Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10061994 PZCity of Sebastian 1225 MAIN STREET O SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 o FAX (407) 589-5570 A G E N D A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 61 1994 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 5. OLD BUSINESS: NONE 6. NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION FROM WINIFRED BULLOCK TO BUILD A RETAIL BUILDING ON THE EAST SIDE OF 1686 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE PUBLIC HEARING — HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE STARRING ME STORYBOOKS PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED — SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR INDIAN RIVER TREE RECYCLING & MULCH FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING — AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING NON—CONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARKS 7. CHAIRMANS MATTERS: 8. MEMBERS MATTERS: 9. ATTORNEYS MATTERS: 10. BUILDING OFFICIAL MATTERS: DISCUSSION — AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES DISCUSSION — PLANTING IN THE RIGHT—OF—WAY 11. ADJOURN: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. SAID APPEAL• MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF ACTION. (286.0105 F.S.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT (407) 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. . 1490S CXTY OF SEBASTXAN PLAHNXNG AND ZONXNG COMMXSSXOM REGULAR MEETXNG OCTOBER 6, 1994 VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER OPENED THE MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: MR. MUNSART MR. SHROYER MR. GOLDSTEiN MRS. BRANTMEYER MR. BARNES MR. FALKE MR. FISCHER MR. SCHULKE CHAIRMAN THOMPSON ALSO PRESENT: BRUCE COOPER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/BUiLDING OFFICIAL MR. TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY .~NNOUNCEMENTS: DUE TO CHAIRMAN THOMPSON'S ABSENCE, BRANTMEYER WILL BE VOTING AT THIS MEETING. MRS. MR. FISCHER STATED HE APPROVED A 6-FOOT FENCE FOR SEMBLER'S MARINA ON OCTOBER 5, 1994, AS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. BARNES WILL BE OUT OF TOWN FOR THE NEXT MEETING ON OCTOBER 20, 1994. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. FALKE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 AS PRESENTED. MR. MUNSART SECONDED THE MOTION. VOICE VOTE WAS MADE, 7-0 MOTION CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS: MR.FISCHER STATED THERE WAS NO OLD BUSINESS. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6~ 1994 PAGE TWO NEW BUSINESS: DISCUSSION - WINiF~ED BULLOCK'S PPX)POSALTOBUILDA~ETAIL BUILDING ON THE EAST SiDE OF 1686 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE: MR. COOPER EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS JUST A VERY PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION. MRS. BULLOCK HAD COME IN TO SEE MR. COOPER TO DISCUSS ZONING AND HER QUESTIONS FOR FORMULATING HER SITE PLAN. MR. COOPER SUGGESTED SHE COME TO THIS MEETING TO GIVE A BRIEF SCENARIO OF HER PLANS SINCE THE BUILDING WOULD BE IN OUR RIVERFRONT DISTRICT. THIS DISCUSSION WAS BASICALLY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. MRS. BULLOCK LIVES ON THE CORNER OF DAVIS STREET AND INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. SHE OWNS THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE ACROSS FROM HER HOUSE. SHE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY A SMALL RETAIL STORE APPROXIMATELY THE SIZE 40'X 35' WITH A DECK AROUND THREE SIDES. IN KEEPING WITH THE KEY WEST THEME, THIS STORE WOULD LOOK LIKE AN OLD ISHING SHACK WITH A RED METAL ROOF AND RED TRIM AND GRAY SIDING. SHE STATED THIS WOULD NOT BE A KNICK-KNACK SHOP OR CARRY TEE- SHIRTS, BUT A NICE, MEDIUM PRICED BOUTIQUE. SHE PRESENTED RUDIMENTARY PLANS OF A FLOOR PLAN AND A FRONT ELEVATION. MR. COOPER iNFORMED THE BOARD THAT THIS AREA IS ZONED GENERAL MARINE COMMERCIAL ONTHE EAST SIDE OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. IT FALLS WITHIN THE PERMITTED USE CATEGORY. IN THE PAST, THE BOARDHAS A HAD A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF WHAT MARINE-RELATED iS IN THE MCR DISTRICT. FROM WHAT MRS. BULLOCK HAS EXPLAINED, MR. COOPER FEELS THIS IDEA FALLS IN WITH THE RIVERFRONT THEME. MR.BARNES ASKED HOW BIG THE PROPERTY WAS. MRS BULLOCK INFORMED THE BOARD IT WAS 80' DEEP ON THE NORTH SIDE, 96.6' WIDE AND 35' ON THE SOUTH END. CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING SPACE, ETC., WILL BE DISCUSSED AND REVIEWED IN THE FUTURE ONCE A SITE PLAN IS PRESENTED. MR. FALKE ASKED WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IF THIS PROPERTY CHANGES OWNERSHIP ANDWHAT WOULD PREVENT IT FROM BECOMING A TEE-SHIRT SHOP? MR. COOPER NOTED THAT A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP WOULD MEAN A NEW OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR THAT STORE AND ANY CHANGE OF USE WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE BOARD AND FALL INTO ONE OF THE CATEGORIES THAT THE BOARD HAS ALREADY APPROVED FOR THE RIVERFRONT DISTRICT. PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION REG'ULARMEETING' OF OCTOBER 6. 1994 PUBLIC HEARXMG STORYBOOKS3 HOME OCCUPATXONAL LXCKNSE FOR STARRXNG ME STARRING ME STORYBOOKS, 72'5 BENEDICTINE TERRACE, COLLEEN FOBES 19 NOTICES WERE SENT, WITH NO OBJECTIONS OR NON-OBJECTIONS RECEIVED BACK. VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20 P.M.. MS. FOBES TAKES HER COMPUTER TO CRAFT FAIRS, PRINTS THE PAGES AND BINDS THE BOOKS RIGHT THERE ON THE PREMISES. HER HOME BUSINESS CONSISTS MOSTLY OF USING THE PHONE. ALMOST ALL OF HER BUSINESS IS DONE AT THESE CRAFT FAIRS. MR. COOPER REMINDED THE APPLICANT OF THE DELIVERY ORDINANCE - ONLY ONCE A WEEK FOR SUPPLIES. APPLICANT HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. SHE ALSO STATED SHE NEVER HAD ANY CLIENTS/CUSTOMERS COMING TO HER RESIDENCE. STAFF HAS NO OBJECTIONS. NO PUBLIC INPUT. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:23 P.M. MR. FALKE ASKED WHERE CUSTOMERS CAME TO REVIEW HER BOOKS, WHERE DID SHE GET HER ORDERS? MS. FOBES STATED AT THE CRAFT FAIRS, WITH DELIVERY RIGHT THERE ALSO. OCCASIONALLY FOR A BIRTHDAY PRESENT OR FOR A FRIEND SHE WILL MAKE A BOOK AT HER HOUSE. MS. FOBES REALLY ONLY USES THE PHONE AT HER HOUSE AND WAS TOLD SHE NEEDED-AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR THAT PURPOSE AND TO BE ABLE TO OPEN A CHECKING ACCOUNT FOR HER BUSINESS. MS. FOBES HAS A POST OFFICE BOX FOR HER BUSINESS ADDRESS. MR. GOLDSTEIN INQUIRED ABOUT HOW BIG THE SUPPLY BOXES WERE DELIVERED TO HER HOUSE AND HOW MUCH STOCK DID SHE USUALLY HAVE ON HAND. MS. FOBES STATED 50 BOOKS COME IN A BOX AND THAT SHE ONLY KEPT APPROXIMATELY 100 BOOKS ON HAND AT A TIME. MR. GOLDSTEIN ADVISED HER THAT THEREWAS A RESTRICTiON ON THEAMOUNTOF INVENTORY THAT YOU CANHAVEWITHRESPECT TO SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IT MAY OCCUPY WHICH IS 100 SQUARE FEET FOR RAW MATERIAL. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. BARNES TO APPROVE THE HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE AT 725 BENEDICTINE TERRACE, FLORIDA TO CONDUCT STARRING ME PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISS!0~ REGULAR MEETING OF OC~TQBER 6.,. 19.9a STORYBOOKS. MR. MUNSART SECONDED THIS MOTION. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN, 7-0 MOTION CARRIED. PUBLXCHEg.~ZNG CONTINUED - SPECZALUSE PE~MZT FOR XNDZANRXVER TEE MULCH FACZLITY THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1994. AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER FILED FORM' 8-B STATING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THIS MATTER WHICH IS STILL ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY. HE WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON THIS ISSUE AND QUESTIONED THE BOARD IF THEY WOULD LIKE HIM'TO STEP DOWN AS ACTING CHAIRMAN FOR THIS DISCUSSION OR CONTINUE AS 'IS. GENERAL CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD WAS TO HAVE MR FISCHER CONTINUE AS CHAIRMAN. MR. COOPER STATED AS PER COUNSEL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER AT PLANNING AND ZONING. SINCE THE BOARD IS AT AN ADVISORY CAPACITY AT THIS MEETING, WE DO NOT NEED TO SWEAR IN WITNESSES. ON A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER PERTINENT INFORMATION CAN BE HANDED OUT IN YOUR PACKETS AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT RECEIVES THE SAME INFORMATION. MR. WARREN DILL, ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT, STARTED THE PRESENTATION. HE STATED INDIAN RIVER TREE RECYCLING AND MULCH FACILITY IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A MULCHING FACILITY FOR FIVE (5) YEARS ON A SITE THAT iS INDUSTRIAL ZONED. BOARD MEMBERS WERE HANDED OUT SITE PLANS. MR. DILL USED AN ENLARGED SIMPLIFIED SITE PLAN AS A VISUAL AID. THE ACCESS ROAD IS 99TH STREET. LOTS 23 THROUGH 38 ON SITE.PLANNO LONGER EXIST BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEWED BY CITY COUNCIL EXPANDED THE-95-ACRE LAKE AND SAND MINING OPERATION TO THOSE LOTS. RECTANGLES ON SITE PLAN REPRESENTTHE STORAGE CELLS OF THE DEBRIS. THE MULCHING FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT IS PROPOSED TO START IN THE NORTH AND WORK ITS WAY DOWN AS THE AREA FILLS UP AND THE DEBRIS PILES ARE MULCHED. MR. DILL STATED HE BELIEVED HIS CLIENT'S REQUEST MEETS ALL OF THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS BY THE CITY AND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. HE REVIEWS THE TWO SETS OF STANDARDS IN THE SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONINGCOMMISSION REGULAR MEETING:OF OCTOBER6. 1'994 PAGE FIVE USE PERMIT ORDINANCE WHICH HE FEELS THE BOARD IS CHARGED WITH REVIEWING AND MAKING ANY DETERM~INATIONS ON. THE FIRST STANDARD SAYS THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE, AND NOT BE INJURIOUS TO PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY. THE SECOND STANDARD SAYS THE USE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE USE IS PROPOSED, IN THIS CASE BEING AN iNDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. (PAGE 68 AND 69 IN CODE BOOK). MR. DILL FOLLOWS THAT THE MULCHING FACILITY, WITH THE RAILROAD TO THE EAST ANDLAKE TO THE WEST, IS IN A SAFE LOCATION. HE ADDRESSES THE QUESTION OF NOISE AND CONTENDS UNTIL THE EQUIPMENT IS IN PLACE AND OPERATING THEY WILL NOT KNOW IF IT MEETS THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE. THE FIRE CHIEF HAS APPROVED THE SITE PLAN., WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF DISTANCE BETWEEN PILES, ACCESS ROADS, AND ADDITIONAL FIRE HYDRANTS. A LETTER FROM CHIEF PETTY SHOWS NO OBJECTIONS FROM A POLICE CONCERN. THE MAIN ACCESS ROAD IS PAVED CAUSING NO DUST FROM TRAFFIC. THERE ARE NO OTHER AGENCIES INVOLVED. THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAS NO TYPE OF REGULATION NOR DOES INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. HE CONTINUES THAT COMPATIBILITY-WITH OTHER USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT SUCH AS MANUFACTURING OF STONE PRODUCTS, MACHINE SHOPS~ EQUIPMENT REPAIR, ETC., ALLOWS THE MULCHING FACILITY TO FIT THAT CATEGORY. THE MULCHING FACILITY WILL BE GOOD FOR LOCAL ECONOMY. IT IS ANTICIPATED WHEN IT IS OPERATING AT FULL TO EMPLOY 6-8 PEOPLE. THIS FACILITY WILL ALSO KEEP THE COST OF NEW CONSTRUCTION DOWN BY PROVIDING A CLOSE, SAFE PLACE FOR BUILDING DEBRIS. BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS INITIAL COST AND COST OF SITE WORK, A 5- YEAR PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO HELP AMORTIZE THE INVESTMENT. MR. GOLDSTEIN STATES HE FEELS OTHER QUESTIONS ARISE EVEN BEFORE CONSIDERING THE STATEMENTS OF FINDINGS FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. REVIEWING SECTION 20A-2.6(A) REGARDING THE GRANTING OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS, ALL SUCH USES SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE ILLEGAL, SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED PURSUANT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. MR. DILL STATES THE MULCHING FACILITY IS NOT ILLEGAL, AND IS NOT PROHIBITED PURSUANT TO THE COMP. PLAN AND ENCOURAGES iNDUSTRIAL USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. MR. GOLDSTEIN ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF JUNK YARDS BEING PROHIBITED. MR. DILL DOES NOT CONSIDER A RECYCLING FACILITY TO BE JUNK. STATE OF FLORIDA WHOLLY SUPPORTS RECYCLING FACILITIES. THE MR. GOLDSTEIN READS THE DEFINITION OF JUNK YARD FROM PAGE 828 OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6. 1994 PAGESiX THE CODE BOOK AND FEELS THIS DESCRIBES THE MULCHING FACILITY. MR. ~LDSTEIN INQUIRES IF THE BOARD IS ALLOWED TO REVIEW THE SITE PLAN. MR. COOPER ADVISES THIS IS A TEMPORARY SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD ANDNOT A PERMANENT FACILITY, WHICH WOULD NEED APPROVAL ON THE SITE PLAN WITH CONSIDERATIONS FOR PARKING, DRAINAGE, LANDSCAPING, ETC. MR SHROYER INTERJECTED BY READING THE DEFINITION OF JUNK ON PAGE 828 OF THE CODE BOOK. MR. COOPER STATES THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT THIS WAS REVIEWED ON PREVIOUS CASES AND GIVEN OPINIONS ON BY PREVIOUS ATTORNEYS, ANDWAS NOT CONSIDERED ILLEGAL OR A PROHIBITED USE. THAT IS WHY THIS APPLICATION WAS GIVEN CONSIDERATION. MR. GOLDSTEIN THEN ASKS MR. DILL WHAT GOES IN A DEBRIS CELL, AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN? MR. DILL EXPLAINS THAT BRANCHES AND TREES ARE CONVERTED TO MULCH. NATURAL LAND CLEARING DEBRIS SUCH AS PLACED IN THE CELLS TO DRY AND THEN MR. GOLDSTEIN WANTS TO KNOW IF THAT IS SALVAGING? MR. DILL STATES NO. THAT IS REPROCESSING THE MATERIAL. MR. SHROYERADDRESSES MR. WILLIAMS AND MR. DILL, AND WANTS TO KNOW IF AFTER THE PERMIT IS APPROVED, AND IF THE CITY MADE ANY CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY, COULD THE CHANGES BE ENFORCED ON THE FACILITY'S SITE PLAN BEFORE THE PERMIT EXPIRED? MR. DILL STATES NO. THE PLAN WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN UNTIL THE PERMIT EXPIRES, BUT NOTES THAT SITE PLAN APPROVAL ISN'T NEEDED FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. MR. SHROYER THEN QUESTIONS THE SECOND ACCESS ROAD. MR. DILL REVIEWS THAT THE ROAD LEADING NORTH IS ANEMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD ONLY. IT IS CLOSED AND HE DOESN'T THINK THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA WOULD WANT IT OPEN. BUT IF A FIRE CAUSED THE SOUTH ACCESS TO BECOME BLOCKED, THE NORTH ACCESS COULD DEFINITELY BE OPENED AND USED. VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER CALLS A RECESS AT 8:0.6 P.M. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF.OCTOBER 6. 1994 PAGE SEVEN THE MEETING IS RESUMED AT 8:20 P.M. AND IT IS NOTED ALL BOARD MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. RANDY MOSBY OF MOSBY AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUES PRESENTATION. APPLICANT'S HE STATES THE TECHNICAL LAYOUT OF THE FACILITY WAS DESIGNED BY EXPERIENCE OF THE APPLICANT AND BY THE FIRE MARSHALL. THE DEBRIS CELLS ARE DIMENSIONALIZED AREAS SET ASIDE FOR THE RECYCLING MATERIALS, DESIGNED AND LAID OUT SO THERE IS ACCESS IN CASE OF FIRE, ACCESS FOR USE, AND ACCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCING THE FINAL PRODUCT. HE NOTES MR. COOPER HAS ON FILE THE FIRST COMMENT LETTER FROM THE FIRE MARSHALL WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS ADDRESSED, AND THE FINAL LETTER OF APPROVAL. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS LOCATION OF THE DRY FIRE HYDRANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE CHIEF MR. DAN DEITZ. THERE CURRENTLY IS A FACILITY FOR EMPLOYEES ON PROPOSED LOT 50 (OF SITE PLAN). THE PLAT WAS APPROVED BY ST. JOHH'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT TO HAVE 70% IMPERVIOUS AREA OVER IT. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT WANT TO INCREASE THIS. SITE PLANS ARE BEING SENT TO THE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT TO REVIEW THAT THERE ARE NO VIOLATIONS TO THE FACILITY'S PERMITS IN EXISTENCE. MR. COOPER REVIEWED WHAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUIRED FOR THE FACILITY'S SITE PLAN: 1) THE EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD TO THE NORTH, 2) AN EARTH BERM TO BUFFER ANY NOISE FOR THE RESIDENTS NORTH OF THE FACILITY ON CONCORD AVENUE, 3) COMMENTS FROM THE FIRE MARSHALL AND COUNTY. THE FIRE MARSHALL HAD SUGGESTIONS FOR THE EAST/WEST FIRE ACCESS ROADS AND THE DRY HYDRANTS SPECIFICATIONS, AND 4) KEEPING COMPLIANT WITH ST. JOHN'S RiVER WATER MANAGEMENT. HE THEN ADDRESSED MEETING THE NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. HE ASKED IF THE MULCHING EQUIPMENT CAME WITH NOISE SPECIFICATIONS iNDICATING NOISE PRODUCTION? MR. MOSBY STATED THAT GIVEN THE NUMEROUS VARIABLES' INVOLVED WITH TESTING NOISE, I.E., WOODED AREAS, WIND, DISTANCES,.BERMS, ETC,, IT WOULD BE HARD TO GET ACCURATE READINGS UNTIL THE EQUI.PMENT WAS I.N PLACE AND WORKING. MR. COOPER SUGGESTS THE APPLICANT HIRE A CERTIFIED TESTING LAB TO DO A TEST ONCE THE MACHINERY IS IN PLACE AND MONITOR A POSITION TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE. HE RECOMMENDS THE BOARD REQUIRE ASSURANCES LIKE THIS AS PART OF THE APPROVAL FOR THE PERMIT. MR. MOSBY FEELS THE ORDINANCE STATES THE APPLICANT MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS NOT PROVE THEM. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ~ULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6. 1994 PAGE EIGHT MR. COOPER FEELS, AS IN THE PAST, BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE AND SHOW COMPLIANCE. THIS SHOULD BE ADDED AS A CONDITION. MR. MOSBY STATES THAT ALREADY ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING BERMS HAVE BEEN PLANNED TO BUFFER THE RESIDENTS IN THE NORTH FROM NOISE. THE APPLICANT HAS NO CONCERNS THEY CAN'T MEET THE ORDINANCE. MR. COOPER THEN ASKS THE APPLICANT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FACILITY AFTER THE 5-YEAR PERMIT PERIOD? CONCERNS WERE RAISED ON WHY THIS FACILITY DOESN'T FALL UNDER THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE AND MR. COOPER FEELS THE TEMPORARY VS. PERMANENT USE iS WHAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. IF THIS WAS A PERMANENT OPERATION A SITE PLAN WOULD BE REQUIRED. BECAUSE THIS AREA FALLS IN A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION TO BE DEVELOPED, HE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY A 5-YEAR TEMPORARY USE IS REQUESTED AND FEELS THIS CONSIDERATION SHOULD NOT REQUIRE MEETING THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE. AT THiS TIME, VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:43 P.M. MR. HARRY THOMAS OF 654 BALBOA STREET, COMMENTS THAT HE FEELS AFTER THE COST OF THE EQUIPMENTHAS BEEN AMORTIZEDTHEFACILITYWILL COME BACK FOR ANOTHER PERMIT. HE THEN REVIEWS THE PROBLEM OF NOISE THE 512 FiSCHER MULCHINGAREAHAD IN THE PAST AND WHAT WAS INVOLVED IN CORRECTING IT. HE FEELS THE NEW FACILITY SHOULD NOT BE SO AMBIGUOUS ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS AND SHOULD PURCHASE THE BEST EQUIPMENT POSSIBLE WITH THE MOST UP-TO-DATE SPECIFICATIONS. MR. SALNEGRIA OF 461 GEORGIA BOULEVARD VOICES HIS CONCERN OVE'R THE SIZE OF A FIRE HOSE MENTIONED IN THE FIRE CHIEF'S MEMORANDUM. MR. COOPER EXPLAINS MR. NEGRIA IS TALKING ABOUT A 10 FOOT X 5 INCH HARD SUCTION HOSE SUGGESTED TO BE KEPT ON SITE AND THE DETAILS HOW THE DRY HYDRANT BE IN PLACE. MR. NEGRIA WANTS TO KNOW IF THE HOSE' IS COMING FROM THE LAKE TO THE TRUCK OR FROM THE HYDRANT TO THE TRUCK? MR. COOPER STATES FROM THE HYDRANT TO THE TRUCK SINCE THE HYDRANT IS NOW CONNECTED IN TO THE LAKE. MR. NEGRIA QUESTIONS IN BAD WEATHER, IF A 10-FOOT HOSE WOULD BE LONG'ENOUGH IF THE TRUCK COULDN'T GET TO THE LAKE? MR. COOPER REPLIESTHAT STABILIZED ROADSARE BEING REQUIRED PER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ASSURE THOSE ROADS AND HYDRANTS WILL BE ACCESSIBLE. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1994 NO FURTHER PUBLIC INPUT. MR. FISCHER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:48 P.M. MR. FALKE BEGINS QUESTIONS. HE WANTS TO KNOWWHAT IS TEMPORARY USE AS FAR AS A SITE PLAN IS CONCERNED. IF 5 YEARS IS TEMPORARY, AT WHAT POINT DOES IT BECOME PERMANENT OR SEMI-PERMANENT? MR. COOPER STATES THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY IN THE CODE BOOK. MR. FALKE VOICES CONCERN OVER THE NO SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT. HE FEELS AFTER 5 YEARS IT WILL BECOME PERMANENT. HE ASKS IF THERE IS ANYTHING PREVENTING THE BOARD FROM REQUIRING APPROVAL ON A SITE PLAN? MR. WILLIAMS STATES NO. THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWS THE BOARD' TO ATTACH ANY CONDITIONS. MR. FALKE ASKED THE APPLICANT iF THERE WILL BE ANY BURNING OF DEBRIS ON THE SITE. HE ANSWERED NO. MR. FALKE: AFTER THE DEBRIS IS MULCHED HOW LARGE ARE THE MULCH PILES GOING TO BE? MR. HENRY FISCHER, JR., STATES 12 FEET HIGH. AFTER THE MATERIAL IS PROCESSED IT IS BAGGED UPAND SOLD AT ANOTHER LOCATION. THE ONLY BY-PRODUCT, WHICH IS TOP SOIL, WILL BE RETAINED. MR. FISCHER CONTINUES THAT AT ONE TIME APPROXIMATELY 1000 YARD OFMULCH WILL BE CURING. IT TAKES 27 DAYS FOR MULCH TO CURE BEFORE IT CAN BE MOVED. MR. FALKE QUESTIONS SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION. MR. FISCHER HAS NEVER SEEN IT HAPPEN YET. THE MULCH IS SUBJECT TO 135 DEGREE HEAT AND IS ROTATED TO KILL ANY VEGETATION, SEEDS, BUGS, ETC.. CELLS ARE SET TO FIRE MARSHALL STANDARDS. HE GOES TO EXPLAIN THERE IS AN 8-INCHPVC MAIN THAT RUNS 40 FEET INTO THE LAKE THAT HAS A SCREEN ON THE END. IT IS REQUIRED TO PULL THROUGH IT SO MANYGALLONS OF WATER PER MINUTE. THiS IS CONNECTED TO THE DRY HYDRANT WHICH, IF WHEN NEEDED, IS CONNECTED TO THE PUMP THAT IS STANDARD ON MOST FiRE TRUCKS. MR. FALKE ASKED IF THERE WOULD BE ANY SALE OF THE MULCH ON THE PREMISE. MR. FISCHER ANSWERED OCCASIONALLY SMALL TRUCKS WILL COME IN AND FILL THEIR TRUCK BEDS WITH MULCH. MR. FALKE VOICES CONCERN OVER THE EXTRA HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT MIGHT OCCUR AT THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. #1 AND 99TH STREET. MR. COOPER EXPLAINS THAT IS WHAT THEY ASKED COMMENTS ON FROM THE COUNTY AND COUNTY VOICED NO OBJECTIONS. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ANDTHE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARE AWARE OF THIS INTERSECTION CLOSE TO THE INDUSTRIAL AREA. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1994 MR. BARNES REREADS THE REQUIREMENT BY THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SECTION THAT REQUESTS COMPATIBILITY WITH USES IN THE AREA. HE FEELS THE USES ALLOWED ALREADY IN THE DISTRICT ARE DEVELOPED WORKING PROPERTIES WITH BUILDINGS. THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS UNDERDEVELOPED AND WILL REMAIN UNDERDEVELOPED. HE DOESN'T SEE COMPATIBILITY ANDTENDS TO AGREE WITH'MR. GOLDSTEIN THIS COULD FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF JUNK YARDS.. MR. COOPER STATES THE BOARD HAS GIVEN APPROVAL TO PREVIOUS CASES FOR OUTSIDE INDUSTRIAL STORAGE. THESE ARE FACILITIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE THAT DON'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE A BUILDING. MR. BARNES NOTES EVEN SO, AN OUTSIDE STORAGE USE IS QUIET AND GENERATES LITTLE TRAFFIC. HE DOESN'T FEEL THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT'S PERMITTED. MR. COOPER CONTENDS THE NOISE ORDINANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL AREASALLOWS FOR MORE NOISE AND TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT IS INTENDED TO BE A NOISIER AREA. ONCE THIS INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION iS FULLY DEVELOPED, TRAFFIC THE MULCHING FACILITY CONTRIBUTES WILL BE COMPARATIVE. MR. BARNES ALSO RAISES HIS CONCERN LIKENING THE MULCHING FACILITY TO A JUNK YARD/SALVAGE YARD. HE ASKS MR. WiLLiAMS FOR HIS OPINION. MR. WILLIAMS FEELS IF YOU TAKE THE DESCRIPTION LITERALLY FO~ A JUNK YARD, YOU COULD SAY THE MULCHING FACILITY FITS. BUT HE ALSO REASONS IF YOU THROW YOUR GRASS CLIPPINGS IN A PILE ON A LOT, AREN'T YOU ALSO STORING JUNK AND BECOME: A JUNK YARD? MR. DILL ADDS THAT SECTION 6 ON PAGE 68 OF THE CODE LISTS USES COMPATIBLE WITH iNDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES. STORAGE IS ONE OF THEM. HE ALSO BRINGS UP THE SUIT FILED BY MR. FEY CONCERNING HIS MULCHING FACILITY AND STATES THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT HAS ALREADY RULED MULCHING FACILITIES ARE COMPATIBLE AND ARE APPROPRiATEUSES WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES. MR. GOLDSTEIN ASKS MR. MOSBY WHAT THE RISKS ARE OF WIND BLOWING DEBRIS FROM THE PILES, GIVEN THE PREVAILING WIND IS FROM THE EAST? MR. MOSBY STATES THE CLOSEST RESIDENTS ARE ACROSS THE LAKE 2000 FEET AWAY. HE FEELS THERE AP, ENO RISKS. HE NOTES THERE IS A BERM BEING CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PILES WHICH CREATES A BARRIER TO BLOCK THE EASTERLY WIND. MR. GOLDSTEIN ASKS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S ADVISE ON REQUIRING A SITE PLAN. MR. WILLIAMS FEELS THE BOARD CAN REQUIRE A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. BY THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE, HE STATES, YOU CAN IMPOSE ANY CONDITIONS WHICH WILL, IN YOUR JUDGEMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY SECURE THE PI~%NNIN~ AND ZONING. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6. 199~ OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS. MR. COOPER STATES SITE PLAN APPROVAL REFERS TO ARTICLE X. BOARD HAS A SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF THEM. SiTE PLAN APPROVAL BY ARTICLE X REQUIRES LOOKING AT LANDSCAPING, PARKING, AND DRAINAGE. MR. ~OLDSTEINALSO ASKS MR. WILLIAMS THAT IF THE BOARD WERE TODENY THE PERMIT ON GROUNDS THAT IT IS ANALOGOUS TO A JUNK YARD, WOULD SUCH DENIAL BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BASED ON EVERYTHING WE'VE HEARD'THIS EVENING? MR. WILLIAMS STATES NO. MR. SHROYER STATES BY THE DEFINITION OF JUNK, YOU GO OUT AND SPREAD MULCH IN YOUR YARD~ YOU DON'T GO OUT AND SPREAD JUNK. HE FEELS CONCERNING SITE PLAN APPROVAL (ARTICLE X) THAT THE APPLICANT IS JUST ASKING FOR THE BOARD'S BLESSING AND THE SITE PLAN ALREADY SUBMITTED EXPLAINS EXACTLY WHAT THEYARE ~OING TO DO. THE FACILITY ALREADY HAS AN EXISTING TRAILER WITH WORKING BATHROOMS. MR. SHROYER DOESN'T SEE DENYING THIS APPLICATION FOR ANY REASON. MR. MUNSART ASKS IF NEW ROADS HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED, ISN'T A SITE PLAN APPROVAL NEEDED? MR. COOPER ADVISES IF PAVED ROADS WERE BEING CONSTRUCTED, YES. HOWEVER, THEY ARE NOT PAVED ROADS. THEY ARE STABILIZED ROADS. THE BOARD NEEDS TO CONSIDER WHATAREAS iN ARTiCLE X ARE REALLY NEEDED FOR APPROVAL. IF ST. JOHN'S INDICATED THAT THE STAB'ILIZED ROADS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR SURFACE WATER PERMIT, OBVIOUSLY, DRAINAGE IS NOT A CONCERN. MR. SCHULKE FEELS THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL USE. THE FACILITY IS MANUFACTURING MULCH. HE OBSERVES THAT A LOT OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES CONSIDER JUNK YARDS AN INDUSTRIAL USE. THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN JUST CHOSE TO DECIDE THAT IT DOESN'T WANT JUNK YARDS IN OUR CITY. HOWEVER, HE FEELS THAT BY ARTICLE X, A SiTE PLAN HAS TO BE ADDRESSED. WITH THE ESTIMATED 4 TO 6 EMPLOYEES WORKING. AT THE FACILITY THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE PARKING. MR. MOSBY STATES HE THOUGHTTHE CITY BASED IT'S PARKINGREGULATIONS ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS. MR. COOPER SAYS THE PARKING ORDINANCE IS BASED ON iTS USE. MR. MOSBY ALSO FEELS LANDSCAPING DOESN'T NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. HE REMINDS THE BOARD THE APPLICANT IS ONLY ASKING FOR TEMPORARY USE. MR. SHROYER ASKS THE ATTORNEY IF THEY WOULD NEED A SITE PLAN FOR EVERY SINGLE LOT? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION K~GULAR MEETING 0.F.OCTOBER 6. 1994 PAGE TWELVE MR. COOPER SAYS NO. THEY ARE NOT PLATTED LOTS. MR. SHROYER WANTS TO KNOW WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED ON THE SITE PLAN FOR APPROVAL? MR. COOPER STATES BASICALLY JUST PARKING FOR THE EMPLOYEES ARDTHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SCREENED AND LANDSCAPED. BUT THIS INVOLVES THE QUESTION OF A PERMANENT VS. TEMPORARY FACILITY. MR. SCHULKE ASKS WHAT KIND OF DRAINAGE DOES THE FACILITY HAVE? MR. MOSBY STATES IT ISN'T SHOWN ON THE PLANS THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE, BUT THERE ARE TWO RETENTION AREAS. MULCH ISN'T CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL. RUN-OFF IS MINIMAL. THERE IS A MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN. IT WAS NOT BROUGHT IN BECAUSE IT WAS N~T REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIAL USE APPLICATION. MRS. BRANTMEYER FEELS THE MULCHING FACILITY IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SAND MINING USE ALREADY IN THE AREA, AND SEES NO POINT IN FURTHER LANDSCAPINg. HER QUESTION IS AFTER 5 YEARS , WHAT COULD BE DONE WITH THE FACILITY'S PROPERTY? AFTER ALL BUILDING IN SEBASTIAN IS FINISHED AND THERE IS NO MORE DEBRIS, WHAT WILL THE APPLICANT DO WITH THE PROPERTY? MR. COOPER STATES THAT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT. THEY COULD GO BACK TO THEIR INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION PLANNING OR THEY COULD COME BACK FOR AN EXTENSION. MR. COOPER REMINDS THE BOARD THAT THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND THAT ON ANY MOTIONS MADE, WHETHER FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL, THERE BE FINDINGS OF FACT GIVEN, AND ANY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS YOU WISH TO IMPOSE. MR. FISCHER ASKS FOR A MOTION AND REMINDS THE BOARD THAT HE IS ABSTAINING FROM VOTING. MRS BRANTMEYER WILL BE VOTING IN PLACE OF MR. THOMPSON, AND MR. SCHULKE IN PLACE OF VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER. A MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. SHROYER TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR INDIAN RIVER TREE RECYCLING AND MULCH FACILITY FOR FIVE YEARS WITH CONDITIONS OF MEETING THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE AND MEETING THE FIRE MARSHALL'S STANDARDS. MRS BRANTMEYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MR. FALKE NOTES THE MOTION PRECLUDES ANY FURTHER REQUIREMENTS. THE NEED FOR A SiTE PLAN HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. HE FEELS A SITE PLAN OUGHT TO BE PROVIDED. HE IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT FURTHER LANDSCAPiNg, BUT THINKS THE BOARD OUGHT TO SEE PARKING AREAS AND DRAINAGE. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 6, 1994 PAGE THIrTeEN MR. FALKE MAKES A MOTION TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO INCLUDE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AS A CONDITION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL. MR BARNES SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL: MRS. BRANTMEYER NO MR. BARNES YES MR. FALKE YES MR. SCHULKE YES MR. MUNSART YES MR. SHROYER NO MR. GOLDSTEIN YES MOTION CARRIED, 5-2 VOTE. MR. GOLDSTEIN ASKS FOR DISCUSSION ON THE MAIN MOTION. MR. GOLDSTEIN FEELS THIS IS TOO SIMILAR TO A SALVAGE YARD. HE QUOTES FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANTHEREASON SALVAGE YARDS ARENOT ALLOWED IN THE CITY AND THIS IS HIS REASON HE WILL VOTE NO ON THIS MOTION. MR. FISCHER ASKS FOR A VOTE ON THE MAIN' MOTION WITH THE AMENDMENT INCLUDED AS A REQUIREMENT. ROLL CALL: MR. BARNES NO MR. FALKE YES MR. SCHULKE YES MR. MUNSART YES MR. SHROYER YES MR. GOLDSTEIN NO MRS. BRANTMEYER YES MOTION CARRIED, 5-2 VOTE MR. COOPER STATES THE MOTION AS PASSED IS A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. IF THEY AGREE TO THOSE SAME CONDITIONS, THEY WILL BASICALLY AGREE TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMiT AND CONDITION IT UPON THE SiTE PLAN BEING SUBMITTED PRIOR TO OPERATION. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTS APPROVAL ON THE SITE PLAN. PUBLXC HEARXNG - AMENDMENT TO CCH(PREHENSXVE PLAN RBGARDX~G NON- CONFORMXNGMOBXLE HOME PARKS: BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED TIME LEFT; MR. COOPER ASKS FOR ANEXTENSION OF THE MEETING. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION R~GULAR ME~TI~G.. QF OCTOBER 6. 1994 PAGE FOURTEEN MR. BARNES MAKES A MOTION FOR A 10 MINUTE EXTENSION. MR. FALKE SECONDED THE MOTION. VOICE VOTE WAS MADE. IT WAS NOT UNANIMOUS. VICE CHAIRMAN FISCHER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:5'8 P.M. MR. COOPER STATES THIS HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL TO PROHIBIT NON-CONFORMING TRAILER PARKS TO BE CHANGED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHERE THEY CAN NOT REPLACE MOBILE HOMES. SINCE THIS IS LIMITED TO SPECIFIC SITES ON A SMALL SCALE, BEING THE TRAILER PARKS THEMSELVES, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS ADVISED WE NEED TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO AFFORDANOPPORTUNITYOF DUE PROCESS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. A PROPERTY OWNER IS PRESENT. ANN FOSTER, PROPRIETOR OF RIVERVIEW TRAILER PARK, SEBASTIAN, REVIEWS THAT IN APRIL OF 1986 SHE BOUGHT THE TRAILER PARK. IN OCTOBER 1987, SHE HAD A THAILERTHAT WAS SOLD IN THE PARK, IT WAS RENTED TO OTHER TENANTS AND THEY MOVED IN WITHIN THREE DAYS. MRS. FOSTER WAS THEN GIVEN BY THE CITY A NOTICE OF POSSIBLE FINES SHE COULD RECEIVE IF SHE DID NOT REMOVE THE TRAILER. SHE WENT IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND WAS TURNED DOWN. MRS. FOSTER STATES THE DISCREPANC~ IS FOUND IN THE CODES. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STATES THE TRAILERS CAN NOT BE REPLACED, BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS THEY CAN. SHEHAS LOST POSSIBLE INCOME FOR SEVEN YEARS BECAUSE OF THIS. HER ATTORNEY ADVISES HER THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS PRIORITY. MR. SHROYER ASKS MR. COOPER WHEN THE COMPREHENSiVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED? MR. COOPER STATES THERE ARE TWO OF THEM- ONE WAS IN 1981,'AND ONE IN 1991. MR. FALKE MAKES A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT REGULARBOARD MEETING ON OCTOBER 20, 1994. THIS WILL BE ON THE AGENDA AS OLD BUSINESS. MR. MONSART SECONDED THE MOTION. A VOICE VOTE WAS MADE, ALL IN FAVOR. ADJOURN: MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05 P.M. susJ£cr TO r FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIP", AND OTHER LOCAC�UBLIC OFFICERS t.AST NAME -FIRST NAME -MIDDLE NAME TNAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE Fischer, Carl Anthony INC; ADDRESS j23 Cross Creek Circle CITY COUNTY Sebastian, FLorida Indian River DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED September 15th, 1994 WHO MUST Sebastian Planning and Zoning Board THE BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: X' CITY ' ' COUNTY I ! OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME: 01: POLII ICAL SUBDIVISION: None MY POSITION IS:�........_ This form is for use. by any person serving at the count, city, or oth council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to me with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statd the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encou V E XtPPOINTIVE 4 8fp" N level of gove nt I ig appointed or elected board, of advisory afon ory bodies who are presented &he,requirements �ts law are mandatory; although se it _ ' 'the disclosure required by law. . Your responsibilities under the lav when faced with a measure in which you have—at#ffi6t of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 442.3943, FLORIDA STATUTES .ECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • ou should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for ording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. (I 1 (IIt\1 x11 III•Rf, PAGE: I IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO-INFLLj`^'PE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY D1SCU fN OR VOTE AT THE MEETING: • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participa.,ng. • You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the' form in the minutes. - DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, Carl Anthony Fischer , hereby disclose that on September 15th , 19 94 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) X inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: , by whom I am retained. Indian River Tree Recycling & Mulch Facility came before the Board on a Special Use Permit to use Industrial zoned property for their facility. I am related to the company through family, being the operater of the company is my brother. I feel that the relationship prevents a conflict and enclose this.document in accordance with the rules of form 8B. September 26th, 1994 Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985),-A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION Ili'' SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. . CE FORM 8B - 10-86 PAGE 2