The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on September 19, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Ragsdale, The Church of Viera, Viera, Florida.

Chairman Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairman Higgs advised of the procedure to address the Board. She stated there are two time certain items on the Agenda; and the Board will proceed with the rest of the Agenda until it gets to those times and items.

REPORT, RE: JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OF COCOA

County Attorney Scott Knox stated at the last meeting the Board directed him to contact the City Attorney for the City of Cocoa regarding the water rates that are being charged to the County and the residents of Port St. John; he sent a memorandum to each Commissioner advising the City has not changed its 125% surcharge, and is reluctant to do that because of the bond covenants which require it to meet its coverage requirements; and if the City charged the 110% surcharge for those outside the City, it would have to raise rates inside the City. He stated the City is suing the Attorney General trying to seek a determination that the Special Act is unconstitutional; and although the City filed the suit, it has not served it yet. He stated at this time, the County is in the position of deciding if it wants to pursue this or not.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the options is the County could bring suit; with Mr. Knox advising the County could seek declaratory relief and injunction to try and stop the 125% surcharge. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is serious; he thought this was going to resolve itself; but the Legislature passed an Act, and people in other areas are supposedly protected by it. He stated it is never fun to get involved with litigation with a city; and the next step is to request a joint meeting with the City. Mr. Knox stated before filing any kind of suit, it is necessary to ask for a joint meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct the County Attorney to arrange a joint meeting with the City of Cocoa to discuss the legislation and rate issue.

Commissioner Cook stated Commissioner O'Brien took the lead on this; and the County tried to work with the City. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has not been rash. Commissioner Cook stated the County has been reasonable in trying to find out what the City's intentions are; and he supports the motion as the logical next step.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: BOARD AGENDA

Commissioner O'Brien requested the Board to note the Agenda before it; stated other than Public Hearings, Unfinished Business and one item in the back, it is wasted paper; he does not know how many were copied or printed; but it is ridiculous. He noted if there is nothing to be said for the topics, they should not be printed.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct that in the future if there are no items for Board consideration under a heading, those headings be deleted from the Agenda.

Commissioner Ellis advised the Agenda would have been two sheets of paper no matter what.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Clerk prepares the Agenda; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding that is correct. He advised they will delete headings for the night meetings, but not the regular day meetings. Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

AUTHORIZATION, RE: LETTER TO CITY OF ROCKLEDGE

Commissioner Cook requested authorization for the County Manager to send a letter to the City of Rockledge advising the County is considering divesting itself of the H. S. Williams House, and requesting input from the City whether it supports or does not support the project; and also have the County Attorney look at what would be required if the Board does decide to sell the property.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board may also want to remind the City that if the County does follow through and complete the project, any costs that are generated by the facility will be borne by Parks and Recreation and the Special Recreation District.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board is not taking a position, but he would like to put the City on notice.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there are any objections, and hearing none, directed the County Manager to send the letter.

DISCUSSION, RE: MOVING ITEMS ON AGENDA

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a personal appearance at the end of the Agenda dealing with on-site day care at the North Brevard Government Center; it does not require anything more than acknowledging the need to do a study; and he hates to see the individual have to sit through the whole wetland issue. Chairman Higgs stated the Board will try to move through as many items as possible; and she will be happy to move that on.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - LARRY BARTLEY, TITUSVILLE CITY COUNCILMAN, RE: DECISION '95 MY VOTE COUNTS

Larry Bartley, Titusville City Councilman, stated Decision '95 My Vote Counts is a joint project of the Florida League of Cities, Kids Voting Florida, and the Florida Institute of Government; and read aloud an excerpt from U.S.A. TODAY, dated September 7, 1995, entitled "Teens Believe in Community Involvement." He stated the City of Titusville is the only municipality in the County that has a Youth Advisory Council; this year in conjunction with Decision '95, on October 19, 1995, during Florida City Government Week, there will be Youth City Council Meeting; and suggested the Board consider holding something similar for the County Commission. He stated he presented this information to the other municipalities; and he plans on talking to the School Board on the same issue, which is getting the kids involved. He stated they will elect two members from each of the High Schools, with the Mayor coming from Titusville High School this year, and rotating on an ongoing basis; they will appoint the City Attorney, City Manager, Finance Director, etc.; and they will hold a public hearing. He stated the kids are involved at the federal level; the schools have elections on federal and state levels; but there is nothing at the County and City levels, which are the most important levels. He stated that is where the local legislation comes down to; and that is where the young people should become the most involved. He advised the book was a joint venture; it is a guideline; and enumerated the contents. He requested the Board consider formation of a youth council; and stated it is valuable to get the kids involved at this level because they are the ones who will be sitting on the Board tomorrow.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are high schools up and down the County; and inquired how does someone in Palm Bay High School know someone from Merritt Island High School. Mr. Bartley suggested it could be by District vote, the same as the Commissioners are elected; but he does not have all the answers. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about high schools in the same district, where the students may not know each other.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there are not only logistic problems, but also a cost to do this; this is an educational process; and the School Board should have to pay for it. He stated with the number of high schools in the County, they could not all become involved. Mr. Bartley suggested rotating through the schools. He advised the teachers will hold the elections; they are well versed in that because they have held elections in previous years; and it may be possible to form a youth council that could come up with an idea or recommendation on how to do it.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board can take this under advisement; and inquired if Mr. Bartley has approached the School Board; with Mr. Bartley responding not yet, but he will. Commissioner Cook stated that would be appropriate; in high school, he attended Boy's State and it was a great experience in government; and this bears consideration. Mr. Bartley recommended the Board at least form a youth council to recommend youth activities and input to the Board.

Chairman Higgs advised she has a young lady who is from Palm Bay High School on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; she is not only an advisor, but a voter; and she has done a great job. She requested the County Manager look at options to pursue this issue; and stated some of the other youth in government programs throughout the State have been effective. She stated the Board may be able to form some partnerships to do this.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to move the personal appearance of Lisa Cullen forward. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - LISA CULLEN, RE: ON-SITE DAY CARE FOR EMPLOYEES IN NORTH BREVARD GOVERNMENT CENTER

Lisa Cullen stated employees who have children or who are expecting children will face the issue of finding responsible child care; this issue is paramount to the children, their development, and the parents' well being; and County employees in the North Brevard area are interested in an on-site child care program. She stated the site could serve employees at the North Brevard Government Center, the Courthouse and the Parkway Complex; and an initial survey indicated a possible enrollment of 51 pre-school children. She stated parents of the children, who are also County employees, are not requesting an additional benefit; they are requesting child care that can be regulated under HRS guidelines and be open when needed; and the parents are willing to pay the going rate for day care. She stated she is representing a group which, while at work, seeks a safe, healthy environment for their children; and requested the Board consider appointing a committee to assess the issue and the feasibility for the County employees. She stated she recently spoke to a gentleman with the State Attorney's Office who will be moving to Viera when the Justice Center is completed; and they are also interested in on-site day care at the Viera Complex. She stated it is necessary to look at the future of the children and make this happen.

Commissioner Cook stated when the Government Center was opened, a survey was done; and the majority of employees did not request day care at the time. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated there was an initial expression of interest, but when it was time to come forward with cash to formalize it, there was not the demand to do it at that time. Commissioner Cook stated he is not opposed to having someone look at this issue; it would have to be a private franchise; the County should not be involved in running the day care; but instead of having a committee, the County Manager should look at the feasibility and report to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he met with some interested people at the North Brevard Government Center; Bill Anliker of the State Attorney's Office indicated some interest there; and the Board may want to do both areas simultaneously. He stated going out for an RFP would be the logical thing; and another question was whether other people could be taken in, but primarily the employees would have first right to the facility. He stated if the child care is at the workplace, there is less tendency for sick leave of the parents because they may bring a child in even though he or she may not be feeling well because they know they can check on them at lunch or something like that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct the County Manager to look into the feasibility of on-site child care centers for employees and report to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated the County Manager will prepare a report for the Board and it will see what the next step is from there.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE CREATING HABITAT ROAD CONSTRUCTION MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance creating the Habitat Road Construction Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU).

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to adopt Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida; creating the Habitat Road Construction Municipal Service Benefit Unit; incorporating the terms and provisions of Chapter 21, Article IV, and Ordinance 91-12, entitled "Municipal Service Benefit Units," to authorize the acquisition and construction of certain capital improvements within such improvement area and the imposition of non ad valorem assessments within such improvement area; and providing an effective date.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what happens if the estimated cost is exceeded, and is there a maximum on the MSBU. Jim Helmer, Public Works Finance Director, responded the final assessment roll can be adjusted upward or downward depending on the final cost of the project. Commissioner O'Brien stated on Merritt Island, on the S.R. 520 project, that was not included, and it went right through the roof.

Commissioner Cook stated he has the same concerns Commissioner O'Brien stated, that the Board does not get into the same situation it has a couple of times, and have the ability to correct that. He stated it says that staff has verified a survey that includes all 32 affected homeowners; and inquired if that was done by contacting the homeowners; with Mr. Helmer responding yes.

Chairman Higgs stated she will support the motion; but in the future she will not support this kind of MSBU. She stated this one has been in the mill for a long time; a lot of the preliminary work had been done prior to the Board establishing a policy saying it would not go into undeveloped areas; and she will support it because of the background work which was done prior to the Board setting a policy.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 95-40.)

CANCELLATION, RE: WATER WITHDRAWAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY SOUTH BREVARD WATER AUTHORITY

Chairman Higgs stated this item was tabled pending any information from the Cities of Melbourne or Palm Bay.

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer stated at the last meeting the Board directed staff to contact both Cities to see if they had interest in pursuing the applications; and copies of the letters to the Cities were provided to the Board. He stated both Henry Hill, City Manager of Melbourne, and Mike Abels, City Manager of Palm Bay, discussed this matter and indicated they did not feel the Cities would have any interest as there was no value to the permit applications to those Cities. He stated the South Florida Water Management District was uncertain whether anyone could pursue the applications, and it may be that only the County has a successor interest to the Water Authority. He stated although the City Managers and their staff have indicated their cities have no interest, that does not represent an official action by their City Councils; and if it is the Board's desire to hear from their City Councils, it will be necessary to wait a little longer before finalizing the action.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should wait because the Cities should make statements. He stated there may be a shortage of potable drinking water in the future; and rather than the Board wiping this out, one or two of the municipalities may decide in the next 30 days that it wishes to do something about this.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table discussion on cancellation of water withdrawal permit applications submitted by South Brevard water Authority for 30 days; and authorize the Chairman to send letters to the chief elected officials of the Cities to determine if they have an interest in pursuing the permits. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: RESOLUTION TO LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION CONCERNING FLORIDA DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SEBASTIAN INLET STATE PARK

Commissioner Cook stated he thought the County was opposing the commercial and retail aspects, but not the marina; and requested that be deleted. Chairman Higgs stated that is fine; and the two items of most concern were the retail and motel. She inquired does the Board wish to take out stabilized parking as it is not against that either. Commissioner Cook indicated agreement with the deletions.

Commissioner O'Brien stated competition in business is good and is healthy; here is an opportunity where a park can be improved tremendously; the local hotels have a regular list of customers anyhow; people at the park will mostly be camping, not "hoteling"; and he is not sure the Board is not doing the wrong thing. He stated if the Board votes in favor of this, there would be slight competition with the nearby stores, and government is not to be in competition with private industry; but just by doing so, the side effect is that more people come to the area, resulting in the hotels being more full and more business for the local stores.

Commissioner Ellis stated competition is good, but the government has laid an unfair burden on the existing businesses with the pre-existing use clause. He stated all the South Beaches businesses have been put in a non-conforming status; and under pre-existing use, they are limited to 15% expansion. He stated those businesses have already been artificially constrained by the government; he would not care what was done at Sebastian if the businesses could also do whatever they needed to do to also compete; but the problem the businesses have is that they cannot make any upgrades to compete; and that is unfair. Commissioner O'Brien stated the change is the basic premise that competition itself is healthy and good. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is the case, why does the County have all the restrictions on the businesses down there. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not arguing about that; he is arguing about Sebastian. Commissioner Ellis stated his point is the County has already artificially restricted competition by putting the businesses in non-conforming use which cuts back on their expansion capability. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that changes the premise that competition is good.

Chairman Higgs stated what is important in this case is the land the facilities are going to be built on is owned by the citizens of the State of Florida; there is no investment by the concessionaire in that land; and it is inherently unfair for a concessionaire to be allowed to build a cabin to re-open a retail store when the playing field is extremely unlevel to start with. She stated the Comprehensive Plan would not have this consistent in terms of building additional units and additional retail there; the use of the inlet and the thirteen acres can most benefit the public with the use of the land for camping and picnicking, and the use of the waterfront facilities that are there; but she does not believe the general public is served by cabins and retail, nor do the existing businesses feel it is a reasonable or wise use.

Commissioner Ellis stated when a "mom and pop" motel came to the Board asking for four additional units on a five-unit motel, it was turned down; and if the Board is not going to allow a five-unit motel to expand to nine units, he does not understand how the County can allow the State to come in and put twelve units in. He stated that is an unfair advantage to the State.

Commissioner Cook stated a marina in the area would be an asset for the recreational use of that area; and he has no problem with that. Chairman Higgs noted the marina exists. Commissioner Cook stated if the desire is to expand or in any way enhance it, that is a good idea, because that is a waterfront park which gets a lot of usage. He stated his concern is on the retail level if it is going to compete with private enterprise in that area. Commissioner Ellis reiterated private enterprise cannot upgrade; and the State is going to come in a build a nice, brand new, big store, which private enterprise is forbidden to do. Commissioner O'Brien stated at the airport, a hot dog costs $3.50, and downtown it is $1.25; and the reason is that anyone who operates any retail store, marina, etc. on those kinds of lands has to bid and share the profits. Chairman Higgs stated this is not going to be bid. Commissioner Ellis stated this is just going to be an award with no bidding process involved. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how can he get a permit to operate the store himself. Chairman Higgs stated she does not know, but she wanted one too. Commissioner O'Brien advised of his experience in bidding for operation of the bait and tackle shop at Sebastian Inlet. Chairman Higgs stated in this case, the State is going to award the facilities to the existing concessionaire based on the fact that he has a ten-year contract for the concession that is in the current park. She stated she has serious problems with that; and it is not the way she would handle it.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Resolution amended to delete the marina and the stabilized parking.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested the Resolution address the manner in which this is being bid because sometimes the State ignores the County's Resolutions; and the more that is said, the better it is. He stated the County is making a point that this is being awarded to the existing concessionaire and this is not the way the County wishes to see the process proceed.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Commissioner Scarborough would like something included to oppose the fact it is not going to be put to competitive bid; with Commissioner Scarborough responding affirmatively. Commissioner Cook stated he will include that in the motion; Chairman Higgs stated she will include that in her second. Chairman Higgs stated the competitive bid provision will be added to the language.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion, as amended. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

DISCUSSION, RE: TOWN OF MALABAR'S PENDING LITIGATION ON IMPACT FEES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ATZ ROAD

Rick Torpy, Attorney for Town of Malabar, stated with him this evening are the Chairperson of the Town of Malabar Yovone Rasor, and the Town Administrator Bill Hall. He stated County staff was directed to meet with Mr. Hall and Town staff to try and reconcile differences; the proposal that County Manager Tom Jenkins and County staff made was to pave the road in question; the estimated cost to the Town was approximately $150,000; and the County offered to pave the road for $124,000, representing a $26,000 savings to the Town. He stated the Town Council believes that proposal to be unacceptable for a couple of reasons. He explained the Town stockpiles money to build roads; a project is planned, but it might take two years to get the money together to actually build it; and funds were designated for that purpose. He noted sometimes it might shift from one road to another. He stated the other reason is that the dollar amount is not acceptable for the Town as far as the savings; $24,000 is a far cry from $70,000 that the Town feels it is entitled to from impact fees; and that is where it stands at this point. He stated he has been given certain level of authority as far as what the Town will accept; and he is not sure how the Board wishes to proceed at this time.

Commissioner Ellis stated he thought the Town's position was that it wanted to get the road paved. Mr. Torpy stated that is correct; the Town does want to get the road paved; and the money the Town budgeted, approximately $70,000, was going toward paving that road; but the Town is not actually prepared to put the pavement down this year, and may roll it to next year and use the combined funds to do the paving project. He stated the goal is to pave the road; but the question is when they actually have the total funds together to do it; and it is $150,000 project. Commissioner Ellis stated the County can do it for $125,000; and inquired where is the disagreement. Mr. Torpy stated there are two points; if the County holds that position open until the Town is ready, that would take care of the one issue; and the second issue is that the $25,000 is not the $70,000 the Town was expecting from the County as contribution toward paving that road. He noted it is approximately $45,000 apart. Commissioner Ellis stated the County's proposal is $43,000; and inquired if that is not correct; with Chairman Higgs responding no.

Mr. Jenkins advised the original concept was that the Town had estimated the cost of designing and building the road to be $147,000; and the plan to pay for the road was the $61,000 from impact fees from Data Management, $20,000 in accrued impact fees, and then finding a way to borrow the money or accumulate additional impact fees in the coming year or so to come up with the additional $66,000 to fund the total project. He stated Road and Bridge estimates it can design and build the road for approximately $125,000; and if Malabar continues to use its $20,000 in accumulated impact fees and continues to anticipate accumulating future impact fees or borrowing $66,000 from some other source on an interim basis, that would leave an unfunded balance of $43,000. He stated for the Town to build the road, the County would have to come up with the $43,000; and there is $18,500 in the impact fee district for Malabar Road which is the balance in the account currently.

Commissioner Cook stated even if the County embarked on this, there is not the money to make up the difference. Mr. Torpy advised the Town does not have the money this year; but with the commitment from the County for the approximate $43,000 to $45,000, the Town could count on that when it is ready to build the road.

Chairman Higgs inquired if anyone else from the Town of Malabar wishes to speak tonight; with Mr. Torpy responding no.

Commissioner Ellis stated $18,000 in impact fees and $25,000 from the gas tax revenue would give the $43,000 unfunded balance to pave the road; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is correct. Commissioner Ellis inquired if all Malabar is looking for is to get the road paved.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the allocation of the impact fees to this project does not usually go through the MPO, CAC or TAC. Mr. Jenkins stated there is a local advisory committee for each one of the impact fee districts; and in this case, the Town of Malabar is probably the key member of that committee, so it is probably more of a formality at this point. Chairman Higgs inquired who is on the Impact Fee Committee; with Mr. Jenkins responding County staff and the municipal officials from that particular district. Commissioner Ellis stated that would only be Malabar. Chairman Higgs inquired who is on the Committee, what would be the normal process for allocating the $18,000 and how long would it take, and what does that do to the Malabar Road Project. Growth Management Director Sue Hann responded the members of the Committee are the County and the Town of Malabar in Impact Fee District 7; and Palm Bay sits on it in an advisory capacity. Ms. Hann stated the normal process for allocating is once a year there is a Technical Advisory Committee meeting for each Impact Fee District; at that meeting, the members of the TAC make recommendations that are forwarded to the Board; normally the meetings are done following the close of the fiscal year; however at the last Advisory Committee meeting approximately a year ago, there was a recommendation to allow the Town of Malabar to receive funds through FY 1996 for the paving of Hall, Atz and Marie Streets; and the Board approved that recommendation. She stated the Board has already allowed the funds that are accumulating from the incorporated area to pass to the Town of Malabar through a disbursement agreement at the appropriate time. Mr. Jenkins stated nothing precludes a meeting being scheduled between Malabar and County staff if that is the desire of the Board. Ms. Hann advised that could be done at any time. Chairman Higgs inquired about the impact to the Malabar Road project if the $18,000 is taken away. Ms. Hann stated what has been accomplished in District 7 is that the unincorporated impact fees have been allocated toward Malabar Road, and those that are collected in the incorporated area of the Town of Malabar have been allocated to the Town for paving of Hall, Atz and Marie Streets. Chairman Higgs inquired where the $18,503 balance comes from; with Ms. Hann responding the $18,000 is probably the current balance in the account of impact fees that have been collected in the Town of Malabar; and those would be allocated toward Malabar projects.

Commissioner Cook inquired how much in-kind and monetary value would the County be giving Malabar; with Mr. Jenkins responding the County would be doing it at cost which would be $125,000. Commissioner Cook stated what is in dispute is the $61,000 in impact fees which the Town would have otherwise received. Mr. Jenkins advised that is correct, but because the County is doing it for $25,000 less than the original estimate, that $61,000 deficit becomes a $43,000 deficit. Chairman Higgs inquired if the County would allocate, in addition to the County's Public Works Department doing the work, the $18,000 plus $25,000 from gas tax. She inquired where would the $25,000 normally go. Ms. Hann stated Ms. Raymond of Public Works advised her that the balance of impact fees for the Malabar Road project is currently at $919,000; and perhaps there could be a loan from those impact fees, but she has not researched the question. Mr. Jenkins stated Chairman Higgs was referring to gas tax. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board took Commissioner Ellis's recommendation to get the money from gas tax, who would be getting the short end. Ms. Hann responded it would have to come from an already programmed project or program. Commissioner Ellis inquired if gas tax is coming in right at last year's budget; with Ms. Hann responding she is not sure; she is not monitoring those fees. Commissioner Ellis stated under the gas tax revenue, if it is running ahead of what is budgeted, there would be a surplus in the gas tax. Mr. Jenkins stated they are coming in ahead of what was budgeted. Commissioner Cook stated his concern is settling a $61,000 lawsuit for $125,000; and that is what he does not want to do. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board is not doing that; with Chairman Higgs agreeing that is not what it is doing. Commissioner Cook stated monetary and in-kind what the County owes the Town is $61,000; and he does not want to divert money from other projects to make up the difference. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not what would be done; it would be settling for $61,000; and the unfunded balance should be $39,000 not $43,000.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to say the County owes the $61,000; the County and the Town are trying to work this out as neighbors; and if the Board is discussing settling a lawsuit, it is a different situation.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to authorize applying $18,000 in impact fees to the project on Atz Road, making up the difference to $39,000 from gasoline tax revenue, with the money to be escrowed until the Town of Malabar has the remaining funds for Public Works to pave Atz Road at $125,000.

Commissioner Cook inquired what would be the total County contribution; with Commissioner Ellis responding $39,000, $18,000 in impact fees and $21,000 in gas tax funds. Commissioner Cook inquired if that includes all work done; with Commissioner Ellis responding yes. Mr. Jenkins stated those funds will pay the cost of the project. Commissioner Ellis stated that would be escrowed until the Town of Malabar is ready with its portion.

Chairman Higgs seconded the motion.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the motion will be acceptable to the Town. Mr. Torpy stated his understanding of the motion is the County will agree to pave the road for $125,000 when the Town is ready, and the County will supplement the $39,000 or $43,000 from impact fees or gas tax. Commissioner Ellis stated the Town's cost would be $86,000; and the County will do the project. Mr. Torpy stated he believes that will be acceptable to the Town Council. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Town's contribution will be $86,000; with Malabar Town Administrator Bill Hall responding it is approximately that amount. Mr. Hall advised the Town is not necessarily prepared to do this in this fiscal year, but as long as the Town has the commitment from the County, it is fine to move ahead. Chairman Higgs noted the County also has a top side on the County's contribution; and the Town needs to understand that if the $125,000 changes or if it waits ten years to do the project resulting in higher projects costs, the County is not ready to assume the rest. Mr. Hall inquired about the gas tax; with Commissioner Ellis responding the County has a portion of the gas tax. Mr. Hall stated inquired if it will inhibit any of the gas tax that is now allocated for Malabar; with Commissioner Ellis advising it will not; and it will come from the County's portion of the gas tax. Mr. Hall stated he is sure this would be an acceptable proposal to his Town Council because it gets it where it wants to be.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Hall thanked the Board on behalf of the Town of Malabar.

CONTRACT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, RE: FY 1995-96 COOPERATIVE AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to execute Contract with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program, providing for reimbursement to the County of $30,389.70 in FY 1995-96. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 6:23 p.m. and reconvened at 6:34 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: APPROVING 1995B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the 1995B Comprehensive Plan amendments for transmittal to Department of Community Affairs. She stated most of the audience is here in interest of the Plan amendment dealing with the wetlands issues; they have been through a number of hearings; and the recommendations on those issues are coming before the Board tonight. She advised of the procedure and time constraints to address the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated everyone has a right to speak; but encouraged those speakers who agree with previous speakers to so state rather than making a lengthy presentation.

Carl Signorelli, 5780 Eagle Way, Merritt Island, stated in the People's Contract for America, the people voted for less government, less duplication of bureaucracy, less control, less regulation, and streamlining of government to make it more efficient and less costly. He stated he favors the County relinquishing any control over the wetland management; it results in knocking down another costly wall of rules and regulations that is being duplicated by other agencies; and it is not eliminating wetlands, but duplication of control.

Centi Thomson, 4330 Peppertree Street, Cocoa, stated she is against duplication of efforts; and she is for the elimination of the local work. She stated the State Departments will look out for the wetlands, and that is sufficient. Diana Milliken, 1040 West Highland Drive, Cocoa, stated she agrees with Mr. Signorelli and Ms. Thomson.

Jean Cantwell, 402 Rio Palma South, Indialantic, stated she does not agree with the first three speakers; there is a need for regulation of development; and without regulation, there will be another Palm Bay with overdevelopment, underfinancing, and breakdown of infrastructure service. She stated if the majority agrees with her opinion that development must be regulated, then it should be regulated on a local level with local input. She stated it should be regulated where local infrastructure needs are known and where concerns for quality of life can be voiced and discussed. She stated Brevard residents must have a say in what happens or does not happen in the County; and that forum should be local and easily accessible to residents. She inquired if developers would prefer to put distance between their activities and the local residents; and stated without Brevard resident knowledge and input, the County will suffer. She stated quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, quality of water, and quality of services are all interconnected and hinge on preservation and conservation of our remaining natural resources. She stated development can be good when coupled with foresight and planning; development will be bad if it is not regulated or if it is regulated from a distance by only one or two agencies; and maintaining local control of wetland policies demonstrates foresight and is crucial to future planning for Brevard County and its residents.

Donald Davis, 2625 Grant Road, Grant, advised recently an article in the newspaper stated that as recently as twenty-five years ago, this area was considered a stinking, mosquito infested area; and as far as the mosquitoes are concerned, he agrees there has been no change. He stated in 1989 he purchased property in Grant; in February, 1994, he hired a builder to build his home; he applied for and received all required permits including a clearing permit; and he proceeded to clear the property leaving as much vegetation as possible. He stated two months later, he received a phone call from an individual associated with the State Department of Environmental Protection, advising he had destroyed wetland property, and if he did not comply with the restoration request within 30 days, he would be fined $10,000 a day thereafter. He stated he was never advised by the County, the bank, title company, or realtor that a portion of the property was designated wetlands; and if he had known or had been advised of this fact, he would have sold the property and moved on. He stated the situation has depressed he and his wife, not to mention the financial burden it has placed on his retirement income. He stated if the County is going to be in the environmental protection business, it should protect the environment and the people who are purchasing property in these areas from such a devastating situation. He recommended the County not allow people to spend a portion of their life savings to buy property and then after the fact, advise the property is wetlands and they cannot build on it, or that the use of the property is severely restricted. He stated if the County is going to stay in the regulation business, it should do it right. He stated his builder applied for and received his building permits; he knew that his plans had been approved by County engineers, and he could proceed; when he applied for the clearing permit, he advised the County of the existing trees and vegetation; and the County approved the clearing request. He stated there was no mention that the back half of his property could not be touched because it was wetlands. He stated if the County cannot issue permits to clear property with clear indications of possible restrictions, it should get out of the environmental protection business and let the State issue the permits. He noted he realizes it does not cover all the environmental problems, but to some degree it addresses individual property owners' problems in this area. He stated in Grant, the County is going to have a lot of problems when the people who own the property behind him find out they cannot do anything with their property, but the County is collecting taxes on the property.

Graydon Corn, 3690 Aurantia Road, Mims, expressed sympathy for Mr. Davis; and stated he agrees with the amendment for the County to take itself out of regulation of the wetlands. He stated it will lessen the potential for the Board and the staff to be involved in litigation for violations of citizens' property rights; those rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution; and one of these days someone like the previous speaker will have enough money to get a chunk out of each Commissioner individually. He stated remedies are available through civil and criminal court for violating protected rights; and there are two lawyers on the Board who should know that. He stated the Commissioners swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States when they took office; and this is a good time to start by getting out of the regulation of wetlands which is a duplication anyway. He stated the government's only legal alternative to someone's property is to exercise its authority through the procedures of eminent domain, condemnation and purchase of the property if it is for public benefit. He stated otherwise the County has no authority to do the things to the people that it is doing.

H. L. Clark, 3700 North Riverside Drive, Indialantic, stated he would like to see the amendment passed to streamline government. He stated he does not want to see that issue fogged by talk about losing the wetlands; there are other agencies that will protect them; and this is an attempt to get back to the basics. He stated it is time to get back to government of the people instead of government by the bureaucrats; and it is time to make government more user friendly. He stated there is a great groundswell for this; there is a lot of hostility as to what is known as greedy developers; the gentleman who just spoke is not a greedy developer; he is just a homeowner who wanted to have his own piece of Florida; and he has no problem with that. He inquired if the quality of life for human beings better now than it was 50 to 75 years ago. He stated a hospital or road is built habitat is lost; it is a trade off; and people come first. He stated the Board needs to get back to that premise; and the County can do well without duplicating the effort, which is not to say the County is going to throw the environmental movement in a cocked hat, because it is not.

Norma Savell, 3500 South Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, President of Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, stated she is scheduled to speak at United We Stand tonight, but was given special dispensation to be here for this important vote, as United We Stands is also very concerned about the outcome. She stated she and her family are environmentalists; one of her ancestors is James Fennimore Cooper; and she read that he is considered the first environmental author. She stated for generations they have cared for whatever patch of ground God has provided them with; they were there long before the Johnny and Julie Jump-ups of today who say only they are qualified to care for their property; and most members of CCPR have assured her that they also love nature. She stated they are a group of environmentalists, but they are not Socialists. Ms. Savell stated as environmentalists they draw the line at taking property belonging to others; first there was carjacking, then housejacking, and now propertyjacking, performed by government and environmentalists riding in tandem over Americans. She stated the local newspaper advises citizens advisory groups have disagreed with the Board's decision regarding wetlands and Brevard County's Department of Natural Resources; as usual they did not finish the story by telling that such groups are environmentally loaded; and then the newspaper added the threat of lawsuits. She stated CCPR's response is to use their tax dollars to fight the bullies who threaten, otherwise the threats will never end; and it is cheaper that way. She stated she knows the eco-groups are present and ready to give the worn out line about the bulldozers clearing the land; and she can smell the diesel fuel already. She stated it did happen years ago through the space buildup; she can remember reading about families living in large culverts and in their cars because there was no housing; but that was a different time and situation. She stated no one truly believes that bulldozers can do that today with the mindset that government has of no growth. She stated Brevard County's government is schizophrenic; supposedly it wants jobs and new business for the area; but it is unable to give up its true anti-growth attitudes. She inquired who would want to come here for this grief; and stated voters are weary of electing the best choices available only to find the same no-help situation after the newly elected get in office. She stated there are four Republicans on the Board; there should be a four to one vote on issues important to the conservatives who elected them; the Commissioners will differ occasionally; but the people have the right to expect relief from regulations, and excess government which the Commissioners know the citizens across the country have demanded. She stated since the two newest Commissioners have taken their seats, the freshman U.S. Congressman have enacted the Contract with America; and in the same time frame, Brevardians have had a few impact fees reduced, but there has been no relief from regulations or agency cut back. She stated the people do not want to hear the comments about how the Board feels the pain of the people before it votes against them again; and the Commissioners' votes are the only things which count.

F. N. Harris, 250 Park Avenue, stated he would like to address the real issue of dollars and cents; he is involved with environmental remediation; and he knows the state and federal government will not be able to attend to the manner and amount of environmental regulatory agreements and ordinances that will take place when there is no intermediary mediation agency like Natural Resources in place with Policy 5.2 taking into consideration, discharge, recharge areas, wildlife habitats, and a complete comprehensive oversight of small homeowners, etc. He stated there is a sensitive aquifer; he sees any alternatives to the dissolution of options for wetland policies as covered under C in Policy 5.2; and the alternatives will be more mitigation, more wetland restoration, more wetland replacement, more wetland enhancement, and monetary compensation which will cost the County a tremendous amount of money. He stated it is not going to happen; the state and federal regulatory agencies are understaffed; and if the Board thinks there are enough people to come to the County to attend to these problems without an intermediary agency in place, he does not know who it is kidding. He stated they are all aware there is a problem; they are aware that the honorable thing to do is to have professionals consulting; and if there is a problem in the way professionals consult relative to redundancy, that problem needs to be addressed; but the Board will not solve the problem by sweeping it under the carpet, and getting rid of an agency that is in place to help. He stated that is what professional environmentalists do; the County should not get rid of them; and they constitute accountability. Mr. Harris stated if there is no accountability, the people are going to suffer in the long run; this is his profession; and he knows this for a fact. He stated many environmentalists are here, and are concerned; and the problem will not go away with a four to one vote against the current regulation. He stated it will come up again and again. He stated there are many people present who are more informed than he is.

Norma Zadams, 801 South Brevard Avenue, Cocoa Beach, inquired if the Board has considered the precedent it might be establishing by eliminating the wetland policies from the Comprehensive Plan. She stated in the future anyone who is not happy with the decision they get from the County could resort to some outlandish actions and have the Planning Department removed from the Comprehensive Plan. She stated people all over the country have wanted home rule; with this in the Comprehensive Plan, there is home rule; and there is an old saying, "Nobody handles your money like you do." She stated that can be converted to nobody can handle the wetlands like we can; and if there is a duplication in the Ordinances or laws, they should be rewritten so there are no duplications.

Harry Fuller, 424 Dorset Drive, Cocoa Beach, representing the Space Coast Builders Association, stated the Association has a position on this because it only wants to have to jump through one hoop instead of four; so it supports the elimination of the Wetlands Element. He stated he represents the people with all the bulldozers who go around cutting everything down, which is not what they do in this day and time. He stated he did not see anything in the data he received relative to how the BCAC voted; and he guesses they voted unanimously to eliminate the Element. He stated there are people who want it and people who do not want it; the people who want the Element obviously want another hoop to jump through because that is a detriment to any kind of taking of habitat or wetlands; and the people who vote to get rid of it are obviously the people that have to jump through the hoops, and are tired of doing it. He stated three hoops is enough; and four is not required. He stated people often ask why America cannot outproduce Japan; and suggested finding out if Japan requires industry to jump through four hoops instead of just one. He stated America cannot compete with Japan because of things it is doing to itself in terms of more control than is needed. He stated California is losing its industrial base because it has so many hoops to jump through that it is hard to do business there; and if someone moves across the border to New Mexico, half of the requirements are dropped. He stated a state or county can kill the goose that laid the golden egg if it keeps loading up society with more and more requirements that are not necessary; and this is a case of that. He stated they wondered about turning the operation and overseeing of the wetlands over to the County; it was agreed that the letter would be written; but he does now know what happened to that letter or what the response was. He stated he is associated with the manatee and Citizens for Florida Waterways; they keep tabs on what is going on at that level involving the manatee; and the County should not believe if it gives up, that the issue will go away because right now in Tallahassee the people who concern themselves with manatees are really about to try to stretch their bureaucratic control further to save the manatee. He stated the State is looking at the possibility of permitting property that drains into the river because it is felt anything that is on the uplands and drains into the estuaries and rivers where manatees are also affects the health of the manatee. He stated the bureaucracy is not going away; if the Board gets rid of this, four more will come; and one will be the manatee permit. He requested the Board do something as far as eliminating multiple control of government in this area.

Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Jenkins did provide the Board with a memorandum on that subject; and when the speakers are finished, he will provide a synopsis.

Jackie White, 6 St. Johns Street, Titusville, stated when the well is dry, then people will know the worth of water; Benjamin Franklin quoted those prophetic words 250 years ago; and when the well is dry, the value of water will be apparent even to the landowner who is not yet wise enough to know that his wetland is a treasure. She stated the wetland is refilling the aquifer; this year the whole world is facing a critical shortage of clean, fresh water; it comes from the ocean in the form or rain, running back down creeks, rivers, etc., back into the ocean; but some of that previous rainfall gets caught in little pockets in low spots referred to as wetlands. She stated the fresh water percolates through the ground cleansing itself of impurities on its way to the aquifer; and if the aquifer is lost, she does not know what the County will do. She inquired if the County will beg Osceola County or Orange County for water, or will it clutter the beach with desalinization plants, and does the Board know how much a desalinization plant costs. She requested the Board not change the Wetlands Comprehensive Plan, but make it stronger; the people of Brevard County know that the wetlands replenish the aquifer; and they cannot live without fresh water.

Charles Goodrich, 1804 Pine Street, Melbourne Beach, stated he works at Kennedy Space Center with 25 engineers in robotics and computer science; most of them are constituents of Commissioner Scarborough and Commissioner O'Brien; but all are concerned about jobs. He stated the issue before the Board is more than just wetlands; it is how to preserve and protect jobs within the County; and the number one way to do this is to create a favorable business climate. He stated the best way to do that is to eliminate duplicative and unnecessary red tape and regulations. He stated government likes to create regulations and red tape; but if a layer of regulations can be eliminated, some of the hassles that local business needs to go through to expand or move into the area can be eliminated. He stated it is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of this issue; the situation regarding jobs is going to get much worse over the next twelve months; NASA is planning to reduce its workforce at KSC from 2,500 to 1,000 within three years; and a lot of the people who work with him are concerned about what they are going to do for work. He stated he is also concerned about his children and what the future holds for jobs within the County; and the County needs to send a message to the rest of the country that this area does not want unnecessary red tape or duplicative regulations, and is willing to create a favorable business climate that will be able to provide jobs for ourselves and our children.

Priscilla Griffith, 6414 South Drive, Melbourne Village, representing the League of Women Voters, requested the Board reconsider its decision of April 18, 1995 regarding the elimination of the wetlands provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated one of the lessons that should have been learned from Hurricane Erin is that the County has not managed its wetland resources so as to minimize damage from flood waters; too many wetlands have been filled in and drained in Brevard County; and this is a time to consider the County's future in terms of the safety of its citizens and their property, sustainable development, and environmental viability. She stated those three elements are interrelated; and the preservation of wetlands is essential to all three. She stated one of the prime reasons people move to the County is to enjoy a lifestyle that is sustained by the wetlands, which some interests want to manipulate and destroy; and recommended rather than collaborating with those who would destroy wetlands, the County needs to face up to its local control responsibilities and continue protection of wetlands from inappropriate development as spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Griffith stated if the right thing is not done, the present and future citizens will pay for this negligence; and recommended the Board exercise local control and act in the best interest of all Brevard County's present and future residents, keeping the current wetland provisions in the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.

Martin Lamb, 2034 Adams Avenue, Melbourne, stated "God bless America, the home of the free and the brave" is what has been said; and the people are no longer as free as they have been, but they are again becoming brave. He stated some people are here to see that there is not the duplication of the process of the wetlands protection; it is obviously being protected by other regulatory agencies other than the County; and as the County experienced a problem during Hurricane Erin because too many wetlands have been filled in, it has obviously not done that job that the people are paying to have done by the County. He stated Brevard County is not doing the job; that is why there is the problem here; and the County needs to let the other persons do it that are being paid for it. He stated they need to get a break as taxpayers; and the issue is not wetlands or wetlands protection, it is duplication of regulatory agencies. He stated Mr. Harris advised he is a professional environmentalist; and if the change was made today, he might not have his job. He recommended the Board protect the people of Brevard County, and not a special interest group which would like to protect its jobs as professional environmentalists.

Carroll Holland, 253 Merritt Square, Merritt Island, stated only the County has control of land use; the other regulatory agencies do not control land use; they just control wetlands; and protection has to be done by the County and no one else. He stated wetlands do protect from flooding and as Hurricane Erin has shown, there are lots of flooding problems when there are bad rain conditions. He stated it is a known fact that global ocean currents are up a degree and a half centigrade and are expected to rise, which means there will be more storms and more flooding; if the Board does away with the Comprehensive Plan controlling wetlands, there will be serious flooding difficulties; there are a lot of places in the County today which have been built; and there are special operations which have to be done each time it rains heavily. He stated it is time to consider the fact that the wetlands will act as a reservoir for the flood waters. He stated there are only two main drainage areas in the County, both in South Brevard, the C-54 and Sottile Canals; and if there is to be a lot of overflow and runoff from wetlands areas because they have been filled in, there will be silt and erosion problems throughout the County.

Chairman Higgs advised Kim Zarillo left a letter; and read aloud as follow:

Let us consider the undoing of environmental protection in Brevard County for what it is, politics as usual. The good old boys never really left office. I say what about the rest of Brevard citizens? What kind of consumer protection will unknowing land buyers have? It is the Commissioners' job to protect the citizens of Brevard County. The citizens have a right to community vision through the Comprehensive Plan. Once that is removed, the community loses. Changing the Comprehensive Plan to eliminate wetland protection for any special group, residential or commercial, affects all of us. We lost local control. We suffer the pollution, storm water flooding, and poor water quality. I may be just a citizen with no political insight, but I ask that you stop caving into the good old boy demands and cater to the citizens. Rita Karpie, 310 First Avenue, Melbourne Beach, stated she is a professional professor, so her job is not in jeopardy at the moment. She stated the population has increased; she does not believe the County is in a non-growth mode; and there are distinct responsibilities inherent for local government in a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which she is not willing to see deferred to the State. She noted Tallahassee is a long way from Brevard; she lives in the County; she has property; she has property rights; and she pays taxes. She stated deferring the County's responsibility for proper planning and usage to the State is not appropriate; the people need to use the land in a way that they feel is appropriate to life in Brevard County; and that includes all of the environmental, economic, and other considerations. She stated by deleting mentions of wetlands, the County is reneging on its responsibility, not just to wetlands, but to the community. She stated the State is busy dealing with things like more jails versus more schools; it does not have time for Brevard County wetlands, or the difference between stormwater runoff and aquifer recharging; this is in our back yard; and the County needs to take care of it. She stated the proposed amendment will not meet the needs of the County, immediately or in the future; the County needs to address a definition of density; and it has to address procedures, and the types of usage felt to be acceptable.

Valerie Scott, 3695 Grant Road, Grant, stated she is a professional environmentalist, but does not get paid; and she has suffered threats and intimidation tactics because of her beliefs. She stated she is wearing the color of the Roseate Spoonbills; and she hopes the Board will remember these birds in its decision tonight. She exhibited photographs; and stated they are of her property in Grant on what is considered by developers as insignificant, intermittent wetlands. She stated this year, as a result of encroaching development, only three of the birds have arrived where there were fifteen to twenty last year. She stated in spite of regulations now in existence, wildlife and the lagoon are being threatened by ongoing development, and wetlands violations are being perpetrated on a daily basis. She stated they are just beginning to make a dent in the lagoon pollution; they need more, not less regulation and tighter controls; and recommended the Board not let a rush to judgment set the County back forever in wildlife preservation and pollution control.

John Jerard, P. O. Box 541113, Merritt Island, stated he is against the duplication because it infringes on property rights. He advised of the experiences of his client whose family was destroyed in Nazi Germany and who escaped to the United States. He stated his client, with his partners, developed their property except for 120 acres which he left for his old age and his children's security; about seven years ago, his son and his wife died; and he decided to get into development again and use the 120 acres. He stated he was forced to put a culvert in to tie it into the St. Johns River overflow; it flooded 80 of his acres; and he could not use his property. He advised of problems in trying to sell the property. He stated he got involved with this five months ago; he was told when he went to St. Johns River Water Management District that it did not say the land could not be used, but that it could not be used for fish farms, etc. because it changes the character of the property; and it advised the owner could mitigate or pay cash. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District advised the owner could go to Palatka and have the District buy the property; but the District determined the property was too cumbersome to manage and the owner should either give the property to the District or keep paying the taxes on it. Mr. Jerard stated the abuses are overwhelming. He stated he went to Senator Bronson who talked to Henry Dean; they checked the property; and they advised out of the 80 acres, at least 60 or 70% could be used, not 20 or 30%. He stated the people in the same department cannot agree on what wetlands are; he attended a meeting in Palm Bay on wetlands; and nobody could define what a wetland is. He recommended the County define "wetland" and give the people back their property rights.

Bob Brown, 225 East Myles Drive, Melbourne, stated he is not in agreement with the last speaker; and no matter what anyone wants to do, there are regulations. He stated he is a businessman with several properties in Brevard County; he spends close to $20,000 a year in taxes; he has property rights as well; and so do the other environmental people who are present. He stated they do not see the County's strict involvement in the wetlands issue going in a different direction from their property rights because they want to be regulated on this important thing. He stated this is dollars and cents; when it is time to get the State or federal government to get involved in this, they are not going to be here; and people are needed in Brevard County who can look at things and analyze them for the County's citizens. He requested each Commissioner give consideration to what the people are talking about. He stated they want to regulate the wetlands; they do not want to give it to the federal or State government and beg them to come down to get issues resolved; and they want to do it locally. He stated Ms. Broussard advised the County deals with planning in wetlands, not permitting, and to take the planning process out is not to allow them to get into the middle of it; and the people want to be part of the planning and part of the permitting system on the local level.

Fred Robitschek, 560 Teakwood Avenue, Satellite Beach, speaking for the Board of Supervisors of the Brevard Soil and Water Conservation District, stated the Board of Supervisors tries to operate on a non-partisan basis; and it has avoided taking a record vote for or against this amendment. He stated they thought the most useful thing they could do for the Commission would be to make constructive suggestions about what the County should be doing in the area of balanced growth, management, and environmental protection. He read aloud a letter from the Board of Supervisors, as follows:

The Brevard Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors wishes to commend the Brevard County Commissioners for their recent interest in improved flood control. We believe that a reasonable balance can and must be struck between improving drainage and providing adequate protection for our citizens quality of life and for Brevard's natural resources. We offer the following ideas for your consideration. First idea, develop a scientific Countywide flooding potential rating code and mandate its application by public notice to all new construction. Second idea, review the adequacy of existing construction methods and building codes for all housing and septic tank designs and systems to handle hurricane and flood conditions. Where necessary, tighten up the requirements. Third idea, reassess the adequacy and impact of existing criteria used to plan and approve new construction and developments in flood prone areas. Fourth idea, request an assessment from the St. Johns River Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of the future need for a flood control project in Central Brevard, similar to the Upper St. Johns marsh restoration project. If construction codes and drainage system requirements, as well as approval criteria for housing developments in obviously flood prone areas were made more stringent, all Brevardians would be much better off. In addition to seeking to improve flood drainage, please consider new ways to plan more effectively for a better and safer County. The Brevard Soil and Water Conservation District's Board and the Natural Resources Conservation Service staff, these are federal biologists, stand ready to lend you their support through technical expertise in planning for tomorrow.

Mr. Robitschek stated he made his presentation as the Vice Chairman of the Soil and Water Conservation Board; and requested an additional three minutes to speak as a private citizen.

Hearing no objection, Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Robitschek has three additional minutes to speak.

Mr. Robitschek stated there are three reasons why the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is not a good idea; the first has to do with money; if the amendment goes through, there will be more development in flood prone areas; and when it rains, more people will get flooded out. He stated when that happens, there will be a giant sucking noise all over the County which will be money being sucked out of the people's wallets because it will be necessary to spend money on more roads, more road maintenance, and more flood control and drainage ditch improvement. He stated Joe Taxpayer will be spending more money for doctor bills, repairing his car, and taking care of his carpet in his flooded house because he could not afford insurance; and the proposal is going to cost the taxpayers dearly. He noted the new political buzzword is "local control"; local control does not mean abdicating responsibility to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and local control does not mean saying to the St. Johns River Water Management District the County does not have time to protect the drinking water or the recreational water or the critters or the quality of life, so the District should do it. He stated this proposal has a nasty odor; it smells of the politics of special interest; and inquired who has been supporting this and who stands to benefit. He stated if this goes through, it will put the people of Brevard County at the mercy of those who could not care less about the future of Brevard County or the lives they ruin by selling sub-standard housing in places where houses never should have been built; and it will put them at the mercy of people who do not care what resources they destroy as long as they make a dollar and feed at the public trough through the Board subsidizing development. He stated developers do not have to pay for the infrastructure; and they do not care if the people get flooded out. He stated the proposal is government for the rich and privileged; it is not a government proposal for the little guy whose car and house are flooded out; it ignores him; and all it worries about are those with land to develop. He stated he owns a house; he is a land owner; and inquired about his property rights. He inquired what about the property rights of the people in Palm Bay whose houses are flooded; and stated some balance is needed. He stated the Board has a duty to plan for the future; and it should not pass the buck to Jacksonville or Palatka because the buck stops here. He stated the Board works for the people; the people are asking the Board to protect them; and it should not throw the people out in the cold.

David Sheriff, 3090 Fishtail Palm Avenue, Cocoa, stated a few weeks ago, he saw all the water after Hurricane Erin; all of the streets were covered; and he wondered what would have happened if the three or four other hurricanes out there had come across instead of turning north. He stated if one or two more storms had come this way, the issue would be clearcut; control of the wetlands and all things associated with wetlands should be at the local level; and it should not be sent to Palatka. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District Board members in Palatka are political appointees; they are not elected; and when his house starts going under water or his street floods and he cannot get to work, he wants to be able to call the Commissioners. He stated he wants the Board controlling his future locally; he wants to be able to call or go to the office of his Commissioner to tell of his problems; and he cannot do that in Palatka. He stated he does not know the people in Palatka; they have nineteen different counties they are trying to take care of; they are not local government; they are not there for him; and he likes the idea of the Board being accountable to him. He stated there are two different types of people in the County; there are people that can look at an acre of wetlands and see value of it; but there are other people who look at the acre and try to figure out how many truckloads of fill it will take; and he does not like that. He stated wetlands contribute to the quality of life in the County; he hates to see them go away; and he noticed that after Hurricane Erin some neighborhoods were under water for as long as one week. He stated one of the speakers commented about how many hoops developers have to go through; and he does not know how many hoops the developer had to go through, but he bets the people wish there had been one more. He stated he knows there are cost considerations; but the Board should keep this at the local level. He stated if it is going to be changed, it should be changed so there is more control over the wetlands, not less.

Pat Joslin, 602 Dianne Drive, Melbourne, stated she is a homeowner, mother, and grandmother, but she is an environmentalist in heart and spirit. She stated there has been a lot of talk about the flooding that was caused by the hurricane and the tropical depressions; people are desperate; and she wants to see the Board look the people in the face and tell them it was more worried about making things simpler for developers to develop the wetlands than trying to eliminate the reasons the houses are being flooded. She stated the wetlands that are left are needed; and if they are lost, the flooding will be even worse. She stated insurance companies are pulling out; they do not want to give homeowners insurance anymore; so now people will not only have flooded homes, but no insurance to replace them. She stated experts have said Florida was in a dry cycle; experts predicted the State would go into a natural wet cycle, which will last approximately 15 to 20 years; and she suspects the State has entered the wet cycle in the last two years. She stated she has seen more rain in the last two years than any other year she has lived here; and if the State is in a wet cycle, there is a long road ahead of us with a lot of water, flooding, and angry taxpayers. She stated there is a move in Washington, D.C. to pull the teeth, if not eliminate the regulatory bodies; if the County eliminates its control over the wetlands, leaving it up to the state and federal government, the County will be left with no protection of the environment; and she does not think the people want that. She stated she hopes the Board will consider this because it is very important to a lot of people.

Mary Todd, 135 South Bel Aire Drive, Merritt Island, representing the Turtle Coast Group of the Sierra Club, stated the Board had quite a bit of time to consider its April 18, 1995 decision to go forth with the amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan; and she hopes by now, the Board may be in favor of some wetlands protection on the local level. She stated she hopes the Board realizes that the County land use policies do not duplicate the regulatory procedures of the state and federal government; she attended the public hearings of the CRG and LPA; she knows the Board has the recommendations from those hearings; and she is concerned about the difference in the two recommendations. She stated the LPA recommendation would take only part of the wetlands out of the Comprehensive Plan; and the part that the LPA would recommend taking out has to do with the residential densities and the commercial and industrial uses of wetlands. She stated she does not consider that to be just a small part as it is the essential part of the County land use protections that will make an effective local regulation of wetlands. She advised they submitted their position in writing.

Leroy Wright, 4045 Edgewood Place, Cocoa, speaking on behalf of the Save the St. Johns Group and Florida Wildlife Federation, stated a number of people have indicated they will not speak, but will leave it up to him to represent their voice. he stated this is the most serious situation he has addressed to the Board since 1989-1990, which is the era that involved the proposed Sabal Hammocks project; and he considers this to be the next most serious. he stated Commissioner Cook recently appointed him to the Environmental CRG; and the CRG voted six to nothing to retain all current Comprehensive Plan language on wetlands, and to review the existing roles of the County versus the St. Johns River Water Management District for any duplication of services. he stated he attended a meeting yesterday between staff and the St. Johns River Water Management District where some minimal duplication of services was identified; they involved roads, ditches, retention ponds, and stormwater; and in each area, the County places stronger emphasis on protective measures than the St. Johns River Water Management District did. he stated the county land use planning and zoning issues are the key to protecting the County?s wetlands; Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5 of the Administrative Code, requires local governments to protect wetlands; and the Board has served the development and environmental communities with a great deal of balance in the past. he stated any changes to the Wetland Protection Elements of the Comprehensive Plan would unjustly tilt the balance; the St. Johns River Water Management District understands wetland protection; and it also understands that with wetland protection removed from County control, the District cannot prevent development in the wetlands or override County zoning, and can only minimize the damage and impact to the wetlands. He stated any weakening of wetland policies will contribute to a continuing increase in flooding problems for the citizens and a decrease in the citizens? quality of life. he stated in the past they have offered not to file legal challenges against the Sabal Hammocks project if the developer would abandon placement of golf course behind dikes along the St. Johns River; they spoke in favor of compromise at the Manatee Protection Plan; and with the new City of Viera, they were granted reviewer status on the DRI but asked only for conditions to be included in the Development Order. He stated they cannot compromise on the wetlands issue; and to do so would be the beginning of the end for protecting wetlands that are so valuable for the quality of life for humans as well as the ability to sustain the wildlife as we know it today. he urged the Board to retain all the present language in the Conservation Element, Objective 5, including Wetlands Policy V.2.F(1) one unit per five acres, (2) prohibit commercial development, and (3) minimum utilization of fill. He requested those in the audience who share his viewpoint for local protection of wetlands to stand; with a group of people rising.

Jody Rosier, 460 Highway 436, Suite 200, Casselberry, representing the Florida Audubon Society, stated her position with the Society is to review permits for the entire State; she sees how the Army Corps of Engineers and the Water Management Districts work throughout the State; and it is an interesting concept. She stated they are too understaffed to have time to be concerned with every County?s issues on where people?s houses should go; budget cuts may happen in the future; and it is important for the County to keep an eye on what is happening in its area. She stated she originally lived in Brevard and Indian River Counties; now she is in Orange County, the land of concrete; and everyone in the Wekiva River Basin is suffering from flooding. She stated in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties where there was big growth before the regulations were in effect, there are major flooding problems; and those counties now have strong environmental Ordinances to protect the wetlands because they realize the role and importance of wetlands for water quality and wildlife. She state Brevard County is a very important tourist industry area; and if the County starts ruining that industry, it would be a big impact to Florida. She stated the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has to approve the County?s proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and DCA explained the process whereby local citizen groups can file administrative hearings, can get standing, and can carry on long legal battles. She stated the County may have considered the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in its budget; but inquired if the Board considered the long legal battles that could be coming from Florida Audubon Society or other environmental groups. She urged the Board to think about what is right for the community and the future.

Don Garretson, 4975 Citrus Boulevard, Cocoa, stated an earlier speaker spoke about jobs; he can relate to that; he understands the need for jobs; he used to be a design engineer at the Kennedy Space Center; and now he juggles seven part-time jobs trying to hold things together until he can find another full-time, permanent, professional level job. He stated he is trying to hold on to his one acre; and it is difficult to come up with sympathy for someone who can afford to buy 120 acres and just let it sit until he can get around to doing something with it. He stated if the only way jobs can be provided is to destroy the ecosystems which sustain us, it is only delaying the inevitable. He stated local control must be maintained to maintain clean air and water, and a fit place for all citizens to live; much of the local regulation in the Comprehensive Plan does not duplicate services and oversight provided by more remote levels of government; every time there is a heavy dew, the Commissioners? phones light up with complaints from constituents who live in areas where unethical developers built by filling in swamps; and the former Commissioners failed in their responsibility to stay no to building in places where it makes no economic or environmental sense. He stated there are homes and businesses built in areas where water drains to; when people live in areas that are reclaimed wetlands, the last thing they want is for the ditches to be cleaned because that means the water fills yards and homes that much faster; and the problem is not confined to Brevard County. He stated it is the same in Georgia, the Mississippi floodplains, and every place in the country where local governments failed in their responsibilities to properly manage wetlands and floodplains. He noted there is a lot of hype about trying to move regulations closer to the people to get more local control; but here the County has local control, and wants to do away with it. He stated the County cannot afford to subsidize enriching the unethical with taxes by correcting their mistakes; the people cannot afford rising insurance rates because development has been allowed in places where it does not belong; and the County cannot waste money defending itself against lawsuits. He stated the DCA required the County to strengthen the wetland regulations before it would approve the Comprehensive Plan in its present form; and inquired why the County thinks the DCA will allow it to do away with it. He stated a lot has been heard about duplication of regulations; and if there are any in the Plan, they can be taken care of thoughtfully, without abdicating responsibility to all constituents. He stated some of the Commissioners owe their seats on the Board to their predecessors who served the special interests of a narrow group of wealthy constituents and forgot their duty to serve all of their constituents. He stated every time the Commissioners walk into the Government Center, it should remind them that the voters have had their fill of Good Ole Boy politics.

James Whitehead, 1705 Rockledge Drive, Rockledge, stated he was born in Rockledge, lived in Brevard County until he went to college, moved back in the last few years, and in the interim, he lives in a lot of different places; and the reason he is here now is the quality of life. He stated he lived in New York; the people there will tell you they would rather live in Florida; other places have more problems with the environment, crime, pollution, and other things coming from unregulated growth; and if the County abdicates its responsibility on this important issue, it is not facing up to the things that matter to the residents. He stated anyone could live in Dade County if he wanted to; and if anyone wants to know why people do not want to live in Dade County, they should look at Dade County compared to Brevard County. He stated the difference is Dade County went through a long period of unregulated growth; the same is true for New York, Tokyo, etc.; and none of us want to live in that kind of environment. He stated there will be growth in Brevard County; in the 35 years, he has been alive, the property values have done nothing but go up; and the quality of the water and air has done nothing but go down; and he is not talking about improving things, but just slowing the growth and the deterioration of the environment we live in. He stated this purports to be an issue of duplication of effort, but there is a trend; and the people who favor local control and the extra hoop for developers to jump through are the ones who are against developing the wetlands. He stated this is an issue that everyone is concerned about on a local level, whether for the jobs that are at risk or the environment that would be affected; this is a matter that needs to be tended to at a local level; and it is the Board's responsibility.

Dick Thompson, 630 Heron Drive, Merritt Island, stated he is a professional environmental engineer who has practiced here for forty years; he makes his living off getting environmental permits from the various agencies; he has watched the evolution of the definition of wetlands and the controls over wetlands come about over the last 30 or 40 years; and he is upset at the direction this is going. He stated the wetlands do not prevent flooding; the wetlands absorb very little water and allow very little to percolate through the wetland material; and if there were no wetlands, the water would percolate through the sands much quicker into the shallow aquifer system. He stated wetlands do not recharge the drinking water supply in Brevard County; and none of the public water supply comes from the shallow aquifer system that is fed by wetlands. He advised the public water supply comes from the Floridan aquifer generated in the high country of Orlando; it comes deep underground; and the County pulls it out of the ground for drinking water. He stated the shallow aquifer in Brevard County is salty, and full of iron and manganese; and is unsuitable for drinking unless it is run through a reverse osmosis process or something similar. He stated the wetlands do filter some of the nutrients and materials out of the water that find their way through it; but so does sand; and sand has been the major medium for cleaning up water for hundreds of years, and is used for that purpose today. He stated the land in Brevard County is full of sand; and it is more porous and does a better job than the muck that is commonly called wetland material. He stated if someone has never applied for a permit to use lands that have some wetlands on it, he has a real experience coming; and he should not talk about it unless he has tried it, because it is a difficult task. He stated the major office of the St. Johns River Water Management District that controls Brevard County is in Melbourne, with a complete staff to service the area; and it has very stringent requirements. He noted he attended a course a week ago on the new regulations for getting permits to utilize wetlands; the new regulations are an inch and half thick and written by Philadelphia lawyers; and it is time consuming, taxing and difficult to get a permit. He stated the staff at St. Johns River Water Management District is approximately 30 to 40 people, backed by the staff in Palatka; and there is no way the County can duplicate this, nor is it necessary. He stated they have a mandate given by the State Legislature to perform that function; that function is not designated to the County; and the only function of the Office of Natural Resources has been to review the wetlands areas and advise CRG's, which are made up of no-growth people. He stated that function is minor and completely unnecessary; and encouraged the Board to follow the direction it began in April, 1995.

The meeting recessed at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened at 8:21 p.m.

Glenda Busick, 3500 Harlock Road, Melbourne, stated this issue is dear to her heart; and she hopes the Board does not change this. She stated growth has been unregulated in that it does not pay for itself; there are problems with roads, schools, etc; and the Board wants to give up its ability and let commercial development occur on wetlands, where now it forbids that. Ms. Busick inquired if the Board wants commercial development on wetlands; with Commissioner Cook responding it is more complicated, and will be addressed. Ms. Busick stated that really concerns her; there is land that can be developed commercially; but the land that is wetlands tends to be less in price, and the other land that should be developed is higher in price. She stated wetlands property might be less in value and could be developed more easily if the Board takes away the ability to say no to commercial development; and she does not want that changed. She stated the other thing the Board wants to change is density; now there is one house per five acres; the change will mean someone can go to the Zoning Division and get whatever he can get approved; and she does not want density changed. She stated one speaker said wetlands do not stop flooding. She reiterated if a house is not built on the wetlands, it cannot be flooded; and therefore flood insurance would not be needed because it is not on the wetlands. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not correct; with Ms. Busick advising she does not agree. Ms. Busick stated there are subdivisions on Lake Washington and Parkway Drive where there is flooding; they wanted their ditches cleaned; taxpayer dollars go to clean the ditches; and she does not want her taxpayer dollars helping clean ditches for development in wetlands. She stated the St. Johns River Water Management District Board is politically appointed; and she is not comfortable with that because builders and developers are the ones that get their vote. She stated she is a business person; she wants to be regulated; and while she is the first one to say stop the regulation, this is wrong. Ms. Busick stated she wants this regulation; as a business person, she wants the County to tell her if she is affecting her neighbors; she wants to be neighbor-oriented; and she does not want to do whatever she wants with her property. She stated the world is not that way anymore; people cannot convince others they are not right if they think they are; they believe in their hearts they are not affecting their neighbor; and the neighbor is left with water coming on his property. She stated someone has to look out for the people; and she wants it locally. She stated she wants Washington, D.C. to shut down a bunch of departments; she wants the State of Florida to shut down departments; but she does not want the County to shut this department down. She stated this is not the proper place to do it; and the Board is looking in the wrong place.

Albert Notary, 690 Timuquana Drive, Merritt Island, stated at the last election, the voters asked the Board to reduce taxes and government; that is enough to tell the Board to take the County government out of the many layers of government that now try to control the wetlands; and inquired does the Board think the St. Johns River Water Management District is going to let the County set the rules. He stated he doubts the St. Johns River Water Management District will do that or finance it for the County. He stated the Board is saying the water management districts do not know what they are doing, and the County does; and if that is the case, the Board should be trying to abolish the St. Johns River Water Management District and give the County the tax money the District is spending on water management and wetlands. He stated government has so much control over the people and their property that there is nothing new left for them to control; and government expands the bureaucracy by creating more government agencies to control the same subject. He stated there is an opportunity for the Board to do what the voters want, which is to reduce government by taking Brevard County out of the many layers of government controlling the wetlands; and over 70% of the Florida counties have already done that.

Erin LeClair, 2431 Oklahoma Street, Melbourne, stated she is a former wetland scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency, and former Army Corps of Engineers scientist; she does not think of herself as a bureaucrat; and for the six years she worked for those agencies, she was one of three people who handled the entire State of Florida. She stated she handled 22 counties; she reviewed almost 1,200 permits a year; and she did not have the time nor the money to come down to look at every project. She stated she could rely on counties which had a good wetland permitting division such as Pinellas and Hillsborough County; she was a federal regulator; the St. Johns River Water Management District was the lead state agency, and the first agency landowners would contact; and from there the application was duplicated. She explained the process, noting the Corps of Engineers was the lead federal agency. She stated even though it sounds like a lot of agencies involved, only seven people were involved in the permitting. She stated she feels for the local landowners because they do not understand the permitting process; and if they could come to a County Agency for information, it would stop a lot of development and confrontation. She stated a lot of people have been in the business for a long time with the federal agencies; there is a high turnover with the State agencies; and it is hard for people to get to know an area. She stated when she was in Atlanta, she got to travel once every three months to look at a site, and did not have an opportunity to look at sites that were one acre; and she had to rely on local scientists in the field and County planners and biologists. She stated Florida is sensitive; she came to Brevard County because it is a beautiful place; but after Hurricane Erin, she saw a lot of land that was inundated by water, especially the trailer park in West Melbourne. Ms. LeClair stated that is not a swamp; wetlands are wet; and they may not have had the problem if the trailer park had not been built there. She requested the Board strengthen local control and increase the number of people reviewing permits locally.

Terry Stewart, 3391 Cabbage Palm Avenue, Melbourne, stated he is a member of the Florida Native Plant Society, but is not going to speak about plants tonight because he is going to speak about economics. He stated this is a proposal of long-term outlook versus short-term growth; the County can either take the long-term view which is to maintain some sort of planning capability or a short-term view and allow development to grow haphazardly; and while the short-term view will increase jobs in the short-term, the long-term outlook will be diminished. He stated development done in a haphazard fashion will create problems for homeowners in the future; it will degrade the water quality; and it may hurt the tourist industry. He stated the long-term solution is what the people prefer; some people have said there should not be regulation over personal property; but there is precedent where that is not the case. He stated if someone owns a Lamborghini, he would not be allowed to drive 200 miles per hour even though it had the capacity; and inquired if he should sue because he cannot develop the total capability of the property that he owns. He stated these are the kinds of things that are reviewed in considering individual property rights; this is a safety and society issue; and recommended the regulations and long-term outlook be maintained.

Jay Peacock, 1375 Plum Avenue, Merritt Island, stated he shares the Board's concern for government waste caused by the duplication of regulations; however, the Comprehensive Plan wetland regulations are not a duplication. He stated the County sets zoning policies which limit densities and restrict land uses in wetlands; the St. Johns River Water Management District grants permits to allow construction in wetland areas; and the District cannot regulate densities or land uses on wetlands. He stated without the County wetland regulations, there would be increased flooding of residential areas, a decline in fish and shellfish populations along with a decline in seagrass beds, and a degradation of drinking water quality resulting in higher costs to refine drinking water; and urged the Board to leave the wetland regulations in place and protect the County.

Don Simms, 411 Palm Springs Boulevard, Indian Harbour Beach, stated after taking the time to personally view over 30 subdivisions, all developed during the last seven years, he noted a marked increase in quality wetlands; between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the St. Johns River Water Management District, developers are incorporating man-made lakes; and under the St. Johns River Water Management District, supervision and installation of littoral zones provide the best case scenario. He stated aquatic plants are installed in the littoral zones which give year-round wetland protection without the fear of drying out during droughts; the littoral zones provide a natural source of protection for fish, hatchlings and other wildlife; and in most cases, they have proven to be more efficient as wetlands than many of the natural mud holes which fill in and dry with the seasons, and are too small to be of significant benefit to any species. He stated the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the St. Johns River Water Management District have several regulations and rules which more than safeguard wetlands, and in many instances, mandate creation of man-made wetlands; littoral zones and retention lakes have proven superior to some of the natural wetlands; and anyone doubting his facts, can view the new subdivisions in South Rockledge, Viera and North Melbourne.

Mr. Simms stated there are beautiful man-made wetlands and wetland enhancements with an abundance of wildlife prospering and reproducing; the County Environmental Department is composed of intelligent and knowledgeable people; and they can be utilized by other departments in the County. He stated triplication of effort is no longer tolerable in the marketplace in the private or public sector; and the more he listens to the views of people with an environmental agenda, the more he is convinced the old saying is true, "a builder is someone who wants to build a cabin in the woods; an environmentalist is someone who already has a cabin in the woods." He stated of 67 counties in the State, only 19 have resource departments, and 48 do not deem it necessary; and the vast majority of counties have deemed duplication and triplication of regulatory agencies unnecessary. He advised of his educational and employment background; requested the Board return to ordinary common sense; and stated in spite of varying views, America is a great country, and this meeting is proof.

Diane Stees, 21 Bougainvillea Drive, Cocoa Beach, representing the Indian River Audubon Society, stated they oppose the amendment to repeal all wetland policies within the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan; the reason given for justifying the action is duplication; but after talking to the St. Johns River Water Management District and the County, they find it is not the case. She stated one entity deals with permitting projects on a case-by-case basis while the other deals with land use planning, taking into consideration the big picture, cumulative impacts, etc. She stated she finds it odd that those who talk about getting rid of big government and getting more local control would reverse themselves and give away local control of wetlands; and at the same time they hear that the State's water management districts will be up for review next year, and that there will be attempts to weaken regulations and authority of those agencies. She stated they also oppose the LPA recommendation to eliminate Policy 5.2.F from the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan; they agree that eliminating duplication within the Comprehensive Plan makes sense as long as policy is not altered; and eliminating wetlands from the Future Land Use Element alone in order to prevent duplication with the Conservation Element makes sense, as long as policy is not altered. She stated the LPA recommendation does not stop there; it also wants to eliminate Policy 5.2.F in the Conservation Element; and that policy is the meat of the matter dealing with density restrictions and commercial/industrial land uses on wetlands. She stated the Board may call this streamlining government; but they call it unregulated growth. She stated they recognize that allowing commercial and industrial development on wetlands produces an increase in taxes collected and short-term employment; but it does not offset the negative impacts such as loss of local land use control, increased expenditures for stormwater infrastructure, decrease in water quality, decrease groundwater recharge areas, loss of bio-diversity, and the effect on eco-tourism. She stated she does not know if the Board read the Status and Trend Summary of the Indian River Lagoon; there is an excerpt dealing with non-point versus point source loadings of nutrients into the Lagoon; and it says in order to reduce the Lagoonwide degree of increase of non-point source loadings, it will be necessary to employ additional management options in much of the watershed. She stated additional methods that may be considered include more restrictive regulations for additional retention and detention, land use zoning such as minimum lot size or cluster developments, or density restrictions that reduce the amount of impervious surface area in new developments within sub-basins; and the County is about to go in the opposite direction. She stated the County is growing rapidly; everyone should be working together to achieve sustainable development now before it is too late; restoration efforts are expensive; and mitigation efforts to create wetlands have failed. Ms. Stees requested the Board reconsider the proposals before it tonight; and stated the wetlands are needed to sustain everyone affordably and maintain the quality of life.

Ray Smyth, 2764 Hillcrest Avenue, Titusville, stated he does not belong to any group, and his only education is 61 years of hard labor. He stated the Board has been addressed by well-intended people who are so misinformed that it is alarming; wetlands do not recharge anything; if they did, they would not be wet; and wetlands do not prevent flooding. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District in Melbourne flies over the County to make sure no one is doing anything they should not be doing; and anyone who tells the Board the St. Johns River Water Management District does not control has never tried to get a permit. He stated developers do everything they can to avoid wetlands; and inquired who wants to develop a wetland when it costs ten times as much. He stated what is being discussed tonight is not protecting the wetlands; the discussion is about duplication and layers of government that cost money; and 48 counties do not even have this kind of regulation. He stated taxes prove there is enough government; he likes local government; and he would recommend maintaining local control if it was possible to shoot all of St. Johns River Water Management District. He stated he intends to spend the rest of his life trying to get the federal government out of the State of Florida; no federal regulations are needed when it comes to land development; and he would like to get rid of the water management districts because they are not doing what the Florida Statutes chartered them to do. He stated the water management districts are a bureaucracy running rampant; they are totally out of control; and he hates to give any control to the St. Johns River Water Management District. He stated he made the comment that the St. Johns River Water Management District never used to get involved in anything less than 40 acres, then it was five acres, and it will not be long before it is down to one lot; and he was told by Nancy Younger of the St. Johns River Water Management District that the District intends to control every shovelful. He stated if people want to continue control on their lives, soon it will affect those who think they want it. He stated he is saddened by the madness in his country, and what has happened to it during his lifetime; he grew up when the American flag was held with respect; but today money and greed play everything. He stated he has no confidence in his elected officials because they are not the ones in control and running the government; he wants the elected officials to run the government; he wants the Board to use its good judgment; and the people can elect good officials who will look past special private interests and the bureaucracy that keeps building. He stated for the past eight years, the County raise the taxes on his home nearly 6%; and suggested the Board could give him 5% reduction this year.

Dolores Kane, 5425 South Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, advised she is in agreement with Mr. Smyth because he made a lot of sense. She stated no one is against ecology and the environment, or wants to build in low lands where it is going to flood; and it would be better if there was only one local entity to go to for permitting. She stated Brevard County will not be another Miami with all the regulations it has in place; if it only takes one person to change a light bulb, there should only be one, not five; and recommended the Board not needlessly ruin dreams or bankrupt people with lengthy redundant permitting. He stated right permitting will take care of nature and man; and suggested taxpayer dollars be used for cleaning and flood control.

B. B. Nelson, 3535 Hammock Trail, Melbourne, stated the recent storm proved that the designs of the engineers from the St. Johns River Water Management District and the County are not working for wetlands and stormwater; homes can no longer be used for storage of water; and there were too many people flooded. He noted it was not necessarily because they built in wetlands, but because each subdivision produced an enormous amount of water; and each subdivision paid permit and impact fees, and was approved by the engineers of St. Johns River Water Management District and the County; but it did not work because it was not designed properly. He stated they have to put up with a system that collects all the water and puts it into a retention pond which was built for a one-inch rainfall; but God gave a nine-inch rainfall, not a one-inch rainfall; and very seldom does the County get just a one-inch rainfall. He stated there is no provision for the retention ponds to overflow down to the Eau Gallie River; in the 20 years, he has lived in the area, he knows of no additional pipes; and with all the impact fees and money paid for engineers, people still flooded because no provision was made for the collecting systems to collect the runoff and take it to the Eau Gallie River and Indian River. He stated that was dumb engineering by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the County; and it was not adequately planned. He stated engineers are forced to complete plans just to get a permit, although they are not what they would normally want to do or what they would professionally do; in order to get a permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District, they have to violate all their training; and he will continue to work to get rid of those people. He stated the County's growth management program does not provide a drainage plan; St. Johns River Water Management District does provide a drainage plan; nineteen years ago, Chapter 373.036 said the Department shall proceed as rapidly as possibly to study existing water resources in the State for environmental protection, drainage, flood control, and water storage; and requested someone show him the plan from the St. Johns River Water Management District or the County. He stated for all the money that has been spend since 1988 for the Comprehensive Plan, there is still no drainage plan; and that is the reason all the people flooded. He stated it is not necessarily because they built in the low lands; and if that was the case, all of Merritt Island would be under water. He stated they should not build houses that low; his house is six courses of block above natural ground; during the storm he had four feet of water in his yard; and one of his neighbors called looking for his fish. He stated the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says specifically, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." He stated if the County is going to take his land and use it for public use, he should be paid; but it should not flood him and take the use of the land without compensation. He requested the County not continue to violate his constitutional rights.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Board directed he meet with Mr. Dean of the St. Johns River Water Management District to determine if the District had an interest in delegating its regulatory and permitting responsibilities to the County; and Jim Swann, who is a member of the St. Johns River Water Management District Board, was also present at the meeting. He stated when he presented the concept of St. Johns River Water Management District delegating that responsibility to the County, Mr. Dean advised the St. Johns River Water Management District went through a significant effort to streamline its process; it is coming up with a one-stop permitting center and has a new set of streamlined regulations; and the District felt its direction and focus was in improving its permitting process. Mr. Jenkins stated Mr. Dean advised he was working to have the Corps of Engineers delegate some of its permitting responsibilities to the St. Johns River Water Management District to expand the one-stop permitting center concept. He stated Mr. Dean indicated approximately 20% of the cost of the permitting operation comes from the permit fees; the balance is funded through other dollars; and the District would not be giving the County any money. He stated it is legally allowable for the County to assume responsibility of allow development, but the County is prohibited from assuming any permitting responsibilities for any of its own public projects. He stated another cost consideration is the administrative hearing process; and any decisions are subject to challenge through the administrative hearing process. He stated Mr. Dean indicated the St. Johns River Water Management District staff would be opposed to it; the District would not be able to reduce staffing because it would continue to do permitting for other agencies; and it would not incur any savings. He stated Mr. Swann indicated he would be willing to allow the County to assume the responsibility, but wanted to make sure the County understood that it would cost a significant amount of money.

Chairman Higgs stated she talked to both Mr. Swann and Mr. Dean, and is disappointed with the outcome of the meeting; she understood from Mr. Dean that the change was a possibility; but Mr. Swann's response is consistent with what he indicated. She stated she is not surprised that the staff is not enthusiastic about it because of the changes that it would cause; she is not surprised that the District does not want to give up its money; and that indicates where the issue is at this point. She stated if the Board wishes to consider this further, it will need to go directly to the St. Johns River Water Management District Board. She stated the issue before the Board tonight is in regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendments to Policies 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8.

Commissioner Cook stated regardless of what the Board does tonight with the Comprehensive Plan, it has no effect on the Ordinances that are now in place in the County; Ordinance No. 89-12 establishes regulations for prime, Class 1 and secondary aquifer recharge areas; Ordinance No. 89-13 establishes standards for development in and adjacent to Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 waters and Outstanding Florida Waters and Aquatic Preserves; Ordinance No. 89-14 establishes standards for development in and adjacent to wetlands, establishing a severability clause, and wetlands protection standards; and Ordinance No. 89-15 establishes standards for development in floodplains and flood prone areas. He stated all four Ordinances have the force of law; and they will remain in effect regardless of what the Board does this evening.

Chairman Higgs stated the issue was raised about different counties having Natural Resources Departments or ordinances for wetland protection; all counties have Planning Departments; and she has not seen any sign that other counties have given up planning. She stated no one can develop a Comprehensive Plan for Brevard County; and the land use issues are properly the Board?s. She stated in the State, only 20% of the original wetlands remain; the State continues to lose 1% in spite of the fact there are the Corps of Engineers, the St. Johns River Water Management District and other entities; and the St. Johns River Water Management District has never turned down a permit. She stated the issue is planning, not permitting; the County is dealing with the sins of the past in regard to planning; the existing Comprehensive Plan was put in place in 1988; and it protects wetlands and talks about land use issues. Chairman Higgs stated wetlands will store water; they will decrease flooding; they will assist with sediment and erosion control as well as the overall quality of the surface water bodies; and surface water bodies provide a significant segment of the County with water. She stated the important issue is pollutant loads and what happens from land uses; there are studies that indicate commercial and industrial uses increase over residential uses and agricultural uses the number of pollutants that are available; and distributed a study documenting the facts. She stated the Board should also think about what people are looking for in their homes; the recent study in Money Magazine shows that a clean environment rated over every other issue; and the presence of people tonight is an indication that people want to maintain clean air and water. She stated there is scientific evidence for protecting a wetland, maintaining the policies the County has, low density, and no net loss; and the policies in the Comprehensive Plan today should be maintained. She stated she will continue to support that position; there is scientific evidence that the pollutants can be decreased; and there is evidence that people care about clean water.

Commissioner Cook stated all the Commissioners appreciate the environment; he grew up in this area; and he feels strongly about maintaining the quality of life. He stated rationale for the proposed Plan amendment is within Brevard County, the wetlands permitting is done through a variety of State, federal and regional agencies; those agencies include the St. Johns River Water Management District, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Army Corps of Engineers; through the permitting process, the development designs are reviewed to determine impacts and to mitigate natural resource damages; and the County issues permits for wetlands alteration or development. Commissioner Ellis stated the St. Johns River Water Management District has over 70 employees in the County which establishes a local presence; much of the flooding was due to the inability of the canal system to carry the water; most of the homes that were flooded were off the Crane Creek drainage system; and when the canals overflowed, his neighborhood was flooded. He noted his neighborhood was not a wetland; it used to be scrub, pine and palmetto; and he knows that because he lived there when the neighborhood was built 30 years ago. He stated it flooded because the water could not get out; and no wetland will hold a ten-inch rainfall. He stated he was on horseback the night of the storm in areas that were wetlands and the woods; and the whole area was overflowing. He stated there is no savings if the role of the St. Johns River Water Management District is delegated; once a bureaucracy is started, it is almost impossible to stop it; and he initiated this issue in January concerning two policies in the Comprehensive Plan, 5.2.F.1 and 5.2.F.2. He stated a few people have touched on this tonight, but he wonders how many have read the Comprehensive Plan and understand it. He stated the Comprehensive Plan does not address the value of specific types of wetlands; every wetland is treated the same in the Comprehensive Plan; there are no thresholds or connectivity to water bodies in the Comprehensive Plan; and all wetlands are equal, no matter the size or type. He stated Paragraph 5.2.F.2. prohibits commercial/industrial uses where there is a presence of a wetland; a lot of people interpret that to mean the entire site is wetlands; but that is not correct. He stated if he has a twenty-acre parcel with one-tenth of an acre wetland, that wetland cannot be used for the commercial or industrial use; and that is the way the Comprehensive Plan is written. He stated the difference between the Comprehensive Plan and the St. Johns River Water Management District is if someone goes to the District with a twenty-acre parcel and a quarter-acre wetland, they are allowed to mitigate out; but under the Comprehensive Plan, they are not allowed to mitigate, and there are no exceptions. He stated if someone?s wetland happens to be in the center of his parcel, he is out of luck; what people have to do is try and jigsaw their property around the wetland on the parcel; and it is unfortunate that people interpret the rule to mean that all the property has to be wetlands. He stated since there is no threshold value for wetlands, the Board would have the authority to strip current land designations through an administrative rezoning; and in the three years he has been on the Board, he has seen a number of commercial properties administratively rezoned to residential. He stated he has seen the letter of the Comprehensive Plan enforced in different issues; and his concern is if the letter of this Comprehensive Plan is enforced, there will be problems with existing residential and commercial properties that are not developed. He stated if the letter of the Comprehensive Plan is enforced and there is vacant commercial property with any wetlands present, it would be administratively rezoned to residential; if someone had a residential property with any amount of wetlands present, and it was not five acres, he could not build a home. He stated he does not care how the Comprehensive Plan is interpreted by staff; that is the way the Comprehensive Plan is written; and that is the way it can be enforced. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District currently looks at one-half acre or more of wetlands as the mitigation threshold; the County goes down to the smallest wetland; and inquired how does staff handle mitigation requirements for wetlands less than one-half acre. Environmental Section Supervisor Debbie Coles responded the Land Development Regulations require two-to-one mitigation ratio for those areas not addressed by a St. Johns River Water Management District permit. Commissioner Ellis inquired does staff handle that mitigation; with Ms. Coles responding yes. Commissioner Ellis inquired how would staff handle mitigating a tenth of an acre; with Ms. Coles responding the priorities are preservation with enhancement on-site with creation, off-site, in-basin, and then out-of-basin. Commissioner Ellis stated for a small fraction to be able to mitigate off-site would require some kind of mitigation bank; if he went off-site for a tenth of an acre, he would have a difficult time trying to find two tenths of an acre; if there was a mitigation bank, he could mitigate the small fractions; but the County does not have the bank. He stated the St. Johns River Water Management District requires the mitigation bank to be in the watershed; that was the rule; there are all kinds of watersheds within the County; and although there may be some areas that would be best for mitigation banking, if it is not within someone?s watershed, it is not an area he can use. He stated another issue is the density issue; density is already restricted by the floodplain; there seems to have been an effort to merge the two issues; but that is not the case in the Comprehensive Plan; and there are density restrictions for floodplain issues. He stated not all wetlands occur in a floodplain; and there are isolated wetlands throughout the County that are well out of the floodplain. He stated the five-acre issue on residential and commercial properties could result in administrative rezoning; and that is a problem when all there is to rely on is whether staff chooses to enforce it, even if it is the letter of the Comprehensive Plan. He reiterated there is no threshold of wetlands; if a commercial property has a wetland, no matter how small, it is as if the entire property was marsh on the St. Johns River; and that is wrong.

Chairman Higgs stated the policy has not been interpreted and applied in that way. Commissioner Ellis advised that is the way it is written. Chairman Higgs stated she understands Commissioner Ellis?s concern with the way it is written; his proposal is not to try to improve or clarify; and while things can always be improved upon, it was not the approach that was taken. She stated the proposal is to strike all references to wetlands in the Comprehensive Plan, and take away all land use planning by the County in that regard. She stated she could support an approach that was to improve the way the Comprehensive Plan is written and clarify the way it is applied; and when there have been small wetlands as a part of a commercial parcel, the staff has not interpreted that to apply to the total property. She inquired if out-of-basin mitigation is possible within the County; with Ms. Coles advising that is correct. Commissioner Ellis stated the County has seen nothing in writing to verify that. Commissioner O'Brien noted Ms. Barr mentioned on three occasions that mitigation does not work and has been a failure. Chairman Higgs stated that is artificial mitigation, but it does not mean that mitigation where existing wetlands are purchased and preserved is a failure. Chairman Higgs inquired are out-of-basin mitigations accepted; with Michelle Reiber, representing the St. Johns River Water Management District, responding yes, they are. Ms. Reiber advised there are recommended areas for providing mitigation; in the County, there are three large drainage basins that are recommended; but from a mitigation banking standpoint, a service area can be implemented which would include a small or large drainage basin. Commissioner Ellis stated that was not the position last year, and he has not seen anything in writing; last year everything was based on the watershed; and you could only set up a bank in a watershed, and could only mitigate within that watershed. He stated it is not correct that the County has no control over land use; and the County sets the Comprehensive Plan and sets land use. He stated what is being said is if the Board strikes the two portions of the Comprehensive Plan, the County will have no control over land use, but that is not correct; and the County sets land uses on parcels that are completely high and dry. Chairman Higgs stated the Board would still determine land use; but it would not be able to say that the character of the land is the driving factor in what is done with the land use; and it would take away the ability to say there are residential land uses only in wetland areas, and that commercial is not acceptable. Commissioner Ellis stated generally every other land use in the County is based on surrounding properties; and that was the issue with the property on Eau Gallie Boulevard, on which staff recommended residential because of the presence of wetlands, but all the surrounding properties were industrial. He stated it is letting the land use be driven by the presence of wetlands when the County does not define how much wetlands have to be present. Chairman Higgs stated she understands the need for clarification, but the County needs to consider most importantly the character of the land in determining what the land uses should be. Commissioner Ellis stated it could still be used for residential; he could take five or ten acres and select wetlands much more easily on a residential than a commercial property; and he could build more impervious surface on ten acres with high density residential, after cutting out the quarter-acre wetland, than he may want to do on commercial property. Chairman Higgs stated the one to five ratio is essential on wetlands; but on commercial properties, there is a higher pollutant loading; so the appropriateness of the land use based on pollution and destruction of wetlands is what is important. Commissioner Ellis stated even the pollutant loading figures are not the case for all pollutants; what is given for nitrogen and phosphates is higher from residential than from commercial; and if the concern is dropping excess fertilizer and nutrients into the water body, resulting in algae bloom, then residential puts more into the water than low intensity commercial.

Chairman Higgs stated with nitrogen, that would be true; it is close on phosphate; but the commercial and industrial properties are producing far more oxygen demands, suspended solids, zinc and lead than single-family residential land use.

Commissioner Cook stated there is a need to protect the environment; but on the other hand, the permitting, development designs, etc. are analyzed by agencies such as the St. Johns River Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection and Army Corps of Engineers. He stated as far as giving up anything, those agencies are mandated to do certain jobs by the state and federal governments, and they will do those jobs regardless of what the County does tonight. He stated the Board cannot set the charter for the St. Johns River Water Management District; it cannot tell the Corps of Engineers what to do; it cannot tell DEP what to do; they are state and federal agencies which are mandated to do certain jobs; and there are 48 counties that do not even have a wetlands element in their comprehensive plans, much less four ordinances. He noted the Ordinances will remain in effect no matter what the Board does this evening. He stated he has looked over the process; he has done enormous study; he listened to comments; and the response has been heartening that so many people have taken an interest in this element. He stated the best recommendation came from the Local Planning Agency (LPA); and the same group sits as the Planning and Zoning Board. He stated they are not developers; they are five citizens who live in the Districts; they look at things and make recommendations to the Board; and they are not a special interest group. He stated the LPA did not delete the wetlands policy from the Comprehensive Plan, but it did make certain changes because there is duplicative language. Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the LPA recommendation on Conservation Element, deleting the words ?but shall not be limited by the threshold or connection requirements utilized by these agencies? from Policy 5.1, deleting parts 1, 2 and 3 of Criterion F in Policy 5.2, and retaining Objective 5 and the remaining portions of Policies 5.1 through 5.8. Commissioner Ellis stated when this went to the CRG, many of the issues he brought up the first time were not discussed; and when he read the LPA minutes, it was the same. He inquired what was the point of sending the issue back to the LPA and CRG without some direction from staff about what the issues were with the Comprehensive Plan if threshold issues and criticality issues were not discussed. He stated as far as Policy 5.2.F.3, he does not know if that matters much one way or the other; and it is what is going to happen anyway as a cost factor. Chairman Higgs stated if the desire is to look at commercial/industrial, thresholds, and those issues in terms of performance standards, that may be the more appropriate avenue for the Board to take rather than abandoning wetlands in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Cook stated they are not being abandoned; and that is not his motion. Commissioner Ellis stated he went down that road before, and got a staff report with nothing but roadblocks; and it is frustrating. Commissioner Cook stated the Board owes the people a decision; the Board has talked this over; and the best resolution is the LPA recommendation which does not delete the wetlands protection, but it accomplishes what the Board set out to accomplish in terms of duplication and streamlining the Comprehensive Plan. He reiterated the Board does need to make a decision tonight; the citizens came out expecting the Board to make a decision; and the Board owes that to the people. Chairman Higgs stated the Board owes them the right decision, and not just a decision.

Commissioner Ellis stated he agrees. Commissioner Cook inquired if the right decision is the only decision Chairman Higgs wants. Chairman Higgs stated the Board owes everyone the right decision; if Commissioner Ellis does not believe staff can come up with a recommendation on performance standards for commercial or residential that would get to the heart of the issue, then the Board should hire a consultant to do that; and if Commissioner Ellis would be comfortable looking at the issue of performance standards particularly in regard to commercial and industrial, staff could be directed to come up with options. Commissioner Ellis stated it took ten months to get to where the Board is tonight; and he does not have another two years to go through the process again. He stated when this started, everyone dug in their heels and did not want to look at exactly what the Comprehensive Plan said word for word; it is very explicit; and he has given up working through that way because there was no success. Chairman Higgs stated the proposal was to remove the residential one to five, remove the commercial/industrial, and the utilization of fill, which are all contained in Policies 5.F.1, 2 and 3; and to do that out of frustration does not seem to be right. Commissioner Ellis stated he is not concerned about 5.F.3; Policy 5.F.1 and 5.F.2 are the core of the issue; and they are written such that they totally preclude people from using their property if there are any wetlands unless it is possible to jigsaw around it. Commissioner Cook inquired if Commissioner Ellis wishes him to delete Policy 5.F.3; and stated he would prefer to accept the whole recommendation from the LPA. Commissioner Ellis stated he could vote for Policies 5.F.1, 2 and 3 or just Policy 5.F.1 and 2. Commissioner O'Brien called the question. Chairman Higgs advised Commissioner Scarborough has not had an opportunity to speak. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board needs to finish the discussion. Discussion ensued on allowing all Commissioners to have the right to speak.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the most frustrating things is to try and do projects and run into permitting problems; and one of the unique roles Commissioners have is to see the permitting problems as developers do, but to also see the need to have some degree of honesty and credibility in how they deal. He stated the other big problem is there have been cases where the County issued land clearing permits and one of the agencies stopped the projects; sometimes the County does not know what it is doing with the agencies; so the concept that the County and the agencies are one in the same is dangerous because it does not work that way. He stated no one wants to have duplication; the question becomes whether the planning process is duplication of permitting; and the County is going to be in the planning process with a myriad of other things. He stated he is closer to what Commissioner Ellis is saying; the Board has to be sure what it says is interpreted the way it should be said; and one of the reasons it has not become as big a problem is because the Comprehensive Plan has not been strictly interpreted. He stated he concurs with Chairman Higgs that he would prefer to see this done right; he is afraid if the Board wipes this out, it will be read that any time something is not read correctly, the whole thing will be erased; pretty soon, rather than fine tuning government, it will destroy government; and he is not ready to do that.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board can keep referring this, but it has already gone through three agencies; the CRG recommended leaving it the way it is; the Building and Construction Advisory Committee recommended taking it all out; and the LPA recommended maintaining the wetlands element in the Comprehensive Plan with changes, which is the motion he made tonight. He stated the LPA recommendation maintains the wetlands protection in the Comprehensive Plan, but makes needed changes. He reiterated there are four Ordinances that relate to this that will still be in effect; and the Board is not abandoning or giving up anything. He stated the other agencies will be out tomorrow morning, regardless of what the Board does, telling people whether they can use their property or not because that is their mandate.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to approve the LPA recommendation. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners O'Brien, Cook and Ellis voted nay; Commissioners Scarborough and Higgs voted nay.

The meeting recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m.

Chairman Higgs stated the recommendation of the LPA on Amendment 95.B.3 was approval; and the CRG did not have a quorum, but voted 2-0.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there were concerns and he asked staff if it could be capped at light industrial; and inquired if Mr. Moehle has a problem if it is approved with a cap of light industrial.

Charles Moehle, 65 Country Club Road, Cocoa Beach, stated the problem with light industrial is it does not allow a construction contractor?s operation because of the outdoor storage requirements. Commissioner Scarborough advised he is not saying keep it at PIP, but to go to industrial, but not heavy industrial. Mr. Moehle stated it is written as light/heavy industrial; but the problem is in the light industrial, it is not possible to do the construction operation. He stated they do not wish to do anything heavy; they brought this on themselves because they objected to the incinerator operation; they do not want anything ugly there; the County is doing ugly enough things as it is; but they do want to be able to do reasonable things.

Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca stated as a permitted use in IU, a contractor?s office, plant and storage yard are permitted, with the storage yard to be enclosed with a six-foot wall, louvered fence, or chain link fence. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would be the difference if it went to heavy industrial, and what else could be done with the construction yard. Ms. Busacca stated the additional permitted use in heavy industrial is the contractor?s offices and accessory storage yard including storage of general construction equipment and vehicles. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the equipment cannot be stored under the light industrial; with Ms. Busacca indicating it could not.

Ken Crooks, 101 South Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, representing the applicant, stated this item resulted from litigation that occurred in regard to the original change to the land use designation from heavy/light industrial to PIP in 1993; they came to the Board eight months ago with some suggested changes; and the Board directed staff to go through the administrative process to take the property back to heavy/light industrial land use designation. He noted the LPA and CRG heard the matter, and there were no objections to the request. Mr. Crooks stated the purpose of the change is to allow use of the property, between the Solid Waste Transfer Station and the County?s Mulching Facility; and the proposed use would require more than the what the light industrial would allow. He stated Commissioner Scarborough?s idea is not bad as a means to change the ordinance; the changes that have been suggested should be done regardless of whether the property is involved; and it is also what the LPA originally suggested when this matter came up two years ago. He stated his client has not been able to use the property for the last two years; it will not be possible to use the property for the intended purpose for another five to six months; and the request is to have the heavy/light industrial placed back on the property the way it was two years ago. He stated staff?s recommendation, which is to approve the request, talks about two single-family residences located adjacent to the northeast side of the subject property; and that property is located in the City of Titusville and is commercially zoned, not residentially zoned. He requested the Board go with the CRG recommendation to approve the heavy/light industrial land use designation.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is a staff recommendation; with Planner I Todd Corwin responding there is not a staff recommendation, but there are staff comments; and the amendment is per Board direction. Mr. Crooks noted at the CRG and LPA meetings, staff indicated a recommendation for approval.

Charles Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., stated Robi Roberts, a stockholder and one of the people who intends to use a portion of the property for a construction operation, is present. He stated Ms. Roberts employs a lot of people and runs a good operation; and there is nothing that is incompatible with the area for heavy/light industrial. He noted across the street it is mixed heavy and light industrial and heavy commercial uses and the two houses are among all the industrial and commercial. He stated he had a terrible hardship so far; and requested the Board approve the request. He stated they have other properties there, and have opposed dirty operations there; but they wish to be able to use the property in a reasonable manner. He stated they intend to police it themselves because it is economically to their advantage.

Robi Roberts, 1514 South Washington Avenue, Titusville, stated it has been two years; she needs to know whether she is moving or not; and requested it go back to the zoning that was originally on the property so she can place her construction company there. She stated she employs 135 people; she has a clean operation; and her lease will be up where she is, and she needs to make a decision.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board originally looked at this, at I-95 and Highway 50, there were two motels and some restaurants; since then there has been the location of the new Wal-Mart Store nearby; and there have been rumors of other business type commercial activities. He stated Highway 405 is one of the main roads someone would take into downtown Titusville; it is an entrance corridor; but it does not fall within the landscape criteria. He stated similar concerns need to be addressed; the idea of it becoming heavy/light industrial is not appropriate for this particular entrance; and the idea that there is a mulching facility there needs to be refuted because the community wanted to have a heavily landscaped, park-like environment, so when people drive by, they will think they are driving by a County park as opposed to an industrial site. He stated he is not prepared to go for the heavy industrial because of those elements; someone else can make a motion; but he cannot support it.

Commissioner Ellis stated he is willing to make a motion to approve heavy/light industrial. He stated the way the land use designation works, the Board cannot differentiate between heavy and light industrial. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was told that the Board could cap it at light industrial. Mr. Corwin advised the Board could attach a directive to the amendment to limit the intensity at light industrial. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it is capped at light, can there also be an amendment to allow storage of equipment, or will that have to be addressed by ordinance. Mr. Corwin advised that is something that would have to be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance.

Chairman Higgs stated if the Plan Amendment is passed, it will still be necessary to do a zoning on the property. Mr. Corwin stated a portion of the property already has heavy/light industrial, but a portion is also currently zoned general use. Chairman Higgs stated that part of the parcel would have to be rezoned; with Mr. Corwin responding that is correct. Chairman Higgs inquired what the 660-foot rule says about I-95 and S.R. 405. Mr. Corwin advised I-95 is one of the roadways listed in the policy; and as amended in 1995A, the 660-foot rule does not apply if the zoning has been in place for ten-plus years, if there is a natural vegetative buffer, and if it is part of an established industrial park. Chairman Higgs inquired if that applies to the parcel in question; with Mr. Corwin responding the transfer station is visible from I-95; there is no interpretation in the policy as to what an established park is; and the particular zoning has been in place as of September 16, 1995 for ten years for the portion that is zoned IU and IU-1. Commissioner Cook inquired what does that mean, and does it apply. Ms. Busacca stated the ten-year requirement does occur; the issue is the heavily buffered requirement; and it is staff?s opinion, that it is not necessarily a heavy buffer which would be consistent with this. Commissioner Scarborough stated if there is a heavy buffer, it is the same thing as the mulching facility; as soon as they buffer, the Board does not care what they do. Commissioner Cook stated he concurs and that is his concern. Commissioner Scarborough stated the 660-rule applies to I-95, but not S.R. 405; and S.R. 405 has more visual impact for someone entering Titusville than I-95. Commissioner Cook stated the buffering would not apply on S.R. 405; with Commissioner Scarborough responding S.R. 405 is not designated as a road where the buffering is required. Commissioner Cook stated that concerns him; and he sees Commissioner Scarborough?s point that it is a corridor. Commissioner Ellis stated every road is a corridor; the transfer station is sitting there; he cannot imagine not having industrial property next to the transfer station on Sarno Road; and he cannot think of a more intense use of property than a transfer station. Commissioner Cook inquired if there is any way to address the concerns. Commissioner Ellis inquired what is there for a landscape buffer in the front. Chairman Higgs stated the Board will not see this again because of the existing zoning on the property; and the Board does not have the option of a binding development plan as part of a rezoning. Ms. Busacca advised the option could be making a concurrent rezoning action as part of a binding development plan at the same time this is adopted. She stated this is only a transmittal hearing; and staff can prepare that and have simultaneous public hearings. Commissioner Cook inquired if that would be acceptable. Mr. Crooks inquired what is the proposal; with Chairman Higgs responding a concurrent rezoning which would include the consideration that the applicant might be able to discuss with the County some sort of binding development plan. Mr. Crooks stated in order to develop a commercial or industrial site, it is necessary to have a site plan. Chairman Higgs stated the Board is talking about a concurrent rezoning on the GU portion of the property, so it may be able to consider the issue of buffering as a part of it. Mr. Crooks stated if the applicant is going to develop the property, it will be necessary to rezone the GU property; and it is not his understanding that the GU property has to necessarily be utilized; but all those questions have to be resolved at the development stage and not as an issue regarding land use designation. Chairman Higgs stated the Board understands the applicant?s position is no. Mr. Crooks advised he does not understand the request. Ms. Busacca stated the Board has some concerns about some types of land uses that are contained in heavy industrial but not in light industrial and some buffering; and through a binding development agreement, those limitations could be placed on the property voluntarily, at the same time the final adoption is made of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She stated the Board is saying the caps could address some of the issues it is trying to figure out how to solve. Chairman Higgs stated if the applicant does not want to solve this, the discussion can be stopped; but if he does, it may be possible. Mr. Crooks responded if the Board is asking whether his client is willing to enter into discussions to do a binding development agreement prior to the adoption hearing, that is fine; but if the buffering applies, when development plans are submitted, it would be necessary to comply. He stated if they wish to develop the GU property, it will be necessary to get a development plan approved; and all those things would have to occur. He stated what they do not want is to delay this matter any further based on those issues; and he would be more than happy to enter into discussions regarding the binding development agreement prior to final adoption. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the area shown in white on the map is the area that is IU; with Mr. Moehle responding the map clarifies his ownership and location; they own approximately 105 acres; and they do not own the white area. Commissioner Scarborough inquired where is the IU; with Mr. Moehle and Ms. Busacca pointing out the area on the map. Mr. Moehle stated the idea of submitting a site plan concurrent with zoning is not a problem for those uses that are known; but they cannot submit a site plan when they submit zoning for uses for which they have not been able to market the property because the zoning was taken away. He stated the only plan they can develop is the one plan which will not take up the whole 40 to 50 acres or more; and inquired how can that be resolved. He suggested what might be more workable is to agree, if they are given this zoning, that they will not do certain ugly things. He stated they do want to have construction yards there; and if they cannot have construction yards, they need to keep on with their fight as they are in court now.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he likes the light industrial unless there is a visual buffer; and he is going to have to vote against the motion in its current format; but if the votes are there, it may be worthwhile to have additional discussions when this comes back from DCA. Chairman Higgs stated she will go with Commissioner Scarborough; she does not see any reason to go forward unless the applicant is interested in having some discussions about how it might be possible to deal with the buffer issues and site plan issues; and if the applicant is willing to enter into those discussions, she is willing to consider those, transmit at this time, and look at it in the final adoption. She stated if there is no interest in discussing that and coming up with something that might be acceptable in the corridor, she sees no reason to transmit. Mr. Moehle stated if he said something that counteracted what Mr. Crooks said, he did not mean to; he has no problem with entering into discussions, particularly discussions about extreme buffering for uses like the County?s; they do not intend to allow a use like that; and if they sell to someone that intends to do that, it will not be with their knowledge, and they will fight it. He stated his concern is he does not know what the heavy buffering means with a construction company operation.

Commissioner Ellis stated the property is sitting next to a transfer station for solid waste; and he does not know how there can be anything but industrial land use there. He stated a transfer station is about as intense a land use as you can get.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not see what the problem is; Mr. Crooks said he was willing to enter into the discussions; and with that stipulation, he does not see why this cannot move forward as Ms. Busacca said. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not know what the big deal is. Commissioner Cook stated it is something that can be worked out; and it should resolve the problem. Mr. Crooks stated the applicant agrees to voluntarily enter into discussions about a binding development plan prior to it coming back for approval; and his only concern is that it depends on what scale the Board is talking about. Chairman Higgs stated if the applicant cannot come in with a site plan, there is no reason to go any further. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not so; and they could still come and indicate willingness to put in a ten-foot buffer along S.R. 405. Commissioner Cook stated the applicant can come in with a suggestion. Mr. Moehle advised the applicant might be coming back a parcel at a time.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the issue is the visual buffer; this was handled in the Cidco Park buffer; they were able to get a description of the visual buffer in order to get rid of the 660-foot usage setback for PIP; and that is what is being addressed rather than site plan. He stated when they look at the site plan, they will see they need so many feet of visual buffer. He stated this might be headed in the right direction, but he is not comfortable enough to vote for it at this juncture.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Commissioner Ellis is willing to incorporate in the motion what Ms. Busacca mentioned; with Commissioner Ellis responding that is fine. Commissioner Cook reaffirmed his second. He stated that may solve the problem. Chairman Higgs stated the applicant is indicating that might be possible, but she does not get the feeling from Mr. Crooks that it is possible. She stated she will support the transmittal, but will not support adoption if there are not some visual buffers and issues to take care of the 660 feet.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners O'Brien, Higgs, Cook and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Scarborough voted nay.

Commissioner Ellis advised it will be necessary to get some tall trees to cover up the transfer station.

Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Nohrr is representing the applicant on Item 95.B.4.

Philip Nohrr, 1800 West Hibiscus Boulevard, Melbourne, representing the Buehler Trust, advised this request has been before the Board off and on for the last year; the Trust owns 90 to 100 acres at or around the Valkaria Airport; and the property in question today is the property located to the north and west of Valkaria Road. He stated it currently has a land use classification of Planned Industrial Park (PIP), and a zoning classification of Planned Business Park (PBP); the origin of the request goes back to the late 1980's when the property was given a Government Managed Land (GML) classification which does not apply, as it is private ownership; and it came to light at the time the County started talking about the Trust owning part of the runway as well as part of the clear zone. He stated at the same time the County was running into difficulties in developing the Habitat at Valkaria Golf Course; there were discussions; and the County resolved its environmental problems. He stated during the discussions, it was discovered the property was GML and changes had to be made; the discussions were concurrent with discussions with the County about acquiring land for the clear zone and the end of the runway; and the resolution was that the Trust voluntarily agreed to sell 15 to 16 acres, with the County proceeding with a land use change to PIP. He stated the sale went through; shortly after that, the County changed the land use on the property to PIP; and since that time, nothing has changed down there. He stated the Trust has complied with its end of the negotiations as far as the sale of the land; it was sold at a disadvantage to the Trust; and the property was separated and subdivided. He stated the County got the benefit of its bargain; one of the things the Trust negotiated for was the land use of PIP; and that is being taken away. He stated that is not fair to the Trust; and the Trust is being penalized for reasons he is not aware of. He stated if the County goes forward with this proposal, it will violate its own master plan for the Valkaria Airport; the County developed the plan; it is on file with the FAA; and it talks about the property being zoned for general commercial non-aviation, referring the Board to figure 17. He stated the master plan talks about the Buehler Trust outparcel as being future acquisition; on page 69, it talks about touch and go operations and the existing residences; and it then states the future land use allowed in the area should consider touch and go aircraft operations, especially in take off zones, and land use controls should be implemented now to protect the areas from any future non-compatible land use development. He noted non-compatible uses which are negatively impacted by aircraft uses include residential development, schools, churches, etc.; and it says they should be prohibited. He stated residential should not be by the airport; if it is changed to residential land use, it will ultimately be developed as residential; and it will create conflicts. He noted the number of complaints in the area has already increased from residential development further away from the airport to the west; the Trust has complied with its end; it has worked out a deal to sell the land to the County; and in turn the Trust should get the land use which is consistent with the master plan. He requested the Board not get the benefit of the bargain now, and then in a few years take it away from the Trust. Frank Wichowski, 5151 Adamson Street, Orlando, representing Florida Department of Transportation, stated the Department continues its objection to the proposed zoning change to residential on property in such close proximity to the Valkaria Airport because of potential noise and safety concerns. He read aloud from the Airport Compatible Land Use Guide for Florida Communities, ?Incompatible development, particularly residential development near airports, will inevitably create a body of resident activists who are annoyed by the noise they are being subjected to from normal operation of the airport. The residents will create pressures on their elected officials and the airport to decrease, limit, or prevent aircraft operations.? Mr. Wichowski read, ?Compatible land use for public safety is required primarily to minimize the risk of injury to the general public in the event of an aviation accident.? He read aloud from Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning, written by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, ?New residential and noise sensitive developments seem to surround airports on all sides, and is the source of continual threat of lawsuits for noise damage. There are often other important conflicts such as protection of runway approaches and the safety of persons and property on the ground. The conflicts may be reduced, however, and new ones substantially avoided through the development and implementation of airport land use compatibility plans.? He stated there is a master plan of the airport which addresses those issues; and the information contained in the two documents from which he read is further reason why he is present representing FDOT in objection to the proposed zoning change.

Commissioner Ellis stated the existing zoning is Government Managed Lands. Mr. Nohrr stated that was correct; but the Board changed it to PBP. Commissioner Ellis stated it was changed on the south side of Valkaria Road, but not on the north side. Mr. Nohrr stated Chairman Higgs requested he withdraw that request because everyone knew the GML zoning could not stay; he did not withdraw the request; and the Board voted to change the classification to PBP on part of the property, and directed staff to start looking at it. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not the way he remembers it. Mr. Nohrr stated the existing zoning is PBP. Mr. Corwin advised the zoning is Planned Business Park and the land use is Planned Industrial Park. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is on the north side of Valkaria Road; with Mr. Corwin responding that is correct. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not the way he remembers it; he remembers the north side being AU; he pulled the minutes from previous meetings where this issue was discussed in 1989; Barbara Ray was discussing it with Commissioner Senne at the time; and they talked about the uses on the inside of Valkaria Road, on the airport property. He stated before this property became GML, it was AU; and it was zoned GML in anticipation of purchase for a clear zone area, and then the deal fell through. He stated the airport does not zone property; and what is in the master plan is not a zoning guide for the Board. Mr. Nohrr stated the map shows the designation of PBP for the property; the Board was in a difficult position at that time; if it had not put some zoning on the property, it may have had some liability; and that is why zoning was put on it. Chairman Higgs stated the Board then directed staff to review the land use issues and that is how it got to where it is today; with Mr. Nohrr advising he would agree with that interpretation. Ms. Busacca stated the Board directed staff to process this property as residential in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and it was included in the 1995A cycle, transmitted to DCA, brought back, and tabled to the 1995B cycle. Chairman Higgs stated the zoning went from GML to PBP; with Ms. Busacca advising that is correct. Commissioner Ellis stated prior to going GML, that property was AU.

Mr. Wichowski advised FDOT?s objection is to zoning the property residential from what it is currently zoned.

Commissioner Ellis stated he hopes FDOT understands there is not a long historic trail of commercial zoning there; it had agricultural use zoning; it became GML; when the deal fell through, it came back to the Board requesting a change to PBP; and its historic use is agricultural zoning.

Chairman Higgs stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended the proposed residential land use designation; and that is the recommendation she would support. She stated it is surrounded by residential; it is consistent with the existing character of the Valkaria area; and the new plan for the airport is not the same master plan that is being discussed.

There being no further comments or objections, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Amendment 95.B.4 as residential. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated on page 2, in the third paragraph, it says the Florida Scrub Jay is endangered, but that is not the case; and he would like that to be corrected in the document.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to correct the verbiage that the Florida Scrub Jay is threatened, not endangered. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook stated Amendment 95.B.1 is the agreement that was worked out with Suntree Park.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Amendment 95.B.1 for transmittal.

Commissioner Ellis stated this may be the reason Mr. Von Riesen was here; and the land use needs to move forward; but the Board needs to be aware there is currently a boundary dispute on the property. He noted the boundary dispute would not affect this designation. Commissioner Cook stated he was not aware of that.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Amendment 95.B.2 for transmittal. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Amendment 95.B.5 for transmittal. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook stated 95.B.6 deals with the Pineda Causeway Extension; the LPA recommended approval by a 7-1 vote with the southernmost route; the CRG wanted to preserve some flexibility in the routing; and inquired if that is preserved would it be necessary to align this differently; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, this is a general outline to give people an idea that it is going south of the straight west route, and it is not intended to be site specific. Commissioner Cook stated this follows the Board?s action that it accepted the right-of-way; he does not have a problem with it as long as the flexibility is preserved and it looks toward the southern route; and if that can be addressed at a later time, he does not have a problem with it. He noted he has been in contact with the Pineda Church; and it is willing to work with the County on that. Mr. Jenkins stated that was going to be placed on the agenda to get permission to talk to representatives of the Church. Commissioner Cook stated staff has been in discussion with representatives of the Church; and they are happy to work with the County. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will proceed with that.

Chairman Higgs stated the preliminary plan for 2020 lists this project under preliminary substantially privately funded projects; it is listed under the Phase 2 of the 2020 Plan; and inquired if the Board puts this in the Comprehensive Plan, is it liable in any way for any issues around building this road. County Attorney Scott Knox responded no. She inquired if any property can claim devaluation or evaluation as a basis; with Mr. Knox responding people can claim anything they want to, but he does not think they have grounds to do that.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 95.B.6 for transmittal with the southern route and with flexibility preserved. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated the next item for discussion is the Future Land Use Element Amendment, Policies 2.7 and 2.8.

Commissioner Ellis stated Policies 2.7 and 2.8 seem to be a duplication; and he does not understand why they were ever put in the Plan. Ms. Busacca advised they were included for consistency; the changes the Board made on the Conservation Element will be duplicated throughout the Plan as necessary, depending on what the Board does with duplicative policies; and suggested the Board go on to consider the Future Land Use Element text.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board needs to deal with the Future Land Element Amendment regarding light and heavy industrial; and when the Board deals with all of the duplications, it can deal with this. She stated the LPA recommendation was to table this to the 1996A cycle for staff to create a map showing which areas of the County would be designated light industrial and which areas would be designated as heavy industrial, and to notify the affected property owners.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has a problem with doing this in the first place; if the Board separates heavy from light industrial, every time the Board wants to zone something heavy industrial, it will have a line of people, and the hue and cry would be so loud, the Board could not stand the noise; and at the same time, it would hurt the County?s future in growth management because companies like Harris Corporation could never get the zoning it needs. He stated he does not know where this began; but he does not like it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are different levels of industrial in his District; Cidco Park is heavy industrial; the County?s industrial park has a different intensity; there are land restrictions; and they are really different neighborhoods. He stated if there is a concrete plant in heavy industrial, that is one thing; but if there is something like Harris Corporation, it does not want to be next to a concrete plant. He stated his concern is when this came up previously, there were a lot of people who came out who had the heavy/light designation; if the Board proceeded, it would have to reclassify all the existing uses into either heavy or light; and some people were concerned with the volume of having to review everything. He stated there is a need in some areas to classify the difference between PIP, light and heavy industrial; and addressed the issue of compatibility. He stated he would like to see further division, but does not want to re-address everything the Board has previously done because it will bog down the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table the Future Land Use Element Amendment to the 1996A cycle, as recommended by the LPA. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated the next item is the Recreation and Open Space Element, Policy 3.2.1. She knows staff is working on the PUD ordinance which will be coming back; but she will not support removal of the 25% of the total area or the PUD being removed from the restriction until she knows what will be in the ordinance.

Commissioner Ellis stated he would support removing the PUD, but does not understand the last paragraph being removed which says up to 50% may be devoted to passive recreation. Chairman Higgs stated she assumes it is taking out any restrictions on the PUD?s use of open space. Ms. Busacca advised right now a PUD is required to have a minimum of 50% of its open space as active; that is forcing any PUD to have a golf course to meet the requirement; and staff is suggesting making the standard more flexible so the County does not end up with golf courses in every PUD. She stated staff is suggesting this be removed and the standard be limited to the zoning requirement. Commissioner Cook noted the PUD could build a stadium. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the way it has been interpreted is that the PUD could not devote more than 50%; with Ms. Busacca responding no. Ms. Busacca stated the way the Zoning Code is written, it is necessary to have at least 50% active open space. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not understand because he does not interpret the paragraph that way. Ms. Busacca stated that is the way the Zoning Code is written, and it is very specific. Mr. Jenkins suggested a minimum of 50%. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board should just get rid of it; and his question was whether he was forcing everyone to put active recreation by striking the paragraph. Ms. Busacca stated by having no reference in the Comprehensive Plan, it will be limited to what the PUD Ordinance states; the Board will see the PUD Ordinance in October, 1996; so some decision will be made before the Comprehensive Plan Amendments come back for adoption.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve transmittal of the Recreation and Open Space Element Amendment. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Chairman Higgs stated the next item is Traffic Circulation Element Amendment, Policy 4.1.1.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve transmittal of the Traffic Circulation Element Amendment.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if this is the item where the hurricane evacuation routes were moved. Commissioner O'Brien advised it is Policy 4.2.4. He requested the word ?fatal? be inserted between ?numerous? and ?traffic.?

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to amend Policy 4.2.4 to insert the word ?fatal? between the words ?numerous? and ?traffic.? Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated another sentence would be appropriate to provide that since 1980 there have been a certain number of fatalities on those roadways directly attributable to growth, substantially increased tourism, and commuter traffic. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not agree with that; the road is just dangerous; and the growth has nothing to do with it. Commissioner O'Brien stated sometimes it is necessary to drive a point home. Commissioner Ellis stated his concern is that in the future someone may decide that since the problem is growth, instead of four-laning the road, they will not let anyone build there. Commissioner O'Brien stated no one would do that; and it would be almost impossible to throw a moratorium on the County just because it used the word ?growth.? Commissioner Ellis advised it has been done on S.R. 520 and U.S. 192.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to amend the motion to add the following wording, "To date, since 1980, there have been a number (number to be specified) of fatalities on these roadways directly attributable to growth, substantially increased tourism, and commuter traffic.?

Commissioner O'Brien stated this delineates why it has become a such a serious problem. Chairman Higgs stated she has not seen the data that tells her that is true; she does not know that it is not attributable to a higher percentage of drunk drivers; and since she does not know, she cannot support the language.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to amend. Motion did not carry. Commissioners O'Brien and Cook voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, and Ellis voted nay.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to approve transmittal, as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve transmittal of the Historic Preservation Element.

Chairman Higgs stated the Land Use CRG recommended denial, but the LPA recommended approval by a 6 to 1 vote.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there has to be a classification of historic to obtain certain tax benefits for restorations; it would take one full-time person one and one-half staff-years to implement an ordinance as replacement for the Element; the tax exemptions for the historic preservation will be dependent on the ordinance or they will not be available; and he will have to vote against them. He stated people in Orlando and New Smyrna Beach will be able to get a tax benefit because they have an implementation tool. Commissioner Cook inquired who is this from; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Planner Todd Peetz. Mr. Jenkins stated this was first raised as an issue because there are a number of items the County is supposed to be doing that it has not begun to do, nor does it have the staff to do them; and if the Board is going to leave the Element in, it will need people to do the work. Commissioner Cook stated he would need to see documentation that there are people losing a deduction because of this; and if it is a useless element, he does not know why the Board should hang on to it. Chairman Higgs stated the Board may need to look at those items it cannot do with existing staff, and leave in those parts of the Element that do make sense. Commissioner Scarborough advised if the motion fails, he intends to make a motion to defer it to the 1996A cycle. Chairman Higgs stated the element needs work and realistic expectations need to be included, but she does not think the Element should be eliminated. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Element keeps referring to how much money the County has to spend to accomplish the task; and it is such a special interest issue. Commissioner Cook stated the Board might as well have a music element.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners O'Brien, Cook, and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Scarborough and Higgs voted nay.

Chairman Higgs stated the next issue is duplicative policies in all elements.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to eliminate duplicative policies in all elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Chairman Higgs inquired how this differs from the other items relating to duplicative policies. Mr. Corwin advised different elements were reviewed by different CRG?s. Chairman Higgs inquired if the motion is to remove all duplicative policies, and can it be done in one motion; with Mr. Corwin responding yes.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Corwin noted there is an ordinance for review; and it will be considered for adoption in approximately February, 1996.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve 1995B Comprehensive Plan Amendments for transmittal, as discussed and based upon thorough review of supporting data and analysis, careful consideration of the recommendations of staff, the Building and Construction Advisory Committee, Citizen Resource Groups, the Local Planning Agency, and written and oral public comments received, specifically Comprehensive Plan Amendments 95.B.1, 95.B.2, 95.B.3 as amended, 95.B.4, 95.B.5, 95.B.6, and amendments to the Future Land Use Element, Conservation Element, Traffic Circulation Element as amended, Recreation and Open Space Element, Historic Preservation Element, Surface Water Management Element, Housing Element, Potable Water Element, Sanitary Sewer Element, Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Element, Mass Transit Element, Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element, Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Capital Improvement and Programs Element, and other amendments as necessary to maintain internal consistency. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: BILLS AND BUDGET TRANSFERS

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is a bill from Robert G. Kirkland, M.D., P.A., for a 6.5-hour court appearance of $1,625 which is $250 an hour; and inquired if that is what psychiatrists charge; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he does not know. Commissioner O'Brien stated the best attorneys in the County only get $150 to $175 an hour. Commissioner Cook suggested the Board have this checked out. Chairman Higgs noted Stumpy Harris got $650. Commissioner Scarborough stated that was on a difficult eminent domain case. Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot believe Judge Antoon would look at that as a fair and reasonable price for a County to pay. Commissioner Cook suggested the item be deleted so the Board can get an explanation and information on set rates for expert witnesses. Mr. Jenkins noted he provided the Board with a response to that question. Commissioner Cook inquired if the response include medical doctors.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the Bills and Budget Transfers, except for the bill from Robert G. Kirkland, M.D., P.A., for $1,775; and direct staff to look into the $250 per hour charge and status of the request from the Board for set rates for expert witnesses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

ATTEST:

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

( S E A L )

MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA