indian river county community development … · 2018. 4. 8. · october 19, 2010 department of...

October 19, 2010

Department of Community Affairs Division of Community Planning Bureau of Local Planning Plan Processing Team Attn: Mr. Ray Eubanks 25 55 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach FL 32960

772-226-1237 I 772-978-1806 fax www. ircgov. com

RE: Adopted Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments, DCA No. 10-2ER

Dear Mr. Eubanks:

Please be advised that Indian River County received the Department of Community Affairs' (DCA) Objections, Recommendation, and Comments (ORC) Report, dated August 24, 2010, for Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments DCA No. 10-2ER. That report stated that DCA had two objections and eleven comments associated with the county's proposed amendments.

Pursuant to Subsection 163.3184, F.S., and Rule 91-11.011, F.A.C., the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, on October 12, 2010, adopted the proposed amendment originally transmitted to DCA with changes to address the ORC objections and comments as well as an acreage reduction for the proposed land use map amendment. The following ordinances, amending the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, were adopted:

A. Indian River County Comprehensive Plan EAR Based Amendment

Ordinance 2010 -022: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE COUNTY'S EAR BASED AMENDMENTS TO ITS 2020 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

B. Corrigan et al's Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment and Future Land Use Map Amendment

The following two amendments are separate from the county's EAR Based Amendment:

Ordinance 2010 - 020: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES 1.22 AND 1.36 TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODES FOR LARGE-SCALE RESEARCH/ TECHNOLOGY I INDUSTRIAL PARKS AND TO INCREASE THE SIZE AND USE ALLOWANCES OF THE COMMERICALIINDUSTRIAL DESIGNATED PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF SR 60 AND WEST OF 98TH AVENUE; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ordinance 2010 - 021: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY EXPANDING THE COUNTY'S UIRBAN SERVICE AREA, AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY± 562.3 ACRES, LOCATED MAINLY WEST OF 102ND AVENUE AND NORTH OF S.R. 60 FROM AG-2, AGRICULTURAL - 2 (UP TO 1 UNIT PER 10 ACRES) TO C/I, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

Prior to the final public hearing for the above referenced land use amendment and future land use element text amendment, one of the applicants (Mr. Beaty) withdrew his property from the request, reducing the acreage of the map amendment from ±674.17 to ±562.3. Consequently, the acreage amount referenced in both the map and text amendments has been reduced. As a result, the Board of County Commissioners approved the ±562.3 acre land use map amendment as well as revised policy 1.36 with reduced acreage.

For the Corrigan land use map amendment, the staff report, advertisement, and public facilities impact analysis (including the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)) were prepared based on ±674 acres. Due to the reduction in acreage, however, the actual impact on public facilities will be less. Therefore, the public facility analysis reflects a conservative evaluation of public facility impacts and justifies the amendment request.

Enclosed please find the following documents for DCA review:

• Three copies of the staff reports for the adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, including support documents.

• A copy of each executed ordinance, identifying the specific changes to the Comprehensive Plan.

F:\Community Development\Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendments\Final Transmittal package for January 2010 LUDAs\finaltransmittalltrtoDCA.rtf 2

•A copy of revised pages ofthe comprehensive plan (underlined and strike th.."U) and revised maps to address the ORC Objections and Comments.

• Three copies of the Revised Future Land Use Map.

• A copy of the DCA Courtesy Information list for each of the comprehensive plan amendments.

One copy of each of the above referenced documents has been sent to the following agencies:

• The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; • The Florida Department of Environmental Protection; • The Florida Department of Transportation; • The St. Johns River Water Management District; • The Florida Department of State; • The Florida Department of Education; • The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission; and • The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

The attached plan amendment meets all applicable state and regional requirements. Consistent with Rule 9J-11.011(5), F.A.C., DCA should publish the required Notice oflntentpursuantto Subsection 163.3184(8)(b), F.S., in the Vero Beach Press Journal. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(8) c., F.S., DCA is required to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at a local government's adoption hearing.

Finally, be advised that the County maintains a website and is therefore required, pursuant to section 163 .3184(8)( c )2., F .S., to post of a copy of state's Notice of Intent on the website within five days after the receipt of the mailed copy of the agency's notice item. Please provide an electronic version of this notice bye-mailing it to Sasan Rohani ([email protected]).

Any questions or comments regarding the proposed amendment should be directed to:

Sasan Rohani, Chief, Long-Range Planning Indian River County Community Development Department 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3365 Telephone: (772) 226-1250 Facsimile: (772) 978-1806 E-mail: [email protected]


~1/tt:Qt~ Robert M. Keating, AI Community Development Direc

enclosures

cc: Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman ofthe Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Stan Boling, AICP, Planning Director Sasan Rohani, AICP, Long Range Planning Chief Phil Matson, Staff Director, Metropolitan Planning Organization Bill Schutt, AICP, Economic Development Planner Jim Quinn, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (w/enclosure) Terry L. Hess, AICP, Planning Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (w/enclosure) Gerry O'Reilly, Florida Department of Transportation (w/enclosure) Wendy Evans, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (w/enclosure) Tracy D. Suber, Department of Education (w/enclosure) Mary Ann Poole, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (w/enclosure) Susan Harp, Florida Department of State (w/enclosure) Jeff Cole, St. Johns River Water Management District (w/enclosure) Timothy McGarry, Growth Management Director, City ofVero Beach (w/enclosure) Rebecca Grohall, Growth Management Director, City of Sebastian (w/enclosure) Mark Satterlee, Director, St Lucie County (w/enclosure) Nicki Van Vonno, Director, Martin County (w/enclosure) Jason R. Nunemaker, City Manager, City of Fellsmere (w/enclosure)


•'

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator

FROM:

DATE:

nity Development Director

Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long-Range Planning >' ;/';,,

October 6, 2010

Public Hearing (Legislative)

RE: Consideration of EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) based Amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan

It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 12,2010,

DESCRIPTION and CONDITIONS:

According to state law, each local government in the state must periodically prepare an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) to assess the success or failure of its comprehensive plan, address changing conditions, and identify needed revisions to its plan. Based on its EAR assessment, a local government's comprehensive plan must then be updated and revised to ensure that the plan continues to provide sufficient guidance for the local government to make appropriate land development decisions.

In 1996, the county completed its first EAR. That Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) was submitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and DCA then found the county's evaluation and appraisal report to be sufficient. In 1998, the Board of County Commissioners amended the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the findings and recommendations of the 1996 EAR.·

In February 2006, staff started work on preparing the county's second Evaluation and Appraisal Report. According to state rules, Indian River County had to submit its adopted EAR to the state by December 1, 2008. Through that process, appropriate county designated committees, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), reviewed EAR elements and provided comments to staff.

At an advertised public hearing held on November 18, 2008, the Board of County Coinmissioners approved the county's EAR. The EAR was then submitted to the state

and found sufficient on February 25, 2009. According to state statutes, the county has 18 months from the date that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) found the county's EAR sufficient to revise its comprehensive plan to incorporate the EAR findings and recommendations.

Since February 2009, staff has been working on revising the county's comprehensive plcm. to incorporate the EAR's findings and recommendations. Those revisions have involved updating the existing conditions section, revising the analysis section, and modifying the goals, objectives, and policies section of each plan element. Through that process, staff completed revisions to all 16 elements and sub-elements of the county's comprehensive plan. A copy of the draft comprehensive plan elements and sub-elements is available at www.irccd.com/planning division/Camp Plan.htm. A copy is also on file at the BCC office.

• State Requirements

Through Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the state has established minimum criteria and specific guidelines for preparing the various elements of a local comprehensive plan. According to 9J-5, each element of a comprehensive plan is required to be based on specific data and analysis, and must contain specific objectives and policies as outlined in Chapter 9J-5 F.A.C. To document that all 9J-5 requirements are met with the EAR based amendments, staff has prepared a 9J-5 Consistency Matrix. That matrix was submitted to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as part of the county's transmittal package and indicates that the proposed revised plan meets all 9J-5 requirements.

• Public Participation

Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., also requires that local governing bodies and local planning agencies provide for and encourage public participation in the planning process, including the evaluation and appraisal report based comprehensive plan amendment process. Consistent with the county's public participation plan, the draft elements of the comprehensive plan were reviewed by various groups and committees.

Through the EAR based amendment process, the appropriate committees reviewed the draft elements and sub-elements, solicited public input, and provided direction to staff. Besides the county committees which reviewed the draft EAR based amendments, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted public workshop meetings during January and February 2010, while a joint BCC/PZC workshop was held on April 19, 2010 to review the elements and sub-elements and provide direction to staff.

PAST ACTION ON EAR BASED AMENDMENTS

Consistent with state requirements, staff has revised the County's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the EAR's findings and recommendations. That process has taken more than eighteen months. During that time, the revised plan elements and sub-elements were reviewed by appropriate committees and groups, and the final plan was drafted.

2

..

In March, 2010, the plan amendment process began. That process has included public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, as well as review of the plan by the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

• Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation

At a public hearing held on March 11, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the county's EAR based amendments with changes. The attached elements and sub-elements contain

' th~ changes recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as changes recommended in a joint BCC/PZC workshop.

• Board of County Commissioners Action

At a public hearing held on May 11, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to transmit the county's EAR based amendments to the DCA for review. Subsequently, the amendments were sent to DCA, and DCA then reviewed the proposed amendments.

• DCA Action

Recently, DCA completed its review of the county's EARbased amendments and issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report. On August 26, 2010, the county received DCA's ORC Report (Attachment #3). The ORC contained one objection and seven comments.

ANALYSIS:

After reviewing DCA's ORC report, staff identified needed plan changes to address the ORC report objection and comments. Staff then revised the plan to reflect those changes. In the revised plan, additions to the plan elements and sub-elements since the transmittal public hearing are shown as underline, while deletions are shown as strike thru (attachment #4).

• DCA ORC Report

In its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report, DCA raised one objection and issued seven (7) comments. The following table identifies the DCA's objection and comments as well as proposed plan changes to address the objection and comments.

3

DCA Objection The county did not include the Energy Conservation Map

DCA Comment

Change date of the Existing Land Use Map to 2010 and Future Land Use Map to 2030 Revise existing transportation maps to be dated 201 0 and future transportation maps to be dated 2030 If the MPO' s 203 5 Long Range Plan is adopted, then utilize data from that plan to update the county's comprehensive plan

Coordinate with St. Lucie County regarding connections to roadways identified on its future R-0-W map for the Towns, Village, and Countryside (TVC) area m northern St. Lucie County

Proposed Staff Changes Revised the Future Land Use Map to identify the Urban Service Area as the county's energy conservation area Added dates to Existing Land Use Map (2010) and Future Land Use Map (2030) Added dates to existing transportation maps (20 1 0) and future transportation maps (2030) No change at this time; the 203 5 LRTP has not been adopted yet.

Coordination with St. Lucie County has occurred through the long range transportation plan (LR TP) process that both counties and their MPOs/TPOs have been involved in. In fact, both the Indian River County MPO's draft 2035 LRTP and the St. Lucie County TPOs 2035 draft LRTP call for roadway connections. The data and analysis section of the Transportation Element has been revised to indicate that this coordination occurred.

Revise policy 4.2 of the Aquifer Revised Recharge Sub-Element to refer to SJRWMD's "Water Supply Assessments". Policy 1.12 of Intergovernmental No Change. This is an Coordination Element states: "the appropriate new policy and county shall request that the should not be deleted. legislature prohibit the sale of conservation land by the water management districts unless the land sale is approved by the local government in whose jurisdiction the land is located". The SJR WMD is against adopting this policy. In policy 2.5 of the Coastal Revised Management Element and Policies

4

DCA Objection DCA Comment Proposed Staff Changes 7.10 and 7.11 of Storm water Management Sub-Element, change reference from SJRWMD to DEP.

• BCC Action

, At this time, the Board of County Commissioners should review the attached revisions to elements and sub-elements (Attachment #4). In so doing, the Board should focus on changes made since the transmittal public hearing to address DCA's ORC objection and comments.

To supplement attachment #4 to this staff report (revisions to address DCA's ORC Report), staff will give a brief presentation at the October 12, 2010 meeting. After that, the Board of County Commissioners should discuss the revised plan, identify any needed changes, solicit public input, and approve the revised plan for transmittal to DCA for its compliance review. For reference, the adopted EAR is available for review on the county's website at www.irccdd/Planning Division!Comp _Plan_EAR.htm.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached EAR based amendments to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan by approving the attached ordinance and direct staff to submit the EAR based amendments to DCA for its compliance review.

ATTACHMENTS:

1) Minutes of March 11, 201 0, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2) Minutes of May 11,2010, Board of County Commissioners Meeting 3) DCA's ORC Report 4) Change to the plan in response to the ORC Report 5) Adoption Ordinance 6) EAR based amended Indian River County Comprehensive Plan (copy on file at

the BCC office)

Indian River Co. Approved Date

Approved Agenda Item: Admin.

For: ______ _ Legal

By: ______ _ Budget

Dept.

RiskMgr.

F:\Community Development\Comprehensive Plan Elements\2010 EAR Based Amendment\2009-2010 EAR based amendment staff report-BCC final public hearing October 12 20 lO.doc

5

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z} on Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 7:00p.m~ in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1801 2ih Street, Vero Beach, Florida. You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the meeting agenda, backup material and the minutes on Indian River County website www.ircgov.com/Boards/PZC/201 0.

Present were members: Chairman Greg Smith, District 4 Appointee; Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Sam Zimmerman, District 2 Appointee; Jens Tripson, District 3 Appointee; Pilar Turner, District 5 Appointee; Dr. David Cox and George Hamner, Members-at-Large; and Carol Johnson, non-voting School Board Liaison.

Also present was IRC staff: George Glenn, Assistant County Attorney; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Stan Boling, Planning Director; Roland DeBlois, Chief, Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement; Sasan Rohani, Chief, Long-Range Planning; Phil Matson, MPO Staff Director; Mike Hotchkiss, Utilities Department Capital Projects Manager; Brian Freeman, Senior Planner; and Reta Smith,· Recording ·seCretary.

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance (7:00:20)

Chairman Smith called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes (7:09:47)

ON MOTION BY Ms. Keys, SECONDED BY Dr. Cox, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to approve . the minutes of the meeting of February 25, 2010, as presented.

Public Hearing (7:01 :03)

Chairman Smith read the following into the record:

A. Consideration of EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) based amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan [Legislative]

~ .. f?-PZC/Approved ,, 1 ij ;··:-:·March,.~t •.. 2Q:10 ''

F:/BCC/AII Committees/P&Z/2010 Agendas&Minutes!PZC03H10.doc } !

ATTACHMENT '

Mr. Bob Keating, IRC Community Development Director (7:01 :50), related he wanted to address the more non-controversial elements first in order to allow time to address other elements where there may be more issues. He recommended having staff go through groups of elements and identify any changes that had been made since the last P&Z workshop; then the members could discuss the elements and open it up for public comment and hopefully get a consensus on that group of elements. He acknowledged the more controversial elements would likely have to be dealt with individually.

Mr. Keating advised a Board of County Commissioners (BCC)P&Z joint workshop on the EAR based amendments was tentatively scheduled for Monday, April 19, 201 0. He started off with a PowerPoint presentation, which is on file in the Commission Office, and gave an overview of the planning process connected with Comprehensive Plan/EAR based amendments.

Discussion followed about what the procedure would entail if the Hometown Democracy referendum passed.

Mr. Phil Matson, IRC Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Staff Director (7:19:57), continued with the PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed a change in the Transportation Element and advised there were no changes in the Introductory and Capital Improvements Elements.

Chairman Smith opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. and since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Sasan Rohani, IRC Chief of Long-Range Planning (7:23:06), continued with the PowerPoint presentation and outlined changes to the Housing, Recreation and Open Space, Intergovernmental Coordination, Public School Facilities, and Economic Development Elements.

Chairman Smith opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m.

Mr. George Beuttell, 5000 16th Street, Vero Beach (7:27:08), noted the reference to the City of Vero Beach not having electricity economic incentives had been removed from the Economic Development Element, and felt there should be a statement indicating the County encouraged economic incentives to conserve electricity and power usage.

Discussion followed.

PZC/Approved 2 March 11, 2010 F:/BCC/AII Committees/P&Z/201 0 Agendas&Minutes/PZC03111 O.doc

Mr. Keating agreed to parenthetically note water, sewer and electric in Policy 2. 7 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element.

Mr. Roland DeBlois, IRC Chief of Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement (7:36:49), went on with the PowerPoint presentation and discussed Coastal . Management and Conservation Elements, and Stormwater Management, Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Elements.


Ms. Deborah Ecker, 550 Riomar Drive, Vera Beach (7:46:16), suggested changes in capitalization and took issue with certain matters of semantics.

Mr. Beuttell (7:56: 11) thought the County should concentrate on buying property or creating incentives for making reservoirs to save rainwater and encouraging housing with cisterns.

Mr. Keating advised the Potable Water and Future Land Use Elements addressed these issues.

Chairman Smith closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m.

Mr. Rohani (7:58:15) continued with the PowerPoint presentation dealing with changes to the Solid Waste, Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub-Elements.


Mrs. Ecker (8:14:43) expressed her concerns about future potable water resources and claimed a report included in the backup was out of date.

Mr. Mike Hotchkiss, IRC Utilities Department Capital Projects Manager (8:30:36), outlined what was being done to meet future potable water needs of the County.

Mr. Bob Adair, Soil and Water Conservation District representative (8:37:50), discussed concerns regarding the Floridian Aquifer.

Discussion ensued.

PZC/Approved 3 March 11, 2010 F:/BCC/AII Committees/P&Z/2010 Agendas&Minutes/PZC03111 O.doc

..

Chairman Smith called a recess at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m.

Mr. Brian Freeman, IRC Senior Planner (8:48:42), reviewed changes made to the Future Land Use Element since the workshop held on February 25, 2010.

Mr. Zimmerman understood why planners were in favor of Policy 4.5 to discourage gated communities and have a grid network, but felt the policy was fundamentally at odds with the type of housing people wanted to live in and purchase. Chairman Smith felt there were people living in areas they would love to connect to properties right next to them instead of driving out on a major road, and hoped good architects would come up with ways to solve some of the problems while still allowing interconnectivity. Mr. Hamner related he agreed with Policy 4.5 for pedestrians and bicycles, but not the allowance of vehicles.

Vehicular interconnection between communities was discussed.

9:12:07 ON MOTION BY Mr. Hamner, SECONDED BY Ms. Keys, the members voted (5-2) to support Policy 4.5 as written, but remove the term vehicular and leave it with just . bicycle and pedestrian interconnections. Chairman Smith and Ms. Keys opposed.

Chairman Smith believed the allowance for someone to keep from driving a vehicle outside onto a major road due to the allowance for connectivity to where they wanted to go was a positive he would like to see maintained. Ms. Keys was in favor of the grid system and thought it was extremely important to maintain it.

Mr. Freeman (9:15:04) reviewed the changes to Policy 5.6 on mixed-use Planned Developments (PDs) in residential areas.


Mr. Zimmerman (9:23:22) took issue with Item #18 in the handout on file in the Commission Office because whether it was commercial or residential that came first, the sooner the other one came on the better it was and we should find some way to incentivize it. He said it would be a disaster for the County if either the commercial or residential part of a

PZC/Approved 4 March 11, 2010 F:/BCC/AII Committees/P&Z/2010 Agendas&Minutes/PZC031110.doc

mixed-use PO was put in and neither the residential or commercial was built, depending on economic conditions, and felt it should be heavily penalized.

After discussion it was the consensus to take out the word "occupied" at the end of Item #18 and insert "has a Certificate of Occupancy".

Mr. Freeman (9:41: 13) referred to the handout outlining changes proposed for Policy 5.9 having to do with agricultural POs, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He outlined the major change since the P&Z workshop took place was to reduce the common open space requirement from 50% of the total project area to 30%, and this had been supported by the IRC Agriculture Advisory Committee (AAC).

Mr. Hamner emphasized most citrus and/or agriculture people were not in favor of this regardless of what had been represented by staff because most of the property west of town was cleared groves and the .open space would just be open. He noted a developer of an agricultural PO who wanted water and sewer would have to put in paved roads, curbs, sidewalks, lights, buffering etc. and 30% of the property would have to be set aside as common land, which would greatly reduce the amount of buildable land. Mr. Hamner maintained private landowners would take better care of their property than the common ground, adding he saw no reason for the 30% common open space requirement and would like to see it removed.

Mr. Keating said the common land could benefit wild life if it was set up as a wildlife corridor and could enhance the rural ambience.

Lengthy discussion followed.

Chairman Smith opened the public hearing at 10:12 p.m. and since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Further discussion ensued.

PZC/Approved 5 March 11, 201 0 F:/BCC/AII Committees/P&Z/2010 Agendas&Minutes/PZC031110.doc

10:15:48 ON MOTION BY Mr. Hamner, SECONDED BY Mr. Tripson, that all Planned Development (PO) projects approved in any agriculturally designated area shall meet the following criteria: (1) The density of the project shall not exceed the maximum density of the underlying land use designation; no density transfers from off-site lands, and no density bonuses shall be permitted within PO projects in agriculturally designated areas; (2) At least 80% of each Agricultural PO's overall project area shall be open space; (3) Residential lots created through the PO process shall not be less than one acre with the remainder of the area designated as open space; (4) Agricultural PDs shall implement Best Management Practices submitted to and approved by staff; and (5) All recreational amenities shall be depicted on the PO plan and no recreational uses that could constitute a nuisance to adjacent properties shall be permitted.

Mr. Tripson noted if the third bullet on page 163 of the backup was taken out as Mr. Hamner proposed, the term "lnfill will be prohibited" would not be included. Mr. Hamner wanted to make sure it was clear the intention was to prohibit the infill if there was any question that it could be done. Dr. Cox and Ms. Keys said they would be more comfortable if the open space was contiguous.

After discussion, Mr. Hamner withdrew his motion and Mr. Tripson withdrew his second.


•'

10:31:45 ON MOTION BY Mr. Hamner, SECONDED BY Mr. Tripson, the members voted unanimously (7 -0) that all Planned Development (PO) projects approved in any agriculturally designated area shall meet the following criteria: (1) The density of the project shall not exceed the maximum density of the underlying land use designation; no density transfers from off-site lands, and no density bonuses shall be permitted within PD projects in agriculturally designated areas; (2) At least 80% of each Agricultural PO's overall project area shall be open space; (3) Residential lots· created through the PD process shall not be less than one acre with the remainder of the area designated as open space; (4) The open space shall be in contiguous areas; (5) Common ·open space, if provided, shall be under the control of an appropriate entity and maintained in perpetuity through an open space, recreation, conservation and/or agricultural preservation easement{s), to be created through Deed Restrictions, with infill prohibited; (6) Agricultural PDs shall implement Best Management Practices submitted to and approved by staff; and {7) All recreational amenities shall be depicted on the PO plan and no recreational uses that could constitute a nuisance to adjacent properties shall be permitted.

Mr. Freeman continued with the PowerPoint presentation addressing Policy 6.4 regarding changes having to do with active agricultural operations inside the urban service area.

Dr. Cox and Mr. Tripson felt the change would eventually do away with active agriculture in the urban service area.

Mr. Bob Adair, Chairman of the AAC (10:43:00), presented the reasons why he was not in favor of the new language in Policy 6.4.


'·

10:52:21 ON MOTION BY Ms. Keys, SECONDED BY Mr. Zimmerman, the members voted unanimously (7·0) to continue the meeting until11:15 p.m.

Mr. Tripson wondered if it would be better to differentiate between agricultural uses, such as horticultural and livestock practices.

Dr. Richard Baker, 522 North Blue Island Lane, Sebastian (1 0:56:43), liked the idea of having the buffers whether or not there was agriculture because we were running out of wildlife corridors.

Mr. Rick Melchori, Becker Holding Corporation, 3150 Cardinal Drive, Vero Beach (11 :01 :46), thought the AAC recognized agricultural interests inside the urban service area were likely to be developed at some point in time and by requiring these buffers the County was arbitrarily penalizing the first person who chose to sell his property to a developer, because he would be restricted by having to place the buffers and the person next to him would not.

11:06:59 ON MOTION BY Mr. Hamner, SECONDED BY Ms. Keys, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to continue the meeting an additional 15 minutes.


11:08:58 ON MOTION BY Dr. Cox, SECONDED BY Mr. Tripson, the members voted (7 -0) to reinstate the proposed deletion under Policy 6.4 to read "Within the urban service area, the county shall require subdivision and planned development projects that propose new residential lots adjacent to active agricultural operations to provide special buffers."

Mr. Freeman continued on with the PowerPoint presentation.

In Policy 6.1 0, Mr. Keating agreed to adjust the last sentence to read:" .... public and private utilities ..... ".

PZC/ Approved 8 March 11, 2010 F:/BCC/AII Committees/P&Z/2010 Agendas&Minutes/PZC031110.doc

. Mr. Brian Carmen, Indian River Neighborhood Association (11:18:16), und~rstood the County had taken exception when some people attempted to license themselves through the Public Service Commission as a private utility, and asked for an update.

Attorney George Glenn, IRC Assistant County Attorney, advised the County was close to working out a settlement on this issue.

11:22:02 ON MOTION BY Ms. Keys, SECONDED BY Dr. Cox, the members voted unanimously (7 -0) to extend the meeting until midnight.

Discussion ensued about new towns.

Ms. Keys noted page 74 talked about the City of Fellsmerejs annexations, and suggested Mr. Keating might look at it and see if it needed to be reworded according to the new Department of Community Affairs documents being finalized this week. Mr. Keating said it could be changed from two units per acre to one.

Ms. Keys related page 133 under C-2., Conservation-2 included boat ramps as passive recreational uses. She took issue with this because it meant cars and trailers and a lot of impervious surface in conservation areas.

11:30:49 ON MOTION BY Ms. Keys, SECONDED BY Mr. Tripson, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to delete boat ramps from Conservation - 2 zoning.

Mr. Freeman reviewed changes to Object 17 and Policy 18.4.

11:33:28 ON MOTION BY Mr. Hamner, SECONDED BY Ms. Keys, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to direct staff to carry the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for 2030 to the Board of County Commissioners, as presented with the recommended modifications.

PZC/Approved 9 March 11, 2010 F:/BCC/AII Committees/P&Z/2010 Agendas&Minutes/PZC031110.doc

;"

certain findings; a · ovin _....-S'~nt documents; and providingzor an effi IVe

AGREEMENTS-1 RE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE C ERK TO THE BOARD

' 1 O.A.2. CONSIDERATION OF EAR (EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT) BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

(ADMINISTRATIVE)

Community Development Director Robert Keating announced that today's public hearing

was for the Board to consider transmitting to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA)

for review, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments to the

Comprehensive Plan. He advised that any citizens who would be speaking could leave their

name and address with Chief of Long-Range Planning Sasan Rohani, if they wished to receive

information regarding the amendments throughout the review process. He conveyed that the

most non-controversial elements would be discussed first, and began his PowerPoint presentation

by outlining the following 10 elements and sub-elements which had no changes subsequent to

the April19, 2010 Joint Public Workshop of the Board of County Commissioners and the

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).

INTRODUCTORY ELEMENT - CHAPTER 1

POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT - CHAPTER 3B

SOLID WASTE SUB-ELEMENT- CHAPTER 3C

STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT SUB-ELEMENT - CHAPTER 3E

TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT- CHAPTER 4

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT- CHAPTER 5

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT- CHAPTER 6

HOUSING ELEMENT - CHAPTER 7

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT- CHAPTER 11

PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT - CjjAPTER 12 15 !B!

~:' May 11, 2010

The Chairman opened the Public Hearing.

Bob Johnson, Coral Wind Subdivision, addressed the Board regarding residential

designations in the Comprehensive Plan, and the Oslo Plan Corridor.

Continuing his presentation, Director Keating began his review of the changes which had

been made to six elements and sub-elements since the BCC/P&Z Joint Workshop.

SANITARY SEWER SUB-ELEMENT- CHAPTER 3A

(Clerk's Note: Please refer to pages 228 and 229 of the backup to view the following

changes).

Director Keating reported that under Objective 7 Septic Tank Systems, Policy 7.5, for a

feasibility study of a County-initiated septic tank maintenance program, has been deleted. Staff

has also revised the data and analysis section found on page 28 of this sub-element to be

consistent with the Board directive to place the emphasis on education, rather than regulation.

There was no public comment on Chapter 3A.

CONSERVATION ELEMENT- CHAPTER 8

(Clerk's Note: Please refer to pages 230 and 231 of the backup to view the following

changes).

Director Keating outlined the following changes to Chapter 8:

Policy 2.19, under Objective 2 Surface Water Quality, has been revised to delete the

proposed on-site disposal system (OSDS) maintenance program, and to place the focus on

education, rather than regulation.

16

May 11, 2010

Objective 6 Upland Vegetation Communities has been revised to change the target

amount of upland land plant communities to be preserved from a minimum of 5,000 acres (as

presented in draft document at Aprill9, 2010 Joint Workshop) to 500 acres.

Director Keating noted that Policy 9.4, in Objective 9 Commercial Uses ofNatural

Resources, pertains to the prohibition of planting host plants in development projects, and is also

found in Future Land Use Element-Chapter 2. The policy has been revised to rely on state

regulations and remove the requirement to have landowners remove dead citrus trees in groves.

He noted that in accordance with Commissioner Davis's request at the April19, 2010 meeting,

he would be discussing this matter further, and would do so during his presentation on Chapter 2.

In Policy 10.8, under Objective 10 Soil Erosion, the requirement for new oceanfront

developments to hook up to public sewer, if available, has been eliminated.

There was no public comment on Chapter 8.

COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT - CHAPTER 9

(Clerk's Note: Please refer to page 231 of the backup to view the following changes).

Under Objective 4 Beaches and Dunes, Policy 4.13, for all new oceanfront developments

to hook up to public sewer if available, was deleted.

There was no public comment on Chapter 9.

NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE

SUB-ELEMENT- CHAPTER 3D


17

May 11,2010

Director Keating directed Board attention to the analysis section of this sub-element

which has been amended to promote public education, rather than enforcement, on water

conservation measures. He noted that under Objective 2 Preserving the Quantity of the

Surficial Aquifer, Policy 2.2 relating to the County's adoption of a water conservation ordinance

has been deleted.

There was no public comment on Chapter 3D.

RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT- CHAPTER 10

(Clerk's Note: Please refer to Appendix A to view the following policies).

Continuing his presentation, Director Keating said that Policies 9.1 through 9.9, were

found under Objective 9 Arts and Cultural Programs. He stated that although there had been a

lot of discussion at the April 19, 2010 meeting, staff had not been directed to make any specific

changes. He noted that several Board members had questioned the Quasi-Nonprofit designation

afforded the Cultural Council, as set forth in the first sentence of draft Policy 9.5 below:

"The County shall consider the Cultural Council oflndian River County (CCIRC) as the

County's designated cultural agency and a Quasi-Nonprofit Agency. As such ... "

Chairman O'Bryan acknowledged the work being done by the Cultural Council in order

to fulfill the objective to have a comprehensive Cultural Plan by 2012. He supported inclusion

of the Cultural Plan in the Comprehensive Plan, but questioned whether the Cultural Council

should be called the designated "cultural agency", as set forth under Policy 9.5 (above), or have

some other description.

Susan Grandpierre, 765 Ocracoke Square SW, Chair of the Cultural Council, spoke to

the advantages of including the Cultural Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. She provided an

18

May 11, 2010

overview of the Cultural Council's objectives and assured the Board that the organization was

confident of raising the funds to do the plan by 2012.

Commissioner Wheeler supported the Cultural Plan, but wanted to make sure that the

policies were written so the County does not end up being required to provide financial support

to the Cultural Council. He also questioned whether the Quasi-Nonprofit status would lead to

the expenditure of funds by the County.

Discussion followed on the ramifications of providing the quasi-nonprofit status to the

Cultural Council.

Administrator Baird explained that commonly, the quasi-nonprofit designation is given to

agencies that provide governments services that are necessary or required.

Commissioner Davis understood the need for the Cultural Council to be designated as the

County's partner, but asked the Council representatives to what extent they would be affected if

the Quasi-Nonprofit designation was removed from the Comprehensive Plan.

Mary Jayne Kelly, Executive Director of Cultural Council, 2036 14th Avenue #103,

Vero Beach, FL 32960, explained the original intent for seeking the Quasi-Nonprofit

designation in 2005, and acknowledged that while the Council preferred to maintain it, removing

the designation would not greatly impact them.

Commissioner Wheeler requested that Policy 9.5 be amended as follows: "The County

shall consider the Cultural Council oflndian River County (CCIRC) as the County's designated

cultural agency and a Quasi Nonprofit Agency. As such ... "

Vice Chairman Solari suggested amending the wording in Policy 9.5 as follows: "The

Cultural Council. . .In so doing, the Cultural Council-shall may annually submit a funding request

to the County ... "

19

May 11, 2010

(Clerk's Note: These changes will be incorporated into the Motion to transmit the EAR

based amendments to DCA).

FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT- CHAPTER 2


Director Keating directed the Board's attention to Policy 4.5 in Objective 4 Efficient Mix

of Uses to Reduce Traffic Demand and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. He reported that the P&Z

had recommended that interconnectivity between proposed developments should be only for

bicycles and pedestrians. At the April 19, 201 0 Workshop, the Board decided there should also

be vehicular interconnectivity, so the Policy has been revised to include vehicular, pedestrian,

and bicycle connections between development projects. He noted that there are some exceptions

to the policy.

Director Keating recalled that Policy 6.5, found in Objective 6 Agricultural Protection,

which Commissioner Davis wished to discuss, had been mentioned during discussion on the

Conservation Element. The policy relates to the prohibition of planting host plants in new

development projects that are in agricultural areas and having that structured as a deed

restriction. Staff has amended the policy to reflect the fact that the deed restriction can be

sunsetted ifthere is no further need for the prohibition.

Commissioner Davis acknowledged the need for protection, but objected to the

permanency ofthe deed restriction, which he believed could render productive agricultural land

fallow.

Extensive discussion ensued.

20

May 11, 2010

Attorney Polackwich suggested that perhaps the policy could be structured in a manner

other than requiring the deed restriction, which tends to be quite permanent and difficult to

remove.

Director Keating affirmed that staff could revise the policy to say a "legal document" and

put in more specificity when the Land Development Regulations are rewritten.

Attorney DeBraal felt that adopting an Ordinance regulating the host plants might work

better than the deed restriction, because the Ordinance can be repealed if no longer needed.

Attorney Polackwich agreed with Director Keating, and said that changing "deed

restriction" to "legal document" would enable the amendments to go forward.

Attorney Barkett supported Attorney DeBraal's suggestion to restrict the host plants by

Ordinance.

The Board CONSENSUS was to amend the wording in

Policy 6.5 as follows: "A deed restriction legal document

acceptable to the County Attorney's office, shall be ... on

the subject site. That deed restriction legal document shall

prohibit the occurrence of host plants for either the

Caribbean Fruit Fly or ... The deed restriction legal

document may be structured ... "

(Clerk's Note: This change will be incorporated into the Motion to transmit the EAR

based amendments to DCA).

Director Keating addressed Chairman O'Bryan's questions and comments regarding the

Affidavit of Exemptions in Policy 6.5.

2I

May II, 2010

The Chairman invited public comment.

Attorney Barkett suggested that Policy 5.4 of Objective 5 Diversity of Development,

which pertains to mixed-use development of residential and commercial areas, be amended to

allow the developers to put in 50% commercial first, if that makes better financial sense in

today' s economy.

Joseph Paladin, President Black Swan Consulting, supported Attorney Barkett's

suggestion, believing that it would give a developer the opportunity to obtain financing, in order

to move ahead with the mixed-use development.

Mr. Johnson felt the mixed-use development would lower property values.

After further discussion, the Board CONSENSUS was to retain the mixed-use policy as

presented.

Seeing no further speakers, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing.

Concluding his presentation, Director Keating requested Board approval to transmit the

EAR based amendments to DCA. He reiterated that the Amendments would be presented for

final approval at a public hearing in August 2010.

Chairman O'Bryan recapped the changes requested by the Board as follows:

1. Strike from RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT-CHAPTER 10,

Policy 9.5., the Quasi-Nonprofit designation ofthe Cultural Council oflndian

River County.

2. Replace the word "shall" in RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT-

CHAPTER 10, Policy 9.5., with the word "may".

22

May 11, 2010

3. Replace the words "deed restriction" in FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT-

CHAPTER 2, Policy 6.5 with the words "legal document."

Attorney Polackwich noted that since the requirement to record a "deed restriction"

required in Policy 6.5 was being replaced with a requirement for a "legal document", the word

"recorded" would also need to be stricken.

Commissioner Davis wanted to see a smart policy developed in conjunction with the

issue of the host plants.

Commissioner Wheeler requested staff to develop and return to the Board with a

definition of the term "Quasi-Nonprofit."

ON MOTION by Commissioner Flescher, SECONDED by

Chairman O'Bryan, the Board unanimously approved Resolution

2010-039, approving the transmittal of a proposed Indian River

County Comprehensive Plan EAR based Amendment to the State of

Florida Department of Community Affairs, amending

RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT- CHAPTER 10,

Policy 9.5., 1st sentence, "The County shall consider the Cultural

Council oflndian River County (CCIRC) as the County's designated

cultural agency,_ and a Quasi Nonprofit Agency" and Policy 9.5, 2nd

sentence, "In so doing, the Cultural Council sftal.l. may annually

submit a funding request to the County ... " and amending FUTURE

LAND USE ELEMENT - CHAPTER 2, Policy 6.5, under the 2nd

bullet point, ... "A deed restriction legal document acceptable to the

County Attorney's office, shall be recorded and established on the

subject site. That deed restriction legal document shall prohibit the

23

May 11, 2010

occurrence of host plants for either the Caribbean Fruit Fly or ... The

deed restriction legal document may be structured ... ".

The Chairman called a break at 12:07 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:22 p.m.,

with all members present.

10.B. PUJJ'LICDISCUSSIONITEMS /

TO SPEAK FROM FRED MENSING REGARDING BUILDING

PERMITS

Mr. Mensing was absent.

1 0.B.2. REQUEST TO SPE FROM RON (!)'CONNOR REGARDING INADEQUATE

DRAINAGE SYSTEM~ 13895 1h2ND STREET

Ron O'Connor, 13995 122nd Street bowed a video regarding an inadequate drainage

system located on a neighboring prope . at 1 95 122nd Street, which is causing a large volume

of run-off on his property. He state9;that this is ue has affected him for four years and urged the

Board to require that the owners o tfhe offending operty fix their system so drainage no longer

flows onto his property.

After an extensive iscussion, with input from Co nty Engineer Chris Kafer and Public

Works Director Christ · her Mora, the Board directed staff locate and check all the culverts at

the subject property confirm their functionality, and report ba

11.

10.C. 'PUBLICNOTICE ITEMS-NONE

ZTY ADMINISTRATOR MATTERS-NONE I

24

May 11, 2010

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"

CHARLIE CRIST Govemor

The Honorable Wesley Davis Chairman, Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1801 271h Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960

Dear Chairman Davis:

August 24, 20 I 0

The Department of Community Affairs has completed its review of Indian River County's proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DCA Number I 0-2ER), which was received on June 24, 2010. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional, and local agencies for their

· review and their comments are enclosed.

The Department has reviewed the comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter I 63, Part II, Florida Statutes, and has prepared the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, which outlines our findings concerning the comprehensive plan amendment.

The Department commends the County for its efforts in preparing the proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based amendments. However, the Department has identified two objections in the proposed amendment including an inadequate public facility impact analysis for the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment and the lack of an Energy Conservation Map. My staff and I are available to assist the County in addressing the issues identified in our report. If you have any questions, please contact Laura Regalado, Planning Analyst, at (850) 92 I -3 762.

CG/Imr

Enclosures:

Sincerely,

c~~-CharreS Gauthier, AICP Director, Division of Community Planning

Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments

cc: Mr. Robert Keating, AICP, Director, Indian River County Community Development Department Mr. Michael Busha, AICP, Executive Director, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council .

2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD + TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399·2100 850-488-8466 (p) + 850-921-0781 (f)l\ + Website: www.dca.state.fl.us

+ COMMUNITY PLANNING 850-488-2356 (p) 850-488-3309 (f) t FLORIDA cor.I;\\UNITIES TRUST 850-922-2207 (p) 850-921-1747 (f) t HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 850-488·7956 (p) 850-922-5623 (f) t .

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS

FOR

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

PROPOSED AMENDMENT 10-2ER

August 24,2010 Division of Community Planning

This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, F.A.C.

INTRODUCTION

The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the Indian River County 1 0-2ER proposed amendment to its Comprehensive Plan pursuant to s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). ·

The objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.AC.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one or more of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the. external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence.

Each of these objections must be addressed by the County and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections that are not addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items, which the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 91-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed.

The comments that follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form the basis of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.

Appended at the end of the Department's ORC Report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form the basis of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. ·

2

TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES

Upon receipt of this letter, Indian River County has 120 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the County will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined ins. 163.3184, F. S., and Rule 9J-ll.Oll, F.A.C. The County must ensure that all ordinances adopting comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 163.3189(2)(a), F.S.

Within ten working days of the· date of adoption, the County must submit the following to the Department:

Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;

A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; ·

A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; and

A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.

The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.

In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to Rule 9J-11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.

Please be advised that Section 163.3184(8)(c), F.S., requires the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their

· names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by law to furnish the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information to the Department. Please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliance review. In the event there are no citizens requesting this information, please inform us of this as well. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic format.

3

OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10-2ER

I. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.

lnqian River County proposed comprehensive plan amendments address issues raised in the County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report, address statutory changes, and update the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. The Department has identified the following objections and comments to the proposed comprehensive plan amendments:

A.· The Department raises the following objection and comments to the proposed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment for the Corrigan Property:

Objection 1: The proposed land use change is for 674 acres going from Agricultural to Commercial/Industrial. The property is not currently inside the Urban Service Area (USA). However, the proposed amendment would expand the USA to include the subject property .

. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.36 is also being revised. This policy expands the ·commercial/Industrial Node at State Road 60, limits development on the site to a floor area ratio of 0.3 (0.3 FAR) or to a maximum of approximately 9.0 million square feet, and adds research and technology uses, as well as accessory commercial uses. The original policy also allows light manufacturing, assembly, and distribution centers.

The· amendment included a public facilities analysis for traffic, potable water supply, and water and wastewater treatment and distribution facilities based on 14,000 square feet per acre of Industrial Park for a total of 9.1 million square feet of Industrial uses. The analysis concludes that all concurrency mandated facilities have adequate capacity to serve the site, including public sewer and water. The analysis acknowledges that full build-out of the property would result in unacceptable level of service impacts to I-95, SR 60, and 66 A venue. However, the County staff indicates that public improvements are already programmed for I-95 and 66th Avenue. In addition, the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis identifies traffic improvements that would mitigate traffic impacts and maintain an adequate level of service. ·

While the analysis indicates that adequate public facilities are or will be in place to serve the new development. The analysis was based on the development of the site as an Industrial Park rather than the mix of uses that would be allowed by revised Policy 1.36, including research and technology with supporting commercial uses. The policy does not include a proportionate mix of uses or other objective measure and the density and intensity for each use. Therefore, the public facility analysis may not reflect the maximum development potential of the site.

Furthermore, the traffic analysis indicates that acceptable levels of service at build out will be maintained, assuming the following improvements are in place:

4

• Construction of 4th Street between 74th Avenue and 98th Avenue (two-lane facility); • Widening of 66th Avenue between SR 60 and CR 510 (four-lane divided facility); • Widening ofl-95 between the Indian River/St. Lucie County line and CR 512 (six-lane divided facility); • Phased SR 60 improvements (up to eight lanes without a 26th Street overpass); • 26th Street overpass traversing 1-95.

With the severe decline in public revenues for transportation projects in recent years, funding of additional Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facilities and other projects has slowed and projects identified as cost feasible in the Florida Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organization plans have been deferred. The amendment does not identify strategies to address potential build out level of service deficiencies if these improvements are not implemented.

Authoritv: Sections 163.3177(3), (6)(a), (b), G), and (8), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.005(2); 9J-5.0055(l)(a) and (3)(c); 9J-5.006(2)(a), (3)(b)l., (c)3, and (4)(c); 9J-5.016(1), (2), (3)(b)l., 3., 4., and 5., and (c)6. and 8.; and 9J-5.019(3), (4)(b)l., 2., 3., 4., and 5., and (c)l., and 13., F.A.C.

Recommendation: Revise Policy 1.36 ofthe Future Land Use Element to include a proportionate mix of uses or other objective measure and the density and intensity of each use. Revise the public facility analysis to evaluate the maximum development potential based on this mix of uses. Also, recognizing the uncertain funding envirolllllent for road improvements, the County, working with the Department of Transportation and other entities, needs to address how impacts on all road facilities will be mitigated, including maintaining level of service standards for 1-95, SR 60, and other regionally significant transportation facilities for both the short and long-term planning time frames. If the data and analysis determines that capital improvements will be needed in the next five years to address public facility impacts created through the amendment, then those capital improvements must be included in a five year schedule of capital improvements. Any capital improvements that will be funded by the developer must be· guaranteed in an executed development agreement and referenced in the five year schedule of capital improvements. Any improvements needed after the initial five years and through the long term planning time frame need to be identified and included in the Capital Improvements Element along with strategies that will be implemented to provide them. The County should coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation on any mitigation that will required for the SIS facilities.

B. Comments

Comment 1: The proposed amendment does not include strategies for access management (i.e., the number and location of access points on the corridor) along the SR 60 corridor. Examples of strategies are sharing an access point(s) between uses and creating frontage/rearage roads to promote .free-flowing travel on SR 60. Additionally, the proposed amendment does not include any commitments for new roadways within the 674-acre site for internal circulation.

Comment 2: The expansion of the Commercial/Industrial future land use designation would significantly increase employment in this area and increase the need for enhanced mass transit. A proposed transit route along SR 60 ending in the vicinity of this site is shown on the County's "2030 Adopted Needs Plan Transit Needs" map. The development should be designed to

5

accommodate transit infrastructure, and provide for safe· and convenient non-vehicular access that is connected to the surrounding area. Transit stops should contain clearly defined waiting areas that are easily accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disabilities. Future transit stop improvements should consider use of a transit pad !U}d inclusion of a shelter, seating, trash receptacles, bicycle rack and infonnation on the transit schedule. Coordination with the MPO and transit provider during site development is encouraged;

· Comment 3: Most, if not all, of the native upland and wetland habitat that remains on the current site is adjacent to lands that are proposed as a wetlands mitigation bank. The County should ensure that lands that are required to be preserved to protect wetlands and upland habitat on the amendment site be located adjacent to the proposed wetland mitigation bank to serve as a buffer between the proposed industrial development and the mitigation bank.

Comment 4: The County should analyze the potential flood hazard and related public safety concerns associated with the nearby federal L-778, L-77E~ L-77W, and L-79 levees, and other privately owned levees. The levees were designed to protect agricultural land, not urban land uses and their ~ssociated populations. · The amendment should also identify mitigation measures for potential flood impacts associated with failure of the levees.

C. The Department raises the following objections and comments to the proposed EAR-Based Aniendments

Objection 2: The County did not include the Energy Conservation Map in the Futrire Land Use Element that is required as part of HB 697. ·

Authority: Sections 163.3177(6)(d)6., F.S.

Recommendation: Revise the Future Land Use Element to include an Energy Conservation Map to generally identify energy conservation within the County.

D. Comments

Comment 5: The County should revise the Existing Land Use Maps to be dated 2010 to reflect the current year and the Future Land Use Maps to be dated 2030 to reflect the County's long-tenn planning time frame. · ·

Comment 6: The County should revise the Existing Transportation Maps to be dated 2010 to reflect the current year, and the Future Transportation Maps to be dated 2030 to reflect the County's long-term planning time frame. ·

Comment 7: The County's amendments use data and analyses developed during the EAR. At that time, the MPO's 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) was the best available data for long-term transportation infonnation. The MPO is currently in the process.ofupdating the LRTP to 2035. Municipalities in the County look to the County's comprehensive plan for guidance regarding the appropriate planning horizon. For the greatest level of coordinated land use and transportation planning, the County should consider extending the long-term planning horizon to

. ' .

be consistent with the MPO's forthcoming 2035 LRTP if this plan is finalized before the County ·adopts this amendment.

Comment 8: The County is proposing policy amendments that will establish coordination mechanisms with the MPO, adjacent MPOs, local governments, and the business community to improve transportation system effectiveness. Transportation Element Policy 2.4 proposes the development of an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and coordination with the Florida ·Department of Transportation to deploy the technology. Other tools and strategies to increase mobility, accessibility, and the efficiency of the transportation system include establishing a Traffic Operations Subcommittee of the MPO Technical Advisory Committee to coordinate between jurisdictions (Policy 6.4); coordinating with local businesses, chambers of commerce, other MPOs and the Department to develop regional Transportation Demand Management. programs (Policy 6.5); and reviewing development proposals to ensure access or frontage roads

· will be provided along arterials to increase safety and efficiency (Policy 2.5). The County should also coordinate with St. Lucie County regarding connections to roadways identified on its future right-of-way map for the Towns, Villages, and Countryside (TVC) area in northern St. Lucie

. County.

Comment 9: Proposed Policy 4.2 refers to the St. Johns River Water Management District's "Needs and Sources Assessment." This policy should be revised to refednstead to the District's "Water Supply Assessments." ·

Comment 10: The St. Johns River Water Management District included the following comment in their letter dated July 23, 2010. New Policy 1.12 states: "The County shall request that the legislature prohibit the sale of conservation land by the water management districts unless the land sale is approved by the local government in whose jurisdiction the land is located." The District advises against adopting this policy because it would not serve the public interest in the acquisition of conservation lands. The District previously noted this recommendation in letters dated November 7, 2008, and December 22, 2008 regarding the County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report.

Comment 11: Proposed Policy 2.5 and proposed Stormwater Sub-Element Policies 7.10 and 7.11, indicate that the St. Johns River Water Management District is the agency that establishes total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards. These policies should be revised to identify the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as the agency that establishes TMDL standards.

II. · Consistency with Chapter 187, F.S.

The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions of Chapter 187, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan:

Section 187.201(7), Water Resources, Polices (b) 5: Ensure new development is compatible with existing water supplies (Objection 1);

7

...

Section 187.201(11), Energy, Policies (b)1-6: Reduce per capita energy consumption; improve energy efficiency of traffic flow; increase the efficient use of energy in design and operations of buildings, public utility systems·, and other infrastructure (Objection 2).

Section 187.201 ( 15), Land Use, Policies (b) 1 and 6: Promote state programs, investments, and deveiopment and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce (Objections 1 and 2);

Section 187.201(17), Public Facilities, Policies (b)3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9: Encourage local government self-sufficiency in providing public facilities; create partnerships among state government, local government, and the private sector to identify and build needed public facilities; encourage the development and use of Capital Improvement plans, identify and use stable revenue resources which are also responsive to growth for financing public facilities (Objection 1).

Section 187.201(19), Transportation, Policies (b)3, 8, and 9: Direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and develop a state transportation system that integrates highway, mass transit, and other transportation modes (Objection 1).

Section 187.201(25) Plan Implementation, Policies (b)l, 3, and 7: Ensure that local plans implement and accurately reflect state goals and policies and address problems, ·issues, and conditions that are of a particular concern in a region (Objections 1 and 2).

By addressing the concerns noted in Section I., these inconsistencies with Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, can be addressed.

8

~I

-i. ~ ..... -=Ji

~j

n :ib s: m z ==!]

+:-

2030 Indian River County Future Land Use Map

Adopted October 12, 2010

0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10

- - Miles

_,

en .... (")

ll.

~~ 0 u m

1 0

_,

en N (")

ll.

~

Legend RNG 35 E

Conaerv Area Bound .. C/1 comm,/lndulil

--easeUnes

L.anduse

- AG-11du/5Ac.

.. AG-21du/10Ac.

.. AG-31du/20Ac.

IIIII aclD .. C-10du/Ac.

BJ.C-21du/40Ac.

[g) C-31du/2.5Ac,

[QliiJ l~1 3du/1Ac. rRJl-26du/1Ac.

~M-18du/1Ac. .. M-210du/1Ac.

.. MHRP 8du/1Ac.

E]Munl

~PUB c=JR1dU/1Ac.

[;lJ RC- Reg. Comm, ~REC ~T1du/1Ac,

... P...,IJ.-o_l.on ... ~ .... ~I•Jiop~lo_DIID_III11_....C

m m

I ~ 0

RNG 37 E RNG 38 E SL Lucie County

~ '\.

'6

~

-:::1 > \:.:=:::!> :::J..C ::~;: ry·~

-~~ ~"''"11

.. ~~~-.':""

lo"1!'j

= = ~ t"'4 1:'1

= Q.. ~ ~ ~

l:!l'.j -e ~

= """

~::~~~r.::lr

,, ... , . .--,.:,~.\

..... .....

Indian River County Existing Land Use in 2010

~ ~-~ ~

~ l:!l'.j ~ -· ~ -..... = CIQ t"'4 1:'1

= Q.. ~ ~ ~

. '

Comprehensive Plan Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element

OBJECTIVE 4 Intergovernmental Coordination

By 2012, Indian River County will have written intergovernmental coordination agreements with local governments and state agencies to ensure protection of the natural grou~dwater aquifer system.

Policy4.1: The county shall cooperate with agencies, such as the SJRWMD and theFDEP, in performing assessments of groundwater resources, and shall review any recommendations for incorporation into the land development regulations. County support shall include, but not be limited to, providing information, providing staff assistance, and implementing recommendations.

Policy 4.2: The county shall assist the SJRWMD with updating SJRWMD's Needs and Sources Assessment water supply assessments by providing water use data relating to agricultural irrigation, recreational irrigation, and public supply.

Policy 4.3: The county will assist the SJRWMD in coordinating with the other counties to the west and northwest oflndian River County to protect the natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas of the Floridan aquifer by maintaining a very low land use density in these areas, compatible with densities identified in the Indian River County future land use map.

/

Policy 4.4: The county shall continue to utilize existing interlocal agreements with other local governments, as identified in table 11.3 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, to ensure maximum efficiency of water management, by combining resources and eliminating duplication.

OBJECTIVES Capital Improvements

By 2015, the County shall protect a minimum of 1000 additional acres of aquifer recharge areas for the surficial aquifer through conservation easements and fee simple acquisition compared to 2009 baseline data.

Policy 5.1: The county will maintain a 5 year schedule of capital improvement needs for public facilities, to be updated annually in conformance with the review process for the Capital Improvements Element of this plan.

Policy 5.2: The county shall pursue state and federal sources of funding available for the preservation and protection of environmentally sensitive areas, such as natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas.

'!! I:>

Community Development Department

ATTACH~ft.ENT ~~

;;. 'li,

lndiah River County 15

Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Mana9ement Sub-Element

Water Quality Level of Service (LOS) Standard

Since 1998, the SJRWMD has established PLRGs for the Indian River Lagoon. In 2005, the county modified the stormwater management regulations in LDR Chapter 930 to incorporate SJRWMD's PLRGs. As a result of those LDR amendments, all new or redeveloped stormwater management systems are required to comply with the water quality LOS standards established by the SJRWMD. Currently, the SJR\XlMD Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is developing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standard for the Indian River Lagoon. According to the EPA, a TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. Once TMDLs for the Indian River Lagoon are established by the SJR'NMD DEP, the county should incorporate those TMDLs into its water quality LOS standards.

Stormwater Master Planning

In order to more effectively manage stormwater, the county needs to develop a stormwater master. plan. To develop that plan, the county needs to analyze each storrnwater basin and document the location and condition of all stormwater facilities.

Once complete, the comprehensive inventory of facilities, conditions, and basins could be used to identify existing capacity and infrastructure shortfalls, to assess where future storm water capacity is needed, and to form the basis for establishing a 20-year drainage improvement program. By having a stormwater master plan, the county will be more successful in securing dedicated funding sources for stormwater improvement projects. For those reasons, the county should pursue funding sources, such as EPA Section 319 grants and Surface Water Improvement Management (SWIM) funds, to finalize development of a storm water master plan.

Stormwater Management Funding

Currently, stormwater management is funded from Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) revenue. To effectively implement a stormwater management program, the county should establish a source of funding dedicated exclusively to stormwater management, instead of relying upon MSTU revenue. In that way, general revenue could be replaced with dedicated funding sources, including: bonds, impact fees for new developments, and a stormwater utility.

p;.,_ r,, ~· Community Development Department r

ATTACHMF~JT

lnd.lanp.iver County 37 . !

Comprehensive Plan Stormwater Mana9ement Sub-Element

Policy 7.5: Indian River County will continue to require sodding or grassing of steep slopes constructed in conjunction with all Transportation Improvement Projects.

Policy 7.6: In accordance with Program Goal I of the Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan and Goal I of the Surface Water Improvement Management (SWIM) Plan, the county shall reduce the amount of non-point source pollution entering the Indian River Lagoon by applying for SWIM funds and Section 319 Grants to improve the pollutant removal of efficiency of existing stormwater management facilities and, where feasible, to construct new regional stormwater management facilities.

Policy 7. 7: The county shall eliminate all point sources of pollution from private sewer plants and septic tanks contributing to water quality problems and nutrient enrichment ofthe Indian River Lagoon and the Upper St. Johns River Basin (as indicated in the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element policies) by:

)> Continuing to expand sanitary sewer service within the Urban Service Area; >- Requiring annual evaluation of private sewer plants; )> Requiring monitoring of septic tanks; >- Reusing irrigation quality wastewater for spray irrigation; >- Requiring new developments to connect to a regional wastewater treatment facility; and )> Other policies contained the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element.

Policy 7.8: In compliance with the Indian River Lagoon Act of 1990, the county shall continue to prohibit the discharge of effluent from domestic wastewater treatment plants into the Indian River Lagoon.

Policy 7.9: The county, in cooperation with the Indian River Soil and Water Conservation District (IRSWCD), shall require all new groves and replanted groves to implement conservation plans, and non-structural best management practices (BMPs). Non-structural BMPs, as defined by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), include land use planning, preservation of wetlands and floodplains, education, and erosion control.

Policy 7.10: Until Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards are established for the Indian River Lagoon by the 8JR\¥MD DEP, the county will continue to require, as a minimum, retention of the first one ( 1) inch of rainfall prior to off-site discharge. Consistent with Chapter 17-25.025(9), F.A.C., an additional 50 percent treatment (1.5 inches) is required for all direct discharge into the Indian River Lagoon due to its designation as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW).

Policy 7.11: All existing uses shall meet the adopted WQLOS at time of redevelopment, including TMDL standards once established by the 8JR1;~lMD DEP.

Community Development Department Indian River County 44

Comprehensive Plan Coastal Management Element ~~- ·--------·- .

Policy 2.2: The county hereby adopts the State designation of Class III suitable for "Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population offish and wildlife," as defined in the 2008 Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Surface Water Quality Standards report, as the minimum water quality standard for the following portions of the IRL located within Indian River County: Sebastian Inlet extending south to C.R. 510, west of the ICW; south of an east-west line transecting the North Relief Canal extending to an east-west line transecting the north tip of Round Island (both sides of the ICW); south of an east-west line transecting the north tip of Round Island east ofthe ICW(Ref. Figure 9.10).

Policy 2.3: In accordance with the Indian River Lagoon Act, the county shall prohibit all new point-source discharges into the Indian River Lagoon.

Policy 2.4: The county shall implement the recommendations to reduce non-point source pollution entering the Indian River Lagoon contained in the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program's (IRLNEP) 2008 Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), and the SRJWMD's Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan.

Policy 2.5: By 2010, the county will establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established by SJR~lMD FDEP and EPA for each drainage basin within the county.

Policy 2.6: Indian River County shall improve the quality of and reduce the overall amount of freshwater inflow to the Indian River Lagoon by:

~ requiring all new development in the coastal zone to utilize on-site retention or detention methods consistent with the provisions of the Stormwater Management Sub-Element prior to being discharged to the IRL; requiring new development to utilize natural drainage features, such as impounded and unimpounded wetlands and swales, to the maximum extent possible for stormwater management; requiring all new development to retain, at minimum, the first one (1) inch of stormwater runoff. In addition, the county will require retrofitting to achieve compliance with existing storm water requirements where renovations or additions of greater than 50% to existing structures occur; initiating a program to regularly inspect storm water management facilities to ensure proper operation and maintenance, and invoke penalties for malfunctioning, altered, abused or neglected systems; and requiring littoral zones on all waterbodies located within new development project sites exceeding 10 acres.

Policy 2.7: The county shall require that all marina facilities, single-family docks, bulkheads, and other similar structures constructed in, adjacent to, or directly affecting the surface waters of Indian River County shall be located and designed in order to allow for maximum water circulation, and to minimize impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation and other marine

f j·

resources. t-·

Community Development Department Indian River County 42

J~ ={\ )> .-=-;JJ ;-......l.6 ~ ~ ,7iJ ?1 , . ........., "

Comprehensive Plan

Figure 4. 7 2008 Major Trip Generators & Attractors

Generators and Attractors e Dewlopmenls of Re(jonal lflllacl e Major ResidenUaiAteas e Major RetaU Shopping Cen!ms 0 Major Se.vloa Centers ® Mobile Home Parks and Developments e Public S

Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element

System Preservation

On a continuous basis, FDOT and Indian River County maintain the roadways in the county. In 2006, the centerline roadway mileage considered deficient on the FDOT network in the county was 34.8 miles. Deficient roadways are defined as those roadways which achieve a rating of less than 3.0 on the 5-point FHWA pavement rating scale. Most of deficient roadways will be addressed by a number of programmed and/or underway projects. These include the resurfacing of US lfrom 37th Street to CR 51 0; the resurfacing of SR 60 from 20th A venue to Beachland Boulevard; the resurfacing ofthe Wabasso Causeway (SR 510); and the widening ofSR 60 from I-95 to Yeehaw Junction. Upon completion of these projects, it is anticipated that the total number of deficient centerline miles will be less than 10, or roughly 9% of the state highway system roads in Indian River County.

In 2006, the cost to maintain all functionally classified roadways in Indian River County (including resurfacing, traffic operations, bridge maintenance, mowing, drainage maintenance and unpaved road grading) was approximately $8,000,000.

Intergovernmental Coordination

While the MPO continues to provide transportation planning services for the county, its level of planning, grant administration, coordination, and public outreach activity has greatly expanded since 1996. Over the years, the MPO has undertaken a number of studies and prepared a number of plans at the request of its member jurisdictions and agencies. These include a countywide signage and guidance study; a vacant parcel land use model; Fleming Street and Aviation Boulevard corridor studies; and a Greenways Plan. As a consequence, MPO meetings are now longer in duration and have sometimes involved up to 16 agenda items. Due to the complexity of the agenda topics, the MPO occasionally establishes an ad-hoc subcommittee, such as the Greenways project steering committee, to assist in the development of MPO projects. In 2003, the MPO added a standing agenda item for public comment to all of its agendas, an action which has resulted in substantial discussions on a wide variety of county transportation issues.

In addition to its longstanding interagency coordination functions, the MPO is now an active participant in regional planning activities along the Treasure Coast. This has involved Fef eKample, MPO staff participationed in the activities of the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast (CSTC), as well as MPO involvement in the LRTP development activities of adjacent MPOs and TPOs. Through that LRTP coordination, the MPO has focused on regional roadway connectivity between counties. As a result of that effort, the draft St. Lucie County TPO LRTP includes a proposed new roadway linking 58th Avenue (in southern Indian River County) and Kobelgard Road (in the Towns, Villages, and Countryside area of St. Lucie County). Another regional activity involved Mse, the MPO, in 2006, executinged an interlocal agreement for regional coordina

indian river county community development … · 2018. 4. 8. · october 19, 2010 department of...

Documents