
this hearing, the Board is to consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning all multi -family zoned
properties on the North Barrier Island north of CR 510 to single-family residential districts.
July 9, 2002
26
•
Multiple -Family
Zoned Areas
Atlantic
Ocean
Area 1: RM -3
GOV. LOT 0
Area 2:
RIi-4
Area 1: Existing Land Use Pattern
Most of the subject properties comprising Area 1 consist of undeveloped land. Of those
properties which are developed, single-family subdivisions predominate. Subdivisions that will
be rezoned are Windsor Beachside, Sanderling, and Ocean Bluff. Directly south of Ocean Bluff
is Treasure Shores park. Abutting the Area 1 subject properties to the north and west, land is
zoned RS -3. West of the subject properties are the Windsor Planned Development, and the
Wabasso Estates, Turtle Cove, and Ocean Way subdivisions. The Town of Orchid lies to the
southwest of the Area 1 subject properties. To the east lies the Atlantic Ocean.
Area 2: Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject properties comprising Area 2 consist of a single-family residence and undeveloped
land. The Town of Orchid lies directly north of the subject properties To the south and west of
the Area 2 subject properties, land is zoned RS -6, single-family residential (up to 6 units/acre)
and contains the Spring Place and Summerplace subdivisions To the southwest, land is zoned
RT -6, transitional single-family residential (up to 6 units/acre) and contains the Oceanaire
Heights subdivision. To the east lies the Atlantic Ocean.
July 9, 2002
27
•
Area 1: Future Land Use Pattern
The subject properties comprising Area 1 are designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, and
REC, Recreation, on the Future Land Use Map. The REC designation does not penult any
residential development. Land to the north and west of Area 1 is also designated L-1 The L-1
designation permits residential uses with densities of up to 3 units/acre. To the south hes the
Town of Orchid
Area 2: Future Land Use Pattern
The subject properties compnsing Area 2 are designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the
Future Land Use Map The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities of up to 6
units/acre. To the north of Area 2 lies the Town of Orchid, while land to the south and west is
desianated L-2.
Environment
Most of the subject properties contain wooded lots with saw palmetto, live oak, cabbage palm,
seagrape, sea oats, and beach bean In addition, Brazilian pepper is also found on many sites and
competes with desirable native species. While there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the subject
properties, the Flood Insurance Rating Maps indicate that many of the subject properties contain
flood hazard areas.
Utilities and Services
The subject properties are located within the Urban Service Area of the county Water lines
extend from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant along A1A. Wastewater lines extend from
the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant along A1A north to the southern tip of Treasure
Shores park.
Transportation System
Both Areas are, generally, bounded on the west by A1A. Classified as a rural minor arterial
roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of A1A is a two-lane road
with 100 feet of public road right-of-way. No expansion of this segment of AlA is programmed.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The
analysis will include a description of:
o Concurrency of public facilities;
o Compatibility with the surrounding area;
o Consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
o Potential impact on environmental quality.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
The subject properties are 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. 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.
July 9, 2002
28
• •
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 Improv, ments
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. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1 Size of Area to be Rezoned: ±120 acres
2. Land Use Designations:
3. Existing Zoning Districts:
4. Proposed Zoning Districts:
REC, Recreation, (zero density),
L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) and
L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre).
RM -3 and RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential Districts
RS -3 and RS -6, Single -Family Residential Districts
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land
Development Regulations, projects that 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 potential number of units that could be built
on the subject properties.
In the north area (Area 1), there will be no increase in the potential number of units because the
currently RM -3 zoned properties will be rezoned to RS -3 Since both districts allow up to 3
units/acre, there would be no increase in density. In fact, the actual dwelling unit yield for
regular single-family subdivisions under RS -3 zoninc is between 2 and 2.5 units per acre, while
the yield for multi -family projects under RSI -3 zoning can be as much as 3 units per acre. For
this reason, the Area 1 rezoning will result in a decrease in allowable net density. Furthermore,
approximately 53 acres of the RM -3 zoned subject properties are publicly owned lands
designated as REC, recreation, on the Future Land Use Map. These properties will never be
developed for residential purposes, regardless of zoning
Similarly, the proposed zoning in the south area (Area 2) will not result in a density increase
While the Area 2 rezoning request involves rezoning properties from RM -4 (up to 4 units/acre)
to RS -6 (up to 6 units/acre), only three parcels will be affected. Because of the small sizes and
particular configurations of those lots, the RS -6 zoning will result in an effective decrease in
density The density decrease is attributable to the fewer units that can be built on those parcels
with single-family zoning than could be built on them if they remained at their multi -family
designation.
In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with any new
development project on any of the subject properties. That concurrency analysis will address
facility service levels and demand.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
With the subject property located in an area that is dominated by single-family, low-density
development, compatibility is not a major concern for this request. Indeed, compatibility is the
reason for the rezoning request. Since land to the north and west of Area 1 is currently zoned
July 9, 2002
29
RS -3, the rezoning of properties zoned RM -3 to RS -3 will result in a continuation of an existing
zoning pattern. For land currently zoned RM -4 (Area 2) surrounding properties are zoned RS -6
and RT -6, so the rezoning of that property to RS -6 will result in a continuation of an existing
zoning pattern as well. For these reasons, development of the subject property with single-family
residential development will be compatible with surrounding areas.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive
plan. Rezomngs must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on
the Future Land Use Map, which include agnculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and
commercial and industnal 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 that 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 Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.41,
and Objective 11 of the Coastal Management Element.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that the Low -Density Residential Land Use
designations shall be applied to those areas which are suitable for urban and suburban scale
development, and shall be limited to lands that are located within the Urban Service Area and
near existing urban centers Since the subject properties are suitable for urban and suburban
scale development, and are located within the Urban Service Area, the request is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.41
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.41 states that the Board of County Commissioners recognizes
that not every zoning district allowed in a land use designation is appropriate for every site
within that land use designation. Since the subject properties are adjacent to other single-family
areas and are separated from major commercial and industrial areas, single-family zoning is
appropriate.
-Coastal Management Element Objective 11
Coastal Management Element Objective 11 states that the county will not allow an increase in
the density of land use within the Coastal High Hazard Area (an area containing the subject
properties). Even though the rezoning request includes a change from RM -4 to RS -6 in Area 2,
the maximum yield for dwelling units in regular single-family subdivisions zoned RS -6 is four
units per acre; therefore, the rezoning would result in an even swap in allowed density.
Consequently, this request is consistent with Objective 11 of the Coastal Management Element
of the comprehensive plan.
While Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11, 1 41 and Coastal Management Element Objective
11 are particularly applicable to this request other comprehensive plan policies and objectives
July 9, 2002
30
• •
also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all
applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff deteimined that the
request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Environmental protection regulations are the same for both multiple -family and single-family
zoning districts. Those regulations require that, prior to residential development of a site, the
developer complete an environmental survey to determine the extent of any jurisdictional
wetlands on site. That survey must be approved by the county's environmental planning staff
Any jurisdictional wetlands deteuuined to be located on the parcel are regulated by federal, state
and county agencies.
A survey of listed species would also be required prior to development of the site. If that survey
found any listed species, the developer would be required to coordinate with the appropriate state
and federal agencies.
Therefore, there will be no additional negative impact on environmental resources associated
with this request.
CONCLUSION
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area, and is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezoning the properties to single-family
residential districts will have no negative impacts on environmental quality or the provision of
public facilities and services. The subject properties are located in an area deemed suitable for
low-density, single-family residential development. The request meets all applicable criteria.
For those reasons staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners rezone the subject properties to RS -3 or RS -6 by approving the
attached ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Page
2. Rezoning Application
3. Approved Minutes of the May 9, 2002, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
4. Unapproved Minutes of the June 11, 2002, meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners
5. Rezoning ordinance
July 9, 2002
31
Ex
SL,VIM RY PAGE
GENERAL
Applicant: Indian River County
Location: Mostly east of Al A, north of CR 510 on the North Barrier Island
Acreage: 120
Land Use Designation: REC, Recreation (zero density), L-1, Low Density Residential (up
to 3 units/acre) and L-2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre)
Existing Zoning: 115 acres of RM -3 Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 3
units/ac.) & 5 acres of RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District
(up to 4 units/1 ac.)
Requested Zoning: RS -3 and RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/ac
and up to 6 units/acre.)
Existing Land Use: Subdivisions, single-family home, wooded lots, county owned
parks
ADJACENT LAND
North: Single-family subdivisions
South: Single-family subdivisions
East: Atlantic Ocean
West: Single-family subdivisions; zoned RS -3, RS -6.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water and sewer available; access from AlA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Flood hazard areas
PUBLIC
NOTIFICATION
Planning and
Zoning
Board of County
Commissioners (first
public hearing)
Board of County
Commissioners (final
public hearing)
Staff Contact:
Randy Deshazo
Randy Desha7o
Randy Deshazo
Date
Advertised:
April 26, 2002
May 31, 2002
June 26, 2002
# of Surrounding
137
137
137
Property
Owner
and
Property Owner
Notifications:
Date
Notification
April 23, 2002
May 10, 2002
June 11, 2002
Mailed:
Date Sign Posted:
April 23, 2002
May 29, 2002
June 18, 2002
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the request
July 9, 2002
• •
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Bill Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, as President of the North Beach Civic Association
and Summerplace Improvement Association, believed this change to be a defining moment
in the Board's tenure. He thanked and congratulated them for their leadership and
demonstration of opposition to density and height and for supporting what the people want.
He thanked staff and Long Range/Economic Development Planner Randy Deshazo for the
great job in putting this together.
Brian Heady, Vero Beach, spoke in opposition to the rezoning because the property
is worth more zoned for multi -family. He believed the property owners will sue the county
which will raise taxes. He also expressed his opposition to the previous item.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Ginn reported having read recently that the Supreme Court has said
that compatibility with surrounding buildings homes or whatever, is an issue that may be
considered, so she felt the Board was on good legal ground.
July 9, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 2002-022 amending the Zoning Ordinance and
the accompanying Zoning Map for all unincorporated county
properties in the north barrier island north of CR 510 that are
currently zoned as multiple -family residential districts (RM -3 or
33
RM -4) to single-family residential districts (RS -3 or RS -6
respectively) and providing codification, severability, and
effective date.
ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 022
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR ALL UN -IN CORPORA 1 ED
COUNTY PROPERTIES IN THE NORTH BARRIER ISLAND NORTH OF CR 510 THAT
ARE CURRENTLYZONED AS MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (RM -3 OR
RM -4) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (RS -3 OR RS -6, RESPECTIVELY);
AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND 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 two public hearings pursuant to
this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIN -ED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described properties situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
THOSE PARTS OF GOVERNMENT LOT 6 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 11 LYING EAST OF
S.R. AIA IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 31S, RANGE 39E;
AND THOSE PARTS OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 6 LYING EAST
OF S.R A1A IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 31S, RANGE 39E;
AND THOSE PARTS OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 LYING EAST OF S.R. A1A IN
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 31S, RANGE 39E.
LESS AND EXCEPT ALL PUBLICLY OWNED CON -1 ZONED LAND
Be changed from RM -3, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) to RS -3, Single-
family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre)
AND
2002
34
• •
ALL OF THAT UNPLATTED PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 31
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST LYING ON EACH SIDE OF STATE ROAD A -1-A, BOUNDED ON
THE NORTH BY ORCHID ISLAND PLAT 7 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13 PAGE 14 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA ON THE SOUTH BY
SUMMERPLACE UNIT 4, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8 PAGE 22 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA, ON THE WEST PARTLY BY
OCEANAIRE HEIGHTS UNIT 3, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5 PAGE 53 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND SPRING PLACE SUBDIVISION AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10 PAGE 22 OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Be changed from RM -4, Multiple -family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre) to RS -6, Single -
Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre).
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, on this 9th day of July 2002.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 31St day of May, 2002, for a public
hearing to be held on the 11th day of June, 2002. This ordinance was also advertised in the Press
Journal on the 26th day of June, 2002, for a public hearing to be held on the 9th day of July, 2002, at
which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded by
Commissioner Mac h t and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Ruth M Stanbridge Ay e
Vice -Chairman John W Tippin Ay e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ay e
Commissioner Kenneth R Macht Ay P
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Ay P
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: & l`% �'{ --�•
Ruth M. Stanbridge, CCirman
ATTEST BY �����c-1-e
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
r
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: 1 `/ s( =Ateu
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICII-NCY
July 9, 2002
y County Attorney
35
APPROVED AS TO PLANNIIN
G MATTERS
&
Robert M. Keating, AICP ommunity evelopinent Director
Indian River Co.
.cd dIairzonInialIord
Approved
Date
Admin.
{/ l(/
7/-Z/,' �._)
Legal
//
Budget
l
yy�
)N__ -
71/4
Dept.
q
/1...i
0/2471e:.
Risk Alga -
ier
\cd\u4Crzon\nblord dad
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISIONS TO THE COUNTY LAND
CLEARING REQUIREMENTS AND TREE PROTECTION
ORDINANCE
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK [,0 THE BOARD
Chief Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois reviewed a Memorandum of June 25,
2002, focusing on the changes made since the last time this matter was brought to the Board.
He explained the three substantive changes and definitions that were changed.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
TVIENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, JCP
Community Development Director 2
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlo
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM:
Brian Po�_.:i�C
Senior • onmental Planner
DATE: June 25, 2002
RE•
County Initiated Request to Adopt Revisions to the County Land Clearing
and Tree Protection Ordinance
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners formally consider the following
information at the Board's regular meeting of July 9, 2002.
BACKGROUND)
On January 22, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider
proposed revisions to the County Land Clearing and Tree Protection Ordinance. At that time,
several people provided comments to the Board regarding the proposed ordinance revisions.
Among those comments was a concern that there had been insufficient time for the public to
review the proposed ordinance changes. Consequently, the Board voted to recess the public
hearing to allow time for staff to give presentations to, and receive comment from, interested
groups and organizations. Subsequently, presentations were made to the Pelican Island Audubon
Society, the Eugenia Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society, and the Pelican Island
Preservation Society. A total of 75 people attended those three meetings. On March 1, 2002, an
advertised public workshop was held, and 28 people attended.
The Board reconvened its January 22, 2002, public hearing on March 12, 2002. At that hearing,
there was more public comment and a request for more time to review the proposed ordinance
July 9, 2002
36
• •
changes. In response to those comments, the Board closed the public hearing and directed staff to
schedule another hearing after staff gave presentations to, and received comments from, other
interested groups and organizations. Presentations were then made to the Treasure Coast Builders
Association, the Indian River County Board of Realtors, and the Vero Beach Tree Commission.
A total of 58 people attended these meetings. On April 19, 2002, an advertised public workshop
was held, and 25 people attended.
Based upon the input received at the most recent meetings, staff has made changes to the
Ordinance version that the Board considered at its March 12 meeting. The Board is now to
consider the revised proposed Ordinance, and is to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the
proposed Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the comments received from the public hearing, public workshops,
presentations, email, and personal communication, and proposes revisions to the March 12 draft
Ordinance based on those comments (see Attachment 1, proposed Ordinance). The proposed
changes affect two separate Chapters of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
These are Chapter 901, Definitions, and Chapter 927, Tree Protection and Land Clearing. The
proposed changes are detailed below.
In the Definitions Chapter, there are only a few changes, and those are listed below. For the Tree
Protection and Land Clearing Chapter, the changes are organized by the Section where the
proposed change occurs. With each proposed revision, there is an evaluation of what the change
is (Change), and a discussion of the reasoning behind the proposed change (Reason).
Minor Changes
Section 901.03. Definitions.
• Added definition of area at breast height. This term is used in Section 927.22(1) for the
purpose of detetinining the number of trees to be replanted as a result of illegal tree removal.
• Added definition for the term Florida Grade Number One. This term is used in several
Chapters of the Code including Chapter 927.
• Changed the list of plants that are excluded from the definition of Protected Tree and
Specimen Tree. Previously, only those trees listed as Category I on the Florida Exotic Pest
Plant Councils List of Florida's Invasive Species were excluded from the definition of
Protected or Specimen Tree. The definition now reads that all trees (trees only) on the
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Councils List of Florida's Invasive Species are not to be considered
as a Protected or Specimen Tree. This list has two categories of invasive plants, Category I
and Category II. With this change, trees that are in either category will not be considered as
Protected or Specimen Trees.
• Changed and moved the calculation of the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) from Section 927.16 to
the Definition Section. The CRZ is now defined as a radius around the tree that is calculated
as one foot of radius for every one inch of diameter at breast height (dbh). See Section
927.16 below for a complete explanation of the change and the reasons behind the change.
Section 927.12. Disposal of tree removal or land clearing debris.
Change: The time frame during which land clearing and tree removal debris may
remain onsite has been increased from 60 to 90 days.
July 9, 2002
Reason: The existing ordinance allows for a period of 60 days for the debris to remain
on-site. This is to allow for drying of the material so that it can be disposed
of properly. Staff from the Florida Division of Forestry has suggested that a
more reasonable time would be 90 days.
37
GI(
mob. .•••1
Section 927.15. Specimen tree protection.
Change: The sentence "A reasonable effort need not remove all economic value of the
property in order to be considered not 'practicable"' has been removed.
thin the
t this
Reason: There is allow the cncem county to isubstantiallregulated
proposed tprojectssto thee exnt that
the project would not be economically viable and could result in a takings
issue. Staff attempted to assure the regulated community that this was not
the case. In fact, staff has stated that, should a situation arise that is
unacceptable to an applicant, the applicant has the option to appeal staffs
decision. It is staff's opinion that the removal of this language does not alter
the authority of the proposed ordinance.
Section 927.18 (1)(d)(4).
Change: Specific language regarding the type of tag required for the tree and the
location of the tag on the tree has been added.
Reason: This change reflects the experience of the Town of Indian River Shores with
implementation of its tree protection ordinance. This revision will provide
for a uniform marking system that, in conjunction with the tree survey, will
allow staff to better locate trees that are to be saved on the project site.
Section 927.18(4).
Change: Increased, from one foot to five feet, the minimum distance from the tree
where the use of special techniques or methods may be used if approved by
staff If impacts are proposed within the five foot radial distance, a written
statement from a Certified Arborist will be required. This statement must
certify that the proposed special techniques or methods wilnot result in impact within the five foot
os
probability of damage to the tree. Any proposed
radial distance that would cause physical damage to the roots, trunk, or
buttresses of the tree will not be approved.
Reason: In previous drafts of this ordinance, the minimum distance was set at one
foot; however, it was felt that this was too close to the tree considering the
roots and buttressing of certain trees. The existing ordinance allows impacts
to within five feet of a tree
Major Chances
Section 927.16. Critical Root Zone determination.
Change: The calculation of the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) has been changed. The
CRZ definition is now in Section 901.03, Definitions. The CRZ is calculated
as a radius that is equal to one foot of radius for every inch of diameter at
breast height (dbh). A description of tree well construction and techniques
has replaced the CRZ information (see below).
Reason: The original calculation of the CRZ took into account four factors in arriving
at the size of the CRZ These factors were: the species of tree; the age of the
tree; the condition of the tree; and the relative tolerance of the tree species to
various impacts. Of these four factors, only the species of the tree and the
relative tolerance would generally be undisputed. The other two factors
require some subjective determinations.
Based on comments received at the public workshops, written comments,
July 9, 2002
38
•
personal communication, and infotniation obtained from the Internet, staff
concluded that a simple direct calculation would protect the trees as well as
the more complex method and would eliminate the subjectivity and
complexity. This resulted in the deletion of the CRZ calculation in Section
927.16. The CRZ is now defined in Chapter 901, Definitions, as being one
foot of radius from the center of the tree for every one inch of diameter at
breast height (dbh). For example: a Protected Tree having a dbh of 22
inches would have a CRZ that would be a circle around the tree with a radius
of 22 feet. Using the previous methodology, the CRZ would range from 11
to 41 feet depending on the species, health, age, and tolerance of the tree.
The revised method of CRZ determination is commonly used in other
ordinances that staff reviewed.
To further determine the effect this change may have on tree protection, staff
reviewed a number of previously approved development projects and
determined the CRZ using the two methodologies. Using the four factors to
determine the CRZ (exiting proposed method) generally resulted in a CRZ
radius that was 0.75 feet for every inch of dbh; whereas, the proposed new
method would result in a CRZ radius that is 1.0 foot for every inch of dbh. It
is staffs conclusion that, in most cases, the new method will result in a
slightly larger CRZ than the previous method.
Section 927.18(3). Tree protection during site development for projects that require tree
preservation.
Change: This Section has been deleted.
Reason: Initially, the Board of County Commissioners indicated that staff should be on-
site during land clearing and tree removal activities that occurred in the vicinity
of trees that were to be saved. Staff feels that this approach is not feasible for
the following reasons:
July 9, 2002
▪ limited staff,
• many projects would require several days of on-site supervision, and
• there are usually multiple projects going on at any one time.
In previous drafts of this ordinance, staff had incorporated the requirement of
having a Certified Arborist on-site during these activities. As proposed in
those drafts, the Certified Arborist would be paid for by the developer. As an
option to the Certified Arborist, the Professional Services Advisory Committee
(PSAC) suggested that an applicant be allowed to post a Performance
Guarantee. The purpose of these two methods is to reduce or eliminate the
intentional, or unintentional, removal or damage of trees that are to be saved. It
was felt that the Certified Arborist would achieve this by stopping activity that
he/she felt would damage or destroy the saved trees. With respect to the
Performance Guarantee, it was thought that this would provide a financial
disincentive to the removal of saved trees. There was much discussion about
the effectiveness of both of these methods. Generally, the comments were as
follows:
Certified Arborist:
1. There are a limited number of Certified Arborists in the immediate area.
A search of the International Society of Arborists web site produced a list
of only 22 Certified Arborists in the area (from Melbourne to Ft. Pierce).
It is unlikely that all those on the list will want to perform this activity,
and it is unlikely that those who do will want to spend several days on a
39
•
July 9, 2002
single site watching equipment removing vegetation. In addition, the
size and forested nature of some developments would require that more
than one Certified Arborist be on-site.
Any developer who is unscrupulous enough to want to remove saved
trees will find a way to do it despite the on-site Certified Arborist.
There were concerns that there would be a perception of possible
collusion between the Certified Arborist and the developer, or at least
undue influence, since the Certified Arborist was being paid by the
developer. To address that issue, staff revised an earlier version of the
ordinance to provide that the Certified Arborist would be paid by the
county, and the county would be reimbursed its expense from the
developer. This process, however, would create additional workload for
the county in tracking, handling, and coordinating this process. In
addition, this revised process produced concerns that the Certified
Arborists would inflate their charges since they would be working for the
county and it would be the county's responsibility to get the money from
the developer. Additionally, some Certified Arborists took exception to
the idea that they would act in such an unprofessional manner.
Performance Guarantee:
There was concern that, for large projects or projects of high value, the
bond amounts would not be sufficient to deter illegal tree removal;
however, if the bond amounts were set too high the smaller projects
would not have sufficient financial resources, or would find financing
difficult to obtain. This would necessitate the implementation of a
complex formula for determining bond amounts.
There was concern that financial institutions would not back or support
the bonding requirements since the bonds would be perceived as a high
risk investment.
Comments were received that the bonds should remain in place for a
period of up to three years after the project was complete. This was to
ensure that the trees survived. This generated concern that, if a saved
tree were to die, it would be difficult to determine if the tree died as a
result of the development activity or of natural causes.
Finally, staff looked at the data gathered over the last 10 years to determine if
there is a real or perceived problem with tree removal permit violations. In the
previous 10 years, the county has issued 770 tree removal permits. Of these,
25 pertiiits were issued after -the -fact, and only five of the 770 permits issued
resulted in any enforcement action due to the illegal removal of trees. The five
violations represent 0.65% of all the tree removal permits issued during the last
10 years. These figures indicate that the cost associated with these alternatives
would far outweigh the benefits that would be produced.
Based on all the information noted above, staff determined that the best, most
efficient and most cost effective method of ensuring that saved trees remain
protected is to implement a protocol that:
clearly defines those trees that are to be saved (e.g., tree survey, labeling
trees in the field);
requires that the saved trees have solid and visible protection barriers in
place before any land clearing or tree removal activity can take place;
provides for monetary penalties for illegal activities; and
provides for other deterrents to illegal activities (e.g., restoration actions,
suspension or revocation of contractors license).
It is staffs opinion that the proposed ordinance meets this protocol.
40
• •
Section 927.16. Tree Well Construction and Techniques.
Change: This Section has been added, replacing the Critical Root Zone determination.
Reason: There was considerable discussion about saving trees in areas where fill
needs to be placed. The concern was that a tree could be protected from
structural elements, but would still not survive due to fill being placed around
the tree. Research indicates that trees can be saved, even on sites with
significant fill, when tree wells are used. With substantial fill around a tree,
these tree wells can be deep. Due to the potential deepness of some tree
wells, safety concerns were mentioned as well as liability issues. Staff
researched the matter and was able to find information on tree well
construction. Using the construction techniques in the new ordinance
section, there will be no area that is open. It is staff's position that, if the
only impact to a protected or specimen tree is fill, the tree can be saved and a
tree well installed in accordance with this section.
Impact of proposed Ordinance revisions on the cost of Affordable Housing
County Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.7 of the Housing Element requires that the Board of County
Commissioners consider the effect of proposed LDR changes on housing costs. Such an analysis
is provided below.
There are several areas were the proposed LDR changes could increase costs for projects,
including residential projects. These are as follows:
1. Tree survey requirements [Section 927.18(1)(d)J. Currently, a tree survey is required for
all development where trees are to be removed; however, a slight increase in the cost of
the survey will occur as a result of the new requirement to identify certain individual
trees in the field [Section 927.18(1)(d)(4)]. In order to save more trees, redesign of a
project may be required. This could result in an increase in design costs.
2. Impacts that occur within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) of trees that are to be saved
[Section 927.18(4)J. If pavement or certain in -ground impacts are to occur within the
CRZ of a saved tree, specific construction and engineering techniques will be required to
be used within the CRZ in order to reduce impacts on the tree. In such instances, there
could be increased costs for design, engineering, and construction.
3. Tree Wells (Section 927.16]. If the only impact to a tree proposed to be saved tree is fill,
then tree wells will be required The cost associated with a tree well is dependent on the
CRZ of the tree to be saved and the amount of fill necessary. Where tree wells are
required, there will likely be an increase in construction costs.
4. Certified Arborist or Performance Guarantee. As originally drafted, the proposed
Ordinance would have required either a Certified Arborist on-site (to be paid for by the
developer/applicant) or a Perfoiinance Guarantee (bond) posted by the developer for each
tree to be saved. Either of these two options could result in significant cost increases for
housing projects. This requirement has been removed by staff in the proposed ordinance
now under consideration. If the ordinance is adopted as proposed, this item will not
increase housing costs.
It is staffs opinion that, while the proposed revisions to the Ordinance will likely result in some
increases in the cost of residential projects, these costs should not be significant and should not
result in project density reductions.
July 9, 2002
41
i
SUMMARY
In the development of the proposed Ordinance, many reference sources were reviewed, and many
public comments and suggestions were received. The proposed Ordinance was reviewed by the
County Professional Services Advisory Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Presentations were given to six organizations (total of 133 people in attendance), and there were
three public workshops with a total of 60 people in attendance. It is staff's opinion that this
proposed Ordinance is fair and equitable and will result in greater tree protection.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed revisions to the
County Tree Protection and Land Clearing Ordinance (LDR Chapter 927) and Chapter 901,
Definitions.
ATTACHMENTS
Revised Draft Chapters 927 and 901 Ordinance
Community Development Director Robert Keating, Mr DeBlois, and Environmental
Planner Brian Poole responded to Commissioners' questions concerning many of the
changes in order to clarify how those changes were arrived at and how they would be
interpreted by staff.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Brian Heady, Vero Beach, declared that rock wells work better than the railroad ties
because they don't leach anything into the soil. He complained that the County had removed
trees from in front of the Administration Building. (Clerk's Note: Tree removal was to make
additional/required parking relative to space used in the employees' parking lot for the
Supervisor of Election's new modular office building.)
Commissioner Ginn queried Vice Chairman Tippin as to the preference of rocks
versus railroad ties for tree wells and he replied that most plants around here like acid in the
soil.
July 9, 2002
42
r •
Debb Robinson, Vice President of Laurel Homes, maintained that government does
not have to regulate trees. She asserted that properties with trees will cost more to develop
and the extra cost will be passed on to home -buyers. She pointed out that the people who
need affordable and moderately priced housing were not there to speak. She suggested,
instead of penalties, that the County give incentives for planting trees on lots.
Dale Armstrong, Senior Forester with Florida Division of Forestry, 6356 4th Street,
gave credit to Messrs. Poole and DeBlois for putting this together and felt there were a lot
of good features in it and some misunderstandings. There is a lot of information available
about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of tree wells. A University of Florida publication
by Dr Ed Gelman recommended the tree well should be placed outside the drip line. More
information is necessary because there are varied opinions on tree wells. He specified that
live oaks are a very hardy species unlike maples and laurel oaks which cannot handle injury
very well. The PVC with air vents system being proposed has been in a textbook since
1987 and is recommended by the University of West Virginia and Texas A & M Extension
Services. Trees on lots increase property values from 7% to 13%. Regarding tree
replacement, he proposed a 4" diameter but was willing to see what a 2" diameter will do
since the availability of the larger diameter trees is somewhat limited. In parking lots, he
recommended increasing distance from the trunk to 10' since placing structures near the root
system increases the potential for upheaval of the root system.
Lois Work, 8407 Red Bay Court, Indian River Shores, as President of Realtors
Association of Indian River County, opposed regulations which impose landscaping and
design standards on individual landowners in the belief that the property owner's ability to
make decisions on tree placement is paramount and should be protected. The proposed
amendment does two negative things: it attacks the private property rights of all landowners
and raises the price of homes, making affordable housing more difficult for first-time home -
July 9, 2002
43
buyers. This ordinance is an extreme reaction to what happened on Jungle Trail. She asked
that the Board not respond to that unfortunate situation with another extreme reaction.
Mr. DeBlois stressed that this ordinance exempts single family lots under an acre. He
explained that efforts would be made to save a specimen tree (24" native tree) if it is
identified during a subdivision's platting. If a tree is located in a building's envelope, there
would be no obligation to save it. He also explained the government exemptions on rights-
of-way and for utility companies and the reasoning used.
Rick Hope, 195 20th Avenue, spoke as an individual, property -owner, as president
of a local contracting firm, and as chairman of the Indian River County Chapter of the
Treasure Coast Builders Association. He urged defeat of the amendment because the old
ordinance was doing very satisfactorily. He agreed there should not be an arborist on site
which he viewed as punishing the innocent and a removal of civil liberties.
Dr. Richard Baker played a "song" from his laptop. It was a 6 -minute narrative on
the importance of insects and trees, life in the natural world and the golden rule of nature:
"if you don't need it, leave it." He believed the current ordinance was weak He suggested
that queen palms should be eliminated because they are not good substitutes for oak trees
or palmettos or other native palms. Removal of oaks and other trees is also responsible for
the terrible smell in stormwater ponds which have to be aerated due to runoff of fertilizers.
Mark Brackett, 1915 34th Avenue, understood the Commission wanted the rewrite
of the tree ordinance to be from the enforcement standpoint, but that has not happened. He
believed the Board should increase the fines to the maximum allowable but this new version
had opened an environmental Pandora's box. He agreed with Rick Hope that a 99.5%
success rate (of the existing tree ordinance) indicates a system that has worked. As long as
we have stormwater retention requirements, we are going to lose trees. A solution for
stormwater is needed. He gave examples of the number of trees that would be required to
July 9, 2002
44
• •
replace large diameter trees. Developers want to save trees because trees increase the value
of the lots and that makes him happy. This ordinance is cloaked in tree preservation, but it
is really more government regulation versus private property rights.
Peter Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, displayed photos of Laurelwood lots before
development (no trees) and how they look currently (after Laurel planted trees in the front
yards of the houses) to emphasize that tree -planting is a good thing for developers to do.
The advantage to planting versus saving trees, he said, is that they are placed where a home-
owner would want a tree. Regarding photos he displayed of road rights-of-way with no
trees, he suggested that developers be permitted and encouraged to plant along the roads to
create a lovely tree scape. He submitted that existing trees may not survive under the new
regulations and he believed private individuals will make better decisions than government.
He recommended that the County plant trees in the rights-of-way.
Chairman Stanbridge mentioned reasons (infrastructure and safety factors) why
Public Works does not plant trees in rights-of-way, and Mr. Robinson pointed out that the
Board has the ability to overrule the Director of Public Works.
Public Works Director James Davis explained that right-of-way demands are
increasing tremendously with new technology. The Thoroughfare Plan Right -of -Way is not
only for road purposes but also for all infrastructure, including water, sewer, possibly gas,
electric, telephone, and fiber optic cables. Road widening is foreseen as well as increases
in utility services. Mr. Robinson's placement of trees has been appropriate but it is not a
good investment to plant trees where utilities need to go and where roads need to be
widened. Director Davis tries to use discretion and good design practices. In 1995 the
Department of Transportation published a manual for planting vegetation and trees in the
rights-of-way.
Commissioner Adams understood Mr. Robinson's feeling that the multitude always
July 9, 2002
45
suffers for the sins of the few. In terms of incentives versus penalties, she wanted to see an
incentive in the ordinance. She acknowledged that this ordinance was a reaction to what
occurred on Jungle Trail, but to save a tree "no matter what" is not the answer. Government,
including the County and FDOT, needs to be a part of this. Our job is to leave it better than
when we got here. Dedication of some trees could jumpstart County beautification along the
road rights-of-way. She noted that the State is taking down oaks and putting in place crepe
myrtle which is not up to our standards. We need to let them know our standards and have
them perform to our standards.
Director Davis explained that a landscape architect was used for Phase I of Kings
Highway and there will be planting done on Phase II. If the Board wants to be more
specific, those details can be specified and given to FDOT.
Director Keating spoke of incentives under planned development and noted they will
hear more about this at an upcoming meeting. Tree protection methods are also found in
some of our other ordinances.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Ginn deemed the proposed ordinance far too complex and asserted the
present ordinance had been workable until the Beazer Homes incident. While there were
some points she liked, she thought that maybe the Board had pushed staff in the wrong
direction. She could not support the changes.
Vice Chairman Tippin concurred. He suggested they leave the ordinance as it is but
asserted that fines should be increased.
Commissioner Ginn thought planting more trees is critical.
Mr. DeBlois pointed out that staff needed direction as to what parts the Commission
July 9, 2002
46
• •
wanted to keep and what they wanted to change.
Commissioner Macht mentioned that Beazer Homes was not the only entity to cause
problems by taking trees down. He agreed with Commissioner Ginn about giving incentives
for planting and thought an apology was owed to staff
Chairman Stanbridze agreed Beazer was not the only culprit, but specified that local
developers have done an excellent job in trying to work with the County. She wanted to see
more aggressive enforcement when there are violations and the penalty should be against
the one who actually did it. She agreed the fines need to be increased.
There was a brief discussion on possibly not exempting government from the tree
ordinance and it was understood that this could not be done. It was stressed that the County
needs to set an example.
Director Davis stated that we can plant outside the clear zone, 4' behind a standard
curb and gutter road. On a non -curb -and -gutter roadway, depending on the type of road, it
has to be 18' to 24' from the white edge line (outside of the lane). Many of those areas are
graded for stormwater swales and they are under -water a few feet on rainy days but are
designed to percolate into the soil or bleed off to an outfall.
It was suggested that either cypress, red maple or other species could be planted there.
Director Davis pointed out that the `green book' is a mandatory manual adopted by State
Statute.
Commissioner Ginn commented that live oaks are flourishing where they were
planted in the swale at Martin Downs and they look beautiful.
Administrator Chandler suggested that staff come back with standards for
streetscapes which is different from what is being addressed at this meeting.
July 9, 2002
47
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Vice Chairman Tippin, to deny this ordinance
and direct staff to work on an amendment to the old ordinance
to include stiffer penalties for tree removal and aggressive
enforcement, enhance the definition of specimen trees, add a
"critical root zone" (a 5 -foot area of restricted development
around a tree), and eliminate the tree wells.
County Attorney Paul Bangel asked if the Board wished to continue this hearing or
start over in the process and it was determined to start the process over again.
Mr DeBlois asked for clarification on the motion. He understood the Board wanted
to make no special protection for specimen trees. Also, the Commissioners did not wish to
make any change relative to the critical root zone.
Commissioner Ginn thought it needed to be defined but required more flexibility than
what the proposed amendment offered. She also pointed to Section 927.18 where a tree
removal permit comes before the tree survey.
Mr. DeBlois stated that a lot of the underlined and struck phrases look really
complicated but actually relate to only a couple of modifications. One is the survey
requirements with two different sections in the proposed ordinance for single-family homes
over an acre versus site plan development. If you want to eliminate the complicated
sections, we can just stay with the current survey requirements. The other area that looks
complicated is the tree well definition where staff tried to give guidance but the tree well
requirements can be left alone. Those two sections will make this look a lot simpler, yet they
will be keeping some of the main concepts which are to better define a protection area, based
on the size of the tree. The amendment would be defining and protecting larger trees with
July 9, 2002
higher standards and increasing the penalties for illegal removal.
Vice Chairman Tippin indicated his concurrence with Mr. DeBlois' suggestion.
Commissioner Ginn wanted to keep the tree well provisions but thought the ``spokes"
should be eliminated, and Mr. DeBlois suggested that part could be modified to: if there is
a certain level of fill beyond a certain area of critical root zone, then you have to either keep
that level of fill down or provide an arborist -certified tree well that works without anything
else.
Commissioner Adams questioned why require an arborist and not a landscape
architect.
Vice Chairman Tippin interjected that it would be difficult to get three arborists to
agree regarding tree wells and critical root zones. This is an undefined science that is
subject to opinions and is unenforceable.
MOTION WAS BRIEFLY RESTATED by Commissioner Adams: to increase the
penalties, define the specimen tree, include the provisions on the critical root zone, and
eliminate the tree wells. Vice Chairman Tippin affirmed his SECOND.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
Chairman Stanbridge called a 5 -minute recess at 11:35 a.m. The meeting was
reconvened at 11:42 a.m. with all members present.
July 9, 2002
V-
F
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 16, 2002 - CONSIDERATION OF OPTION AGREEMENTS FOR
SALE AND PURCHASE OF THE HALLSTROM PROPERTIES, INC.,
AND ST. LUCIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PARCELS OF THE
HALLSTROM FARMSTEAD SITE (Legislative)
Chairman Stanbridge announced the hearing as above.
11.G.1. COUNTY ROAD 512 - PHASE III - DENTON RIGHT-OF-
WAY ACQUISITION (INITIATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN)
Public Works Director James Davis reviewed a Memorandum of June 10, 2002
showing a site drawing on the overhead (similar to page 111 of the backup).
TO:
THROUGH:
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Directs
AND
Christopher J. Kafer, Jr , P E , County Engine
FROM: Ronald L Callahan, Right -of -Way Agent / 4 C_.
SUBJECT: County Road 512/Phase III/Denton Right -of -Way Acquisition
DATE:
June 10, 2002
DESCRIPTION:
In February, 2000, Indian River County began the acquisition process on the Robert Denton, Jr.
parcel, which comprises 15.01 acres abutting south prong of the St. Sebastian River, south of CR
512 and east of the south prong of the St. Sebastian River bridge. The purpose of the acquisition
is to provide a water retention pond and mitigation sufficient to meet current requirements based
on the design of CR 512. The acquisition of the Denton parcel has been determined to be
essential to the implementation of Phase 111 of the CR 512 widening project. Several alternatives
were presented and researched by Masteller and Moler, Inc., the design -engineering firm, and the
County engineering staff. None were considered feasible.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Denton purchased the subject property in 1996 for $275,000.00. Mr. Denton bought the
property with a ten-year holding period in mind. He is of the opinion that the value of this
property in 2006 will far exceed anyone's expectations. In February of 2000, the County made
the initial written offer of $299,545.00. This figure was not acceptable to Mr. Denton who
countered the offer in March, 2000, at $593,290.00. Subsequently in July, 2000, Boyle and
Drake, Inc. a local appraisal fine, which Mr. Denton selected, but contracted by the County
July 9, 2002
50
.;
earJa
performed an appraisal of the property. The firm appraised the property as of July 7, 2000 for
$340,000.00. On October 2, 2000, the County made Mr. Denton an offer in the amount of
$340,000 (appraised value), which he rejected. During this same period (October, 2000), Mr.
Denton stated that the figure he had in mind was 527,500.00 per acre and he would counter the
offer at 5412,775.00. He then decided not to counter because he didn't want to have the property
tied up in case the project were to drag on. However, on March 14, 2002, in a meeting with Jim
Davis and myself, Mr. Denton verbally agreed to sell this parcel to the County for $27,500.00 per
acre, which is 3412,775.00. Three days later, the County tendered a written offer to Mr. Denton
in the amount of 5412,775.00, subject to Board of County Commission approval.
After deliberation, Mr. Denton rejected the written offer citing his wish to retain the property
until 2006.
ANALYSIS:
It is now apparent that Mr. Denton is not willing to sell this parcel to the County. To date, no
attorney has contacted the County in Mr. Denton's behalf. One appraisal of the property has been
made for a fee of $3,500.00. Negotiations with the property owner have ceased.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Attempt to continue negotiations with the property owner;
2. Initiate Eminent Domain proceedings;
3. Abandon the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the above reasons, staff recommends Alternative No. 2 that Eminent Domain (condemnation)
proceedings be initiated on the Denton Parcel.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copies of Contracts
Robert Denton claimed he did not have timely notice because he had been out of
town and he had not had sufficient time to properly prepare. He explained that his family
purchased this property as an investment to hold for ten years. He recounted his discussions
with Director Davis and their inability to reach a mutual agreement. His family is willing
to sell the property as a civic gesture but they envision a park and nature trail, with the
wooded area near the river preserved and not a fenced -in "big hole" (retention pond) in the
middle of it. Director Davis could not include these amenities in the package but said
July 9, 2002
51
nu
1
•
perhaps they could be done at a later date through another grant. Mr. Denton had given his
`minimum acceptable" price of $27,500 per acre to Director Davis at their first meeting. He
related his role in securing an appraiser. The appraised value, however, was considerably
lower ($22,600 per acre) than his "minimum acceptable" price. When the County made an
offer for the appraised value ($340,000) he had rejected it because he believed the
Commission would have a hard time agreeing to his price of $412,775.
When Commissioner Adams asked if Mr. Denton would accept $412,775 for the
property and Chairman Stanbridge asked if he would continue to negotiate with the County,
Mr Denton responded in the affirmative but he wanted to consult with his attorney and he
was in no position to sign any document that included an appraisal which is now two years
old. He felt certain that his idea for a park, nature trail and preservation of the trees, many
of which he believed to be specimens, should be pursued and would conform with the City
of Sebastian's plans for the area. He advised that Tri -Sure has requested a one-year lease
to use the property as a storage area for materials for their water project construction in
Sebastian.
Chairman Stanbridge understood that Mr. Denton had agreed to continue negotiations
with the County, and Mr. Denton affirmed that he would be glad to do so but thought
perhaps some others should be involved in the negotiations.
Commissioner Ginn understood that Mr. Denton wanted the property protected as
well as providing a stormwater pond for the County. She thought the two uses were
compatible, but specified that Mr. Denton needed to understand that the County would have
to secure additional grants to accomplish the amenities. Mr. Denton could write those
provisions into the contract.
Chairman Stanbridge agreed the property could easily be used both for a stormwater
area and a park.
July 9, 2002
52
•
•
•
Commissioner Adams stressed that the Commissioners cannot be involved in the
negotiations on the property.
Mr. Denton was encouraged by the suggestions and indicated his willingness to make
financial adjustments provided the community will receive some benefit.
Chairman Stanbridge invited Director Davis' comments.
Director Davis specified that the stormwater pond would not encompass the entire
15 acres. As a matter of fact, one of the purposes of buying the entire property was for the
County to do some mitigation that is required to offset some environmental impacts for the
CR512 project.. He stated that it was always his intent to have a conservation area in there,
particularly along the river. He displayed an elevation drawing on the overhead and
specified that more than half the property would be preserved. Mr. Denton had a great idea
and he was very much in favor of putting in nature trails which would need to come from
a different funding source. He pointed out it is still necessary to do some mitigation and
stormwater treatment but he was confident it could all come together. He was sorry that Mr.
Denton felt that the communication had broken down, but he felt that he had been patient
and cooperative with Mr. Denton over the two-year period. He had brought the issue to the
Board because of the fact that they could not reach agreement on a price.
Commissioner Ginn suggested Director Davis and Mr Denton get together.
Commissioner Adams suggested a time schedule to keep things moving so a decision
can be made. Commissioner Adams specified that the Board needed some justification to
approve a figure so much higher than the appraisal.
Director Davis and Mr Denton agreed that they would work toward having this
resolved by the first meeting in August.
•
July 9, 2002
53
4 s 160
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED By
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously agreed to have
this matter brought before them again at the first meeting in
August.
11.G.2. VERO LAKE ESTATES STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS,
PHASE I - MS. SANDY SEESE REQUEST FOR 86TH STREET CANAL
TO BE CULVERTED AT 96TH COURT
Public Works Director James Davis reviewed a Memorandum of June 25. 2002:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
James Chandler, County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Direct()
W. Keith McCully, P E , Esq., Stormwater Engineer
VERO LAKE ESTATES STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I
LETTER FROM MS. SANDY SEESE REQUESTING THAT THE 86TH
STREET CANAL BE CULVERTED AT 96TH COURT
DATE: June 25, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Attached is a petition letter from Ms. Sandy Seese requesting that the recently constructed 86th
Street Canal be culverted at 96th Court. The letter is similar to a recent request by Mr. Frank de los
Hoyos that the canal be culverted at 97th Court, which the Commission approved. (I believe that Mr.
de los Hoyos' request was approved based on a serious medical condition he stated a family member
had and that the canal would separate two houses occupied by relatives who cared for the sick
individual.)
RECO
NDATION AND FUNDING
We do not recommend culverting any additional streets because we are afraid this will create a
domino effect along both the 86th Street Canal and the 80th Street Canal. The estimated cost for
providing a canal crossing at a typical intersection is:
1. 80 L.F. of 48 -inch R.C.P. at $75/Lineal Foot
2. (2) 48 -inch R.C.P. flared end sections at $1,450/each
TOTAL
_ $6,000.00
= $2,900.00
= $8,900.00
The above prices were taken from the Vero Lake Estates project's approved construction contract
July 9, 2002
54
•
Director Davis gave a brief history on a previous Board approval for culvert
installation in Vero Lake Estates.
Director Davis then read from a letter Mrs. Leck gave him. She had been present
earlier, but had to leave the meeting. In her letter, Mrs. Leck commented that everyone
could have a "medical issue" because an emergency could result from an accident or heart
attack or stroke for which immediate attention is required. She also raised the issue of
County rights-of-way and felt it was not right for the County to take away residents' access
to a paved street. She felt her tax money was just as good as that of a person living on
another street and she should have a culvert, too. She related a story of a shed burning
because the fire truck was unable to reach it quickly. Their homeowner's insurance policy
premiums are affected by location and access to fire hydrants. They are experiencing
mosquito problems because the canal does not drain and has 2 feet of stagnant water at any
given time. She also spoke about well contamination, roadway needing work, and how their
vehicles are taking a beating.
Director Davis explained that 86th Street was not a road just a right-of-way -- but
actually a grass trail.
Commissioner Adams understood that staff had recommended against this because
they do not know how many more similar requests would be generated at a cost of
approximately $9,000 each.
Director Davis advised there could be another 4 or 5 requests.
In response to Chairman Stanbridge, Director Davis explained that the MSTU
generates about $60,000 a year. If this one is approved, it could come out of the MSTU
money. Some of the MSTU money has been used for the project, but fortunately the County
had received almost a million dollars in grants for the project. He explained the process if
the Board wanted to generate more money into the MSTU.
July 9, 2002
55
•
Commissioner Adams recounted the reasoning behind the one they had approved.
If more requests came in, the costs could be up to S36,000. Then the Board would have to
find the funds to pay for it. Commissioner Adams advised she had heard positive comments
about the drainage, but Chairman Stanbridge said she had heard the negative ones.
Discussion ensued.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Tippin, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board did not approve, by a vote of
4 to 1, (Commissioner Adams opposed) culverting any
additional streets in the Vero Lake Estates Stormwater
Improvements, Phase I, project. (Approved staff's
recommendation.)
11.11.1. RESOLUTION NOS. 2002-044 AND 2002-045 - PETITION
WATER SERVICE - BOBBI J SUBDIVISION - 36TH COURT (NORTH
OFF 1ST STREET SW) - RESOLUTIONS I AND II
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 28, 2002:
DATE: JUNE 28, 2002
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: W. ERIK OLSON
DIRECTOR OF
SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAS���j 7%
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF S' MENT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENTOF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: BOBBI J SUBDIVISION, 36T11 COURT (NORTH OFF 1ST ST SW).
PETITION WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UCP -2060
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RESOLUTIONS I AND II
July 9, 2002
56
•
RACKGROITNT)
On November 6, 2001, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners unanimously
authorized staff to proceed with the design engineering necessary, in order to proceed with the
above project. Design has been completed by the Department of Utility Services staff. We are
now ready to begin the assessment process associated with this project. (See ATTACFLMEN'T'S
1- Plat map, 2- Summary Assessment/ Schedule of Properties and 3 -Estimated project Cost and
Preluniniary Assessment Roll).
AN \T,YSTS
There are 10 platted residential lots, which may benefit from this proposed water line on 36th Court
Lots 4 & 5 at the North End of the subdivision were provided service and previously assessed in the
Phase II water assessment project which was completed February 22, 1994. The owner of lot 1
was permitted to connect to the existing water line on 1st Street SW and signed a temporary service
agreement, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The
owner of lot 8 connected to the water line on 1st St SW on June 15, 1990 without signing an
agreement to be included in a future water assessment, and is not included in this proposed
assessment project.
There are 6 owners signatures on the attached petition & temporary service agreement plus 1
owner who telephoned and stated that he now verbally supports this proposed project; therefore 7
(70%) of the owners of the 10 properties to benefit from this project are supportive. On August 27,
2001 owners of the 4 lots whom had not signed the petition were mailed an addendum and asked to
indicate whether they oppose or support the proposed project. None were returned. There were 3
phone calls with one opposing, stating that he did not like the taste of county water Another owner
advised that he did not oppose the installation of water lines but that it was not a high priority! And
the 3rd owner stating that he no longer opposes the proposed project.
The property sizes typically vary from .50 (1/2) acre to 1.0 (1) acre. The attached map displays the
area to benefit from the assessment project. ( see ATTACHMENT 1- Plat Map).
This project is to be paid through the assessment of 10 property owners along the proposed water
line route. In the interim, funding will be from the Assessment Fund No. 473.
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. The total estimated project cost and
amount to be assessed, including engineering, administration and construction, is $ 45,003.50. The
estimated assessment cost per square foot is $ 0.157039 (rounded) (see ATTACHMENT 3 ).
RECOMMEND ATTON
The staff of the Department of Utility Seryices recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached resolutions, which approve the preliminary assessment roll
and establish the public hearing date.
T,TST OF ATTACTTMENTS•
1 -Plat Map
2 -Summary Assessment / Schedule of Properties
3 -Estimated Project Cost & Preliminary Assessment Roll
July 9, 2002
57
ri
•
ON MOTIO\ by Commissioner Adams, SFCO\DFD RY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2002-044 providing for water main expansion
to Bobbi J Subdivision, 36"Court (north of First Street, SW) in
Indian River County, Florida; providing the total estimated cost,
method of payment of assessments, number of annual
installments, and description of the area to be served.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 044
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR WATER MAIN
EXPANSION TO BOBBI J SUBDIVISION, 36TH COURT (NORTH OF FIRST
STREET, SW) IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING THE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS,
NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND DESCRIPTION OF THE
AREA TO BE 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
specially benefited properties to be serviced by a water main extension for Bobbi J Subdivision
(36`h Court, north of First Street, SW) in Indian River County, Florida,
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 a water line shall be installed to benefit 10
properties located in Bobbi J Subdivision, 36th Court (north of First Street SW) in Indian
River County, Florida, and that 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 estimated cost for the project is $45,003.50 or $0.157039 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. Assessments are to be levied against all lots and lands
adjoining and contiguous or bounding and abutting upon the improvements and specially
benefited thereby and further designated by the assessment plat with respect to the special
assessments.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.157039 per square foot shall be assessed
against each of the specially benefited 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 special assessments may be paid in ten equal yearly installments of
July 9, 2002
58
•
4-
•
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 until paid at a rate to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners when
the project is completed.
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.
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 as
required by Section 206.04.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Macht , and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 9th
day of July , 2002
Attest.__ K Barton, Cler
By: •ctr_z`""` �� �' By. M. Stanbrid Chairman
g,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
July 9, 2002
Deputy Clerk
59
•
ON MOTTO.
by Commissioner Adams, SECONDF4D BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2002-045 setting a time and place at which the
owners ofproperties located in Bobbi J Subdivision, 36`1 Court,
(north of First Street SW) in Indian River County, Florida, and
other interested persons, may appear before the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County and be heard as
to the propriety and advisability of constructing the water main
extension, 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 benefitted thereby.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 045
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT
WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN BOBBI J
SUBDIVISION, 36.1" COURT (NORTH OF FIRST STREET, SW) IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY
APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND
ADVISABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION, 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 2002- 044 , 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 a waterline be installed to serve 10 properties located in Bobbi J
Subdivision (36th Court, north of First Street, SW) in Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially assessed with respect
thereto shall be $0.157039 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 of the Code of Indian River provides 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 water
main extension, 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,
July 9, 2002
60
ki
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 045
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, August 6, 2002, 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 re^n.rd thereto. The area to be improved and the
properties to be specially benefited are more 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.
4. 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 Adams , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Mach t , and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin AyP
Commissioner Caroline D Ginn Ay
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht AyP
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 9th,
day of July , 2002
Atte K Barton, CJQrk
Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By .Se�
Ruth M. Stanbridge, thairman
•
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
July 9, 2002
61
n
C
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES
BOBBI J SUBDIVISION -36TH COURT(NORTH OFF 1ST ST SW)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UCP -2060
PARCEL ID NO. OWNER
SIGNED SQUARE
PETITION FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT
15 33 39 00013 0000 00001.0 HERRICK X
15 33 39 00013 0000 00002.0 HANSEN
15 33 39 00013 0000 00002.1 RENUART
( 9/4/01 he pho'd verbally said now for X )
15 33 39 00013 0000.00003.0 CATTERSON X
15 33 39 00013 0000 00003.1 CATTERSON X
15 33 39 00013 0000 00004.1 MARINI X
15 33 39 00013 0000 00005.1 GRATHWOHL X
15 33 39 00013 0000 00006.0 CHAPMAN *
( * Not opposed just a low pnonty )
15 33 39 00013 0000 00007.0 BOROVSKY *
( *Verbally opposes does not like the taste of Co. water )
15 33 39 00013 0000 00008.1 DAUNNO (DEAN) X
(70% of 10)
Estimated square footage to be assessed
45,150
21,825
21,825
21,825
21,825
22,500
22,500
43,650
7,090.32
3,427.38
3,427.38
3,427.38
3,427.38
3,533.38
3,533.38
6,854.76
6,854.76
3,427.38
286,575
Estimated project cost to be assessed
$ 45,003.50
Estimated cost per sq. ft. $ 0.1570391695
(Rounded) $ 0.157039
May 24, 2002 JDC/jdc
July 9, 2002
July 9, 2002
Project:
cription:
Date:
Indian River County Department of Utilities
COST ESTIMATE
BOBBI J SUBDIVISION WATER ASSESSMENT PROJECT
UCP # 2161, WIP # 473-000-169-547.00
May 14, 2002
Bid
Item No.
Bid Item
Description
Estimated
Quantity
Unit or
Measure
Unit
Price
Total Labor
Price
1
Mobilization
1
LS
53.000.00
2
Maintenance of Traffic
1
LS
51.500.00
4
Install 6" PVC Water Main
900
LF
$16.00
$14.400.00
5
Install 6" Dir. Drill Under Conc. Drive
90
LF
$60.00
$5.400.00
6
Install DI Restrained Fittings
0.5
TON
$5,500.00
32.750.00
7
Install 1" PE Water Service (5 Sgl. Short)
5
EA.
$400.00
32.000.001
Install 1" PE Water Service (3 Sgl. Long)
3
EA.
3700.00
$2.100.00
8
Install
w/ 6" GV & Tee
1
EA.
32.300.00
52.300.001
FFA
10
Remove and Dispose
of Asphalt
1
TON
$100.00
$100.00
11
Install S-3 Asphalt
10
SY
$20.00
$200.00
12
Replace
Rock Base
10
SY
310.00
3100.00
13
Replace Stabilized Subgrade
10
SY
$6.00
360.00
14
Select fill
20
CY
$17.00
3340.00
16
Sod and topsoil
900
LF
32.15
$1.935.00
17
Subtotal Water Sy stem
$36.185.00
18 IRCDUS Contingency Account 1
Allowance
10%
$3.618501
Total Est Constr. Cost 539,803.50
Surveying 1,700.00
Record Drawings 500.00
Design 1,000.00;
Bidding & Award 500.00
Permitting 500.00
Construction Services 500.00;
Administration 500.04)
TOTAL PROJECT COST 45,1)4)3.50
July 9, 2002
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - BOBBI J SUBDIVISION MAY 24, 2002
PARCEL #
OWNER
LEGAL
PROPERTY
15 33 39 00013 0000 00001.0
HERRICK, MINERVA T.
PO BOX 6501
VERO BEACH, FL 32961-6501
BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
LOT 1 PBI 9-13
3620 1ST ST SW
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
45 150 $ 7,090.32
PARCEL #
OWNER
LEGAL
15 33 39 00013 0000 00002 0
HANSEN, FRANK
146 36TH CT
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-2422
BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
N 1/2 LOT 2 PBI 9 13
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
21 825 $ 3,427.38
PARCEL #
OWNER
LEGAL
15 33 39 00013 0000 00002.1
RENUART, STEPHEN V & ANA M
136 36TH CT
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-2422
BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
S 1/2 LOT 2 FBI 9-13
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
21,825 $ 3,427.38
PARCEL #
OWNER
LEGAL
15 33 39 00013 0000 00003.0
CATTERSON, MARILYN C.
166 36TH CT
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-2422
BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
S 1/2 LOT 3 PBI 9-13
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
21 825 $ 3,427.38
PARCEL #
OWNER
LEGAL
PROPERTY
15 33 39 00013 0000 00003.1
CATTERSON, MARILYN C.
166 36TH CT
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-2422
BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
N 1/2 LOT 3 PBI 9-13
(VACANT LOT- 176 36TH CT)
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
21,825 $ 3,427.38
y 9, 2002
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00013 0000 00004.1
OWNER MARINI, PETER & MARY LOU
186 36TH CT
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-2422
LEGAL BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
S 150 FT OF LOT 4 P81 9-13
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
22,500 $ 3,533.38
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00013 0000 00005.1
OWNER GRATHWOHL, GAIL M.
175 36TH CT
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-2422
LEGAL BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
S 150 FT OF LOT 5 FBI 9-13
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
22,500 $ 3,533.38
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00013 0000 00006.0
OWNER CHAPMAN, DONALD W & FLORA JANE
165 36TH CT
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-2422
LEGAL BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
LOT 6 PBI 9-13
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
43,650 $ 6,854.76
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00013 0000 00007.0
OWNER BOROVSKY, DOV & GAIL A.
135 36TH CT
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-2422
LEGAL BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
LOT 7 PBI 9-13
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
43,650 $ 6,854.76
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00013 0000 00008.1
OWNER DEAN, THOMAS H JR & DOLORES M
125 36TH CT
VERO BEACH, FL 32968-2422
LEGAL BOBBI J SUBDIVISION
N 1/2 LOT 8 PBI 9-13
SQ. FT. ASSESSMENT
21,825 $ 3,427.38
TOTAL ESTIMATED SQUARE FOOTAGE 286,575
TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED $ 45,003.50
5/24/2002
J.D.C.
BOBBI J
PRELIMROLL
July 9, 2002
13.E. COMMISSIONER MACHT - COMMENTS ON THE
TREASURE COAST SPORTS COMMISSION AND CONFIRMATION
THAT HE SHALL CONTINUE AS THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE
THEREON
Commissioner Macht stated that he was the Commission's appointed representative
to the Treasure Coast Sports Commission.
The other Commissioners voiced their concurrence.
Commissioner Macht resented the inclusion of a conflict of interest reference in a
recent article in the local newspaper and referred to it as "yellow journalism". He also
recounted that the newspaper had employed an interesting stratagem casting doubt upon the
veracity of Tom Colucci's statements by their inclusion of comments by someone in Chicago
on things happening in the tri -county area as if Chicago were a similar community. He
presumed the Commissioners wished to continue the efforts by the Sports Commission,
particularly needed to bring visitors during the slow summer months, and for him to
continue as their representative.
Commissioner Adams confirmed that Commissioner Macht, not someone in Chicago,
is the Board's representative to the Sports Commission.
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None.
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None.
July 9, 2002
66
14.C.
None.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 12:27 p.m.
ATTEST:
(Qa ni_5(0-4e4t.
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
July 9, 2002