The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 4, 2000, at 5:32 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Sue Carlson, and Helen Voltz, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Randy O'Brien.

Commissioner Truman Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairman Higgs advised of the time limits and procedure to address the Board.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated the Board is acting as a quasi-judicial body; it has to look at the requests for rezoning, and apply the law to the fact; and the Board needs to have substantial competent evidence before it to make a decision. She explained what sort of substantial competent evidence is necessary; advised of areas of expertise which may require testimony of professional expert witnesses; and stated courts do accept testimony from individuals about their knowledge of their neighborhoods and the character of the neighborhood.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS OF NOVEMBER 1, 1999, FEBRUARY 14, 2000 AND MARCH 6, 2000 PLANNING AND ZONING HEARINGS

Item 1. (Z9911501) Rosemary Fondong's request for a Mixed Use District boundary expansion (to 350 feet) and a change from RU-2-10 to BU-1 and removal of the BSP on 2.45 acres located on the northwest corner of U.S. Highway 192 and Gray Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Voltz stated there was a meeting at West Melbourne City Hall with all the residents; they came up with some criteria; and she wants to put it on the record so if anyone wants to speak to any of the items they will be able to do so. She stated the final site plan for the project shall incorporate the following restrictions: there will be no driveway behind the building; all air conditioning equipment shall be installed either inside the building or on the rooftop; there shall be no openings to the rear of the building other than emergency exits; a six-foot concrete block wall parallel to the western property line, which shall be set back sufficiently to permit installation of landscaping by the developer/owner on the west side of the wall; maintenance of as much existing vegetation as is practical on the west side of the property to screen the buffer wall from view from adjacent properties; a 25-foot building setback from the western property line; installation of a cover pipe in the drainage swale adjacent to Gray Road; installation of sidewalks adjacent to the property line along Gray Road; and the developer/owner shall install signage, as directed by the County, to restrict large trucks from using Gray Road to exit the project. Commissioner Voltz stated according to Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson, the Gray Road exit must be there for the project to go ahead, but what they have done is to say that trucks can go in on Gray Road and out onto U.S. 192 so there will be no big trucks sitting on Gray Road or exiting back onto that road. She continued, "no adult entertainment establishments or businesses serving alcoholic beverages shall be permitted to operate on the property; the developer/owner shall clear that portion of the drainage canal along Gray Road adjacent to the subject parcel of debris at the time of development; and the developer/owner shall install a sidewalk along Gray Road adjacent to the property line. She noted she is also going to make a motion that the back part of the parcel be administratively rezoned to RU-2-6 or less.

Chairman Higgs noted there are a number of cards for additional testimony on this item. She stated Mr. Healy and Ms. Lawandales met with her concerning the meeting that was held and the items in the binding development plan; and Mr. Thompson also met with her.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he also talked with Ms. Lawandales by telephone.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAY 4, 2000

Item 15. (Z0003501) Lawrence Frazier Johnson, Charlene R. Johnson, and Tania Louise Johnson's request for a Mixed Use District Boundary Expansion and change from RU-1-8 to BU-2 on 4.8 acres located on the southeast corner of Highway 192 and Commodore Street, which was recommended for denial by the Local Planning Agency and approval by the P&Z Board for BU-1 on existing Mixed Use District (330 feet) only, restricted to retail and professional offices, as offered by the applicant, and excluding dance halls, day care centers, muffler shops, poolrooms, bowling alleys, and gas stations.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the applicant has requested the item be tabled.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to table Item 15 to May 25, 2000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS OF NOVEMBER 1, 1999, FEBRUARY 14, 2000 AND MARCH 6, 2000 PLANNING AND ZONING HEARINGS (CONTINUED)

Attorney Patrick Healy, representing Rosemary Fondong, stated his understanding, based on Commissioner Voltz' comments, is that the Board will address the rezoning on the front 300 feet tonight, and address issues related to rezoning the rear 800 feet at another time.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is a binding development plan on the entire parcel; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding that is the intent. Mr. Healy stated he understood Commissioner Voltz wanted to separate the two issues. Commissioner Voltz stated the binding site plan that is on the property now is on the whole thing. Chairman Higgs stated the item that she was shown included issues on the rear parcel; with Mr. Healy advising that is correct, and that is the one that was delivered to staff and the other Commissioners. Mr. Healy stated the applicant and owner are willing to commit to the binding development plan. Commissioner Voltz stated she talked to Mr. Enos about this and he advised it would be easier to administratively downzone the back part to RU-2-6 or less, and when that comes up, notices will be sent out. Chairman Higgs stated there are issues that the Board should discuss. Mr. Healy stated if the Board wants to address what the appropriate zoning would be for the rear 800 feet, there are witnesses who are prepared to testify tonight; but if the Board wants to defer that until the time when it deals with the administrative rezoning, that is also acceptable. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Healy will use his time now in regard to the rear parcel; with Mr. Healy responding he will, if that is the desire of the Board, but he had the impression it was not. Commissioner Voltz stated that is what she would like to do; but no one knows what may transpire when it comes to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Article 8 of the binding development plan says, "developer/owner shall limit density to six units to the acre on the property immediately north of the subject parcel"; and inquired if the intent is to strike that provision. Mr. Healy stated he did not know this was going to proceed this way until he got here tonight, but if it proceeds independently, they will commit to everything in the binding development plan tonight, or they can just commit to those provisions that relate to the front 300 feet. Commissioner Voltz stated since they are agreeing to do that, and it will be necessary to go through the public hearing for the administrative rezoning, she had suggested RU-2-6 or less so the Board could talk about that at the time of the administrative hearing.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the applicant is committing tonight in the binding development plan to RU-2-6 or less, and even though it would require a separate hearing, it will limit the density. Mr. Healy stated they will commit to RU-2-6 and the six units per acre. Commissioner Voltz noted it could be less.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board wants Mr. Healy to talk about the whole property; stated the back portion is not part of the application; and a lady who owns property adjacent to the vacant parcel was not notified because that parcel was not part of the original zoning application. She requested Mr. Enos address the situation. Mr. Enos stated the rear of the property is not the subject of the rezoning; only the front 300 feet which is being requested for commercial is part of the application today; however, there is interest in what will happen on the rear property, so the Board could choose to direct staff, or not direct staff, to initiate an administrative rezoning on the rear of the property, but that is all that could be done today. He stated the Board can choose to initiate a rezoning to any classification; the applicant would like the Board to consider RU-2-6; but when the advertisement is written it will be in such a way that the Board can consider any classification of a lesser intensity. He stated once the administrative rezoning is initiated, then the advertisement would set a new public hearing date, so no decision can be made tonight on the zoning for the rear of the property.

Commissioner Carlson stated the subject property is the front 300 feet, but in the binding development plan, it speaks to the potential of the developer/owner possibly limiting the density to RU-2-6. She inquired if the Board approves the binding development plan with the consideration it shall limit density to six units per acre, and then it administratively comes forward and arguments are presented to downzone further, how is the Board bound by the plan. Ms. Bentley stated the language only provides that the applicant will not object to RU-2-6; the Board still would have the authority to come in with an administrative rezoning at a lower level; however, the applicant may object to a lower density.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to hear the testimony on the rear parcel; with Commissioner Voltz responding the Board will hear that during the administrative rezoning.

Mr. Healy stated he understands the Board already had two lengthy meetings on this issue; the Board already indicated what the applicant agreed to in the binding site plan; and he presented the Clerk with a composite exhibit with such binding site plan, a report from Ms. Lawandales, and the report of the Traffic Engineer. He stated the owner and intended purchaser have made substantial concessions to mitigate adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbors and to ameliorate some of the pre-existing conditions.

Rochelle Lawandales stated she has previously presented findings of fact of how the rezoning on the first 300 feet is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, Brevard County Code, and the area. She stated they have taken a hard look at all of the issues, and tried to come up with solutions through the binding development plan; the lower density is also a consideration that the owner is willing to concede to; the lower density at RU-2-6 makes it compatible; but the focus is on the front 300 feet. She stated whether it is Garden Street, Courtenay Parkway, Wickham Road, Babcock Street or U.S. 192, it is an example of the kinds of uses found on major arterial roads; this particular site fits the community character; and there is a length of commercial properties to varying depths along U.S. 192. She stated it serves the community and will be a good neighbor; and it is compatible.

Merlin Fondong stated he and his wife have owned the property for approximately 20 years; they live in Ohio; and they have been trying to market the property for sale for the last ten years. He outlined problems with people tearing "For Sale" and "No Trespassing" signs down; stated they pay more than $7,000 a year in taxes; and they have spent over $18,000 to maintain the property. He advised of problems with trespassers, and the need for the area to be redeveloped. He stated they did their best to take care of the property, but they are 1,000 miles away; and he is sure Mr. Chen can take better care of the property than they have as he has a problem for the development of the property. He requested the Board approve the rezoning; and commented on financial difficulties.

Jung-Lin Chen stated U.S. 192 is good for commercial, but not residential; and requested the Board approve the rezoning. He commented on the downzoning from RU-2-10; and stated it should be better for the neighborhood.

Barbara Dearing stated in the binding development plan, there are two parcels, the subject parcel and the northern parcel; and she was never officially notified that this would affect the north side of the northern parcel even though her home and property run parallel to that property. She stated the main thing is fencing; it says a six-foot concrete block wall would be put parallel to the western property line for the subject parcel; number 9 says, "the developer/owner agrees to maintain a perimeter buffer of ten feet on the west, north and east sides of the northern parcel, which would be left undeveloped"; but there is nothing about fencing. She stated number 13 says, "this agreement shall be binding and shall inure to the benefit of successors"; the realtor told her a chain-link fence was to be put on the northern property line; and requested a concrete wall be put on her side between the six-unit per acre development and her home. Commissioner Voltz stated Ms. Dearing was not notified because the rezoning is not on the parcel adjacent to her property, and she will be notified when the Board administratively rezones the other parcel. Ms. Dearing stated that would be fine, but it says the agreement is binding, and does not say anything about her having any recourse.

Tim Townsend commented on others gaining financially from the rezoning and development of the property, loss to homeowners, need for traffic enforcement, and neighborhood spoiled by truck traffic.

Wini Austin expressed concern about truck traffic and children going to school on narrow streets with no sidewalks and having to share the road with large trucks; and advised of her personal experience with trucks blocking the road.

Margarite Miles expressed concern about tractor-trailer truck traffic on the narrow streets; and requested the Board consider ways to give the applicants what they want while allowing the residents to have no truck traffic.

Geraldine Wallace commented on the binding development plan, a sidewalk making Gray Road narrower, access to the property from Gray Road, lack of notification of some people, use of Hickory Street, and traffic counts. She expressed concern about the potential for crime; and stated the property does not qualify for BU-1 zoning and it would be detrimental to the quality of life in the neighborhood. She noted Rosemary Fondong is shown as the owner/developer in the binding development plan; it does not mention Mr. Chen; and inquired why Ms. Fondong is listed as owner/developer when she is only the owner. Mr. Enos advised the binding development plan refers to Rosemary Fondong, who is the current owner, as the developer/owner throughout the agreements; if the binding development plan is approved, then it would stay on the property even through changes in ownership; and if Mr. Chen bought the property, it would apply to him, or any other owner who bought the property after the agreement is approved and recorded. Commissioner Voltz stated just because Ms. Fondong would no longer own the property does not mean the new owner would not have to abide by all the provisions; with Mr. Enos responding it would be any owner from this point forward.

Ms. Wallace stated it is not legal for Ms. Fondong to be referred to as developer because Mr. Chen will be the developer; the Board is discussing the owner of the property trying to get 2.45 acres changed to BU-1 zoning; and that is all the Board should be interested in tonight; with Commissioner Voltz advising that is all the Board is considering tonight. Ms. Wallace stated she sees no need for the binding development plan as most of the concessions are actually covered under regulations; and commented on the traffic issue and lack of enforcement.

Leighton Wallace read aloud from the Land Development Regulations, "The applicant must submit a concept plan describing the layout of the proposed site including the square footage of the floor area and type of uses proposed. Daily traffic generated by the site as determined by a concurrency evaluation based upon the concept plan cannot increase the amount of existing traffic on the abutting street by more than 20%. The applicant must provide a current traffic count performed by a licensed engineer if County or State traffic counts are not available on the adjacent roads"; and inquired if the statement applies if the property is BU-1. Mr. Enos stated the provision is from the BU-1-A classification, which is neighborhood commercial; the application being considered is for BU-1 which is community commercial; and the provision mentioned does not apply to BU-1. Mr. Wallace inquired if there is no consideration for the increase in traffic; and commented on traffic counts and use of residential roads.

Linn Wallace stated two months ago, the Board decided to have the applicant reassess the plan; at that time Commissioner Scarborough said that it was a problem property for the type of building that was going to be built there; when it came back last month two changes were made, to move the driveway a few feet to the south and to change the zoning of the back parcel from ten units to eight units per acre; and this month it is basically the same design. He advised the residents still have the same concerns; nothing has been changed by going from eight to six units per acre on the back parcel; and urged the Board to resolve the problem, take a vote, and vote no. He requested Mr. Fondong's financial situation not be considered in this proceeding.

Jerry Klenck commented on his purchase of property zoned agriculture, producing orange grove on subject property being abandoned, and previous approval of multi-family zoning against the wishes of the neighborhood. He advised of expansion of his personal business on properly zoned property; and stated even though Mr. Chen does not know where he will be in 10 to 20 years, he will still be living on Katherine Boulevard. He advised at the meeting two weeks ago, the applicant agreed to everything, but the stumbling block was when the neighbors asked for single-family dwellings on the back parcel; that is when Mr. Healy said they would go to court; and advised of threats to put up low-income housing. Commissioner Voltz advised there will be a public hearing on the rezoning of the back parcel where people will have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Klenck inquired why the applicant would agree to do anything then when they already have what they want; and requested the Board not approve the project because it does not fit.

Alberta Brabitz commented on inability to stop progress, inevitability of commercial building at corner of Gray Road and U.S. 192, and people being defeated because the applicant can sue the County and get what they want. She thanked Commissioner Voltz for allowing the neighbors to voice opinions; stated it was intimated that if the neighbors were willing to give input on the commercial property, that the back parcel would be zoned for single-family housing; and advised of their surprise when Mr. Healy announced willingness to limit the housing to six units per acre. She described the character of the neighborhood as old and established; and stated single-family housing fits the neighborhood, but other types do not.

Jessica Klenck stated she lives on Katherine Boulevard and her 90-year old mother lives on Gray Road; and described the character of the neighborhood. She advised of elderly neighbors who have the same type of land as the Fondongs, the precedent being set by the rezoning, and the possibility that the neighborhood will be destroyed. She stated she is sorry for the Fondongs, but the neighborhood was there first; and if Mr. Fondong bought something troublesome, he should not blame the residents in the neighborhood.

Joan Olmstead commented on trucks blocking Gray Road for up to 25 minutes and proper design so trucks can enter off U.S. 192. She inquired why the neighborhood should pay if the applicants refuse to properly design; and advised of trucks almost hitting her mailbox on a daily basis when they are turning from Gray Road to Northern Oak. She inquired who allowed the Dinette Shop to go in, and how did they get the problem in the first place. She stated if the trucks can come onto the property off U.S. 192, there is no problem; but requested the Board not approve the rezoning otherwise.

Robert Mount, representing Rosemary Fondong, advised of his responsibility to take care of the property in the Fondong's absence; and commented on violence, trespassers, fires, and vagrancy on the property. He stated there is a problem with the roads, but it will be improved greatly with the County's help; and advised of enhancement of the neighborhood by the strip mall.

Nick Beckey commented on previous meetings, lack of effort to do the project right, and no drawings of the project. He requested businesses not be allowed to move and expand into the residential area; and suggested if the businesses want to move there, they should buy out the residential areas. He recommended the area be left as is.

Mr. Healy stated one of the substantive comments that was made by people in opposition relates to the access on Gray Road and the impact of potential traffic from the site on the neighborhood; and recommended the Board review Item 3, which is the County Traffic Engineer's report that indicates the Gray Road entrance is highly advisable for safety reasons and eliminates the incentive for trucks that are serving the parcel to access through Hickory, Oak or Gray Roads. He stated the binding site plan proposes to limit the egress for trucks out of the driveway to eliminate any potential that they will egress through Oak and Gray Roads; and Ms. Lawandales will introduce into evidence some photographs that clearly indicate that the projects in the neighborhood that are commercial all have access off of the side streets. He stated they have provided the Board with competent substantial evidence that the rezoning request on the front 300 feet is advisable and should be approved; it is consistent with the site plan and the surrounding uses are all commercial; and there has been no competent substantial evidence offered by the opponents that controverts any of the evidence. He stated there is no evidence that maintaining the existing zoning serves any legitimate public interest; they are willing to commit to all the provisions of the binding site plan that relate to the front parcel, as well as those that relate to the rear parcel, if the Board desires; and those provisions go a long way toward ameliorating some of the pre-existing conditions that the residents have complained about and go a long way toward mitigating any adverse impact from development of the property. He stated the application meets the requirements of the law and merits the Board's approval; and they would appreciate a positive vote.

Commissioner Voltz requested Mr. Healy address the allegation that the applicant did not make any concessions to the neighborhood. Mr. Healy stated Mr. Chen and the Fondongs have made some substantial concessions; and the first is they agreed to rezone the rear parcel from medium density multi-family to low density, which is a substantial financial concession. He stated they have agreed that a site plan would eliminate any potential for a driveway to the rear of the property, even though most strip malls do have such a driveway; the block wall they have agreed to put in would not be required by Code; and they have agreed at the rear of the property to extend the setbacks by 10 feet beyond what is required by Code. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the applicant would be required to fill in the drainage ditch on the east side of the property; with Mr. Enos responding he does not know if that would be required. Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson stated he does not know if it would be required, but it is something that would be considered in the land development process in looking at the safety aspect. Mr. Healy stated they are prepared to pipe it; and the sidewalk would go above the pipe.

Chairman Higgs stated there was a question about a chain-link fence around the property. Mr. Healy stated Mr. Chen has indicated he would be willing to put a chain-link fence around the entire property, if he acquires it, before it is developed in order to restrict access and eliminate problems. Chairman Higgs stated that is not in the binding development plan; with Mr. Healy responding it is not, and some residents do not want a chain-link fence; and buffers will be decided at the time of site plan approval for the rear of the parcel.

Commissioner Voltz inquired about the wall along the back; and inquired if the Board would address that at the time of the administrative rezoning. Mr. Enos stated unless the developer wishes to make that part of the binding development plan now, that would be considered as part of the rezoning, if the Board initiates rezoning on the north parcel.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has never seen an administrative rezoning where anything like a wall was required. Mr. Enos stated the County cannot require it; but the developer could offer it as a part of a binding development plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated if he wishes not to, there would be no way to compel it; with Mr. Enos advising that is correct. Mr. Healy stated presently Mr. Chen has no plans for developing the property immediately; and it would be premature for him to make decisions about what kind of barrier would be appropriate.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Healy is saying it is not going to be developed for a long time; and inquired why the applicant is here tonight; with Mr. Healy responding they are referring to the part that would remain residential after the rezoning action on the front 300 feet, which Mr. Chen will immediately develop with a commercial project.

Commissioner Carlson stated in the traffic study, Mr. Thompson said one can reasonably assume with the proposed site plan that there will be conflicts between delivery trucks and shoppers with their vehicles, and recommended deliveries only be made during the hours when the businesses are closed; and inquired if Mr. Healy is willing to put that in the binding development plan. Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Thompson knew, at the time he wrote the recommendation, that the Board was going to eliminate the truck traffic going onto Gray Road; with Mr. Thompson responding no. Mr. Thompson stated they could work out an alternate if they could come up with an acceptable loading/unloading area in the front; if not, he would recommend they take deliveries during non-working hours; and if they do not come up with a suitable loading/unloading area that is somewhat separated from all the traffic, there could be some internal safety problems. Chairman Higgs stated the issue of a driveway on Gray Road has been heatedly discussed; and inquired if the parcel could be developed with one driveway on U.S. 192; with Mr. Thompson responding that is correct. Mr. Thompson advised in that case any of the vehicles coming from the west would have to make a U-turn rather than a left turn to access the property; the average automobile can make the turn comfortably; but advised of difficulties with larger vehicles making the turn. Commissioner Voltz stated those trucks may go down Hickory Street, across Northern Oak, and down Gray Road, make a right turn onto U.S. 192, and into the property. Mr. Thompson stated they would have the choice of making a hazardous U-turn or going around the block. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it is hazardous based on the size of the truck; with Mr. Thompson responding a U-turn has more risk than making a left turn, and anything larger than an automobile creates a tricky situation. Commissioner Scarborough stated there was discussion about eliminating dangerous turns; and commented on U-turns; with Mr. Thompson advising it is not possible to eliminate all U-turns. Mr. Thompson stated there is a greater risk of having trucks go through the neighborhood by having the U-turn situation instead of the left turn. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is there any way U.S. 192 could be reconfigured to have no Gray Road and no U-turns; with Mr. Thompson responding that would be up to FDOT.

Discussion ensued on U-turns.

Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner Carlson asked a question about deliveries and times. Dave Menzel, MAI, stated there is an ability to put a 9-foot by 100-foot unloading zone on the west side of the property, east of the building; and the owner will stipulate that, so there would be room for a truck to pull in and out of the traffic pattern. He stated it would be against the front of the building; and there will be a sidewalk that will wrap around the building. Commissioner Voltz inquired if that is acceptable; with Mr. Thompson responding that would be acceptable. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board could say that is the only place they could have deliveries; with Mr. Thompson responding it would have to be marked accordingly on the pavement, and put signs up so other visitors to the shopping center would not park in that area. Commissioner Voltz inquired about the traffic counts. Mr. Enos responded the concurrency evaluations are done on the major arterial and collector roads in the County, but not local roads like Gray Road and Katherine Street; the concurrency evaluation established that the current level of service is C; the acceptable level of service is D on U.S. 192; and this would not change the level of service, although it would be expected to increase the traffic from 80.85% of capacity to 83.72% of capacity. He stated if the Gray Road access was opened, it would be a good idea to bring Gray Road up to commercial standards, at least for the segment between U.S. 192 and the back of the driveway because the pavement is only 20 feet wide. Commissioner Voltz inquired what would that mean; with Mr. Enos responding increasing the pavement width from 20 feet to between 22 and 24 feet. Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the easement on the roadway there; with Mr. Thompson responding he is not sure what the right-of-way width is, but normally in the land development process, if there is not sufficient right-of-way for a sidewalk, the County requires an easement for construction, operation and maintenance of a sidewalk, in addition to the regular right-of-way.

Chairman Higgs stated in the binding development plan the applicant has proposed, they talk about a maximum density of six and RU-2-6 on the property; noted this is not a public hearing advertised for the purpose of addressing those parcels; and inquired if they are agreeing to support that, but it is not binding on the Board; with Ms. Bentley responding that is right. Chairman Higgs stated the applicant is agreeing, but the County is not; with Ms. Bentley advising they are saying they will not object to the RU-2-6, but the Board is not saying it will not look at anything lesser.

Commissioner Voltz stated she understands the traffic on Hickory and Northern Oak Streets, coming in the back way, is a major problem; and the Board needs to deal with that. She stated there is no reason why those side roads should have huge trucks on them; and she intends to make sure Code Enforcement is out there long before the property is developed. She stated the Dinette Store is in the process of expanding 5,000 square feet, and will be bringing all traffic onto their property by U.S. 192, but she does not know when that will take place. Mr. Enos stated he heard the owner state that, but he does not know when. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there are any objections or problems.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board approves a rezoning and restricts the access only from U.S. 192, what would happen if they did not agree to that in the binding development plan. Mr. Enos stated the County can put restrictions on the approval. Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees the Board can do that, but it would put more trucks on Hickory and Northern Oak; and trucks can be required to access the shopping center from Gray Road, but trucks cannot exit on Gray Road. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is a way to put signage so there would be no through truck traffic; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not part of the binding development plan; and when there is residential area that becomes a delivery path, there is something wrong. Commissioner Voltz stated it was in the binding development plan; with Commissioner Scarborough advising they cannot do anything with roads that are not part of the parcel. Commissioner Voltz stated it says the developer/owner shall install signage as directed by the County to restrict large trucks from using Gray Road to exit from the project. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was talking about something on the Board's initiative. Mr. Thompson suggested something similar to what was done with the Haverhill situation in Port St. John could be done with signs to restrict commercial trucks accessing commercial businesses for deliveries; and then it would be a case for enforcement. Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to speak to the owner of the Dinette Store as this is a major issue that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Scarborough noted current problems are not the applicant's problem.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 1, including all the issues the Board has discussed that are in the binding development plan.

Chairman Higgs noted she asked about restricting access onto Gray Road.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the applicant has an unloading area, does the Board have to set times; with Mr. Thompson responding if they can provide a suitable safe area that is well marked to unload trucks, that would be acceptable.

Discussion ensued on whether to have one motion or multiple motions. Mr. Enos suggested dealing with the application first to rezone the front 300 feet, and then as a separate motion direct or not direct staff to initiate rezoning on the back parcel, as the Board desires. Discussion resumed on whether to have one or multiple motions, removing the current binding development plan on front parcel only, and the proposed binding development plan.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about bringing Gray Road up to commercial standards; with Mr. Thompson advising it could be addressed as part of the land development process. Commissioner O'Brien recommended including it now. Commissioner Voltz stated the applicant has to agree voluntarily. Ms. Bentley advised if it is already in the Land Development Regulation, then it is already required, but she does not know if it is in the Code.

Rochelle Lawandales stated the applicant would abide by whatever the Land Development Code says; and the owners of the Dinette Store and the property being rezoned would have to work together in accommodating whatever width on both sides would be necessary. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board cannot get the Dinette Store here because they are not part of the rezoning; with Ms. Lawandales advising it could be done if the Dinette Store expands. Commissioner Voltz stated in that case, they could keep them off Gray Road.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if she needs to amend the motion to direct staff to proceed with an administrative rezoning on the rear parcel; with Chairman Higgs responding no.

Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Voltz requested the Board provide some criteria to deal with the item.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 1. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Carlson stated if that is not acceptable, a motion can be made to approve BU-1 but have Gray Road closed. Commissioner Voltz stated she understands the issue with Gray Road, but by doing that, it puts more truck traffic on Hickory and Northern Oaks which is a major problem. Chairman Higgs stated she does not think so; appropriate law enforcement and signage can be used to restrict trucks in that area; it is going to be a commercial property on the front at U.S. 192; and it is a zoning she could support, but not with access on Gray Road. Commissioner Voltz stated the County Engineer thinks it is the thing to do; and if the Commissioners do not want to do that, she does not know what to say.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 1, with the binding development plan, and enforcement of the truck issue on Gray Road, Northern Oak Street, and Hickory Street. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are things about this item that make sense, but for other things, there has to be a better way; he appreciates how much time Commissioner Voltz put into this; but he is not comfortable that the Board is where it should be with this item. Commissioner Voltz stated she does not know what the Board wants to do. Chairman Higgs suggested the Board take a break.

The meeting recessed at 7:07 p.m. and reconvened at 7:22 p.m.

Chairman Higgs inquired if it would be possible to have a right-in, right-out split driveway on the parcel on U.S. 192; with Mr. Thompson responding that would be at the discretion of FDOT, but it has been done at other locations.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 1, with no access or improvement to Gray Road, subject to a Binding Development Plan as submitted by the applicant on May 4, 2000, with deletion of items 4, 6 and 7.

Commissioner Voltz stated that will eliminate the Gray Road access; they are going to go to FDOT to see about entrance on U.S. 192; and with an onsite loading zone.

Commissioner O'Brien seconded the motion. Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to initiate administrative rezoning of rear parcel to RU-2-6 or less. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to provide notice of public hearing to consider administrative rezoning to affected surrounding property owners. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs inquired about the issue of the trucks on the side streets.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to direct staff to provide appropriate signage and enforcement concerning truck traffic on Northern Oaks Street, Hickory Street, and Gray Road.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the impact made by this project is the reason the signs are needed; with Commissioner Voltz disagreeing. Chairman Higgs stated it is existing traffic.

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

Chairman Higgs clarified the Board rezoned the front part of the parcel to BU-1 with no access to Gray Road, subject to the Binding Development Plan with the deletion of 4, 6, and 7; and directed staff to initiate administrative rezoning to RU-2-6 or less and appropriate signage on the streets.

Mr. Enos stated he presumes the intent is to deny the Mixed Use District expansion; with Commissioner Voltz responding it is only 300 feet.

Item 2. Section 3, Township 29, Range 38, Parcel 250.1, from TU-1(20) to TU-1(6), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Cliff McClelland, representing the applicant, stated this is a family-owned motel on the South Beaches; they made a presentation last time; and staff provided a response. He stated the staff response did not address the core issue which is that there is a Comprehensive Plan for the South Beaches which is one unit per half-acre for the north beach and one unit per acre in the south beach; they did a statistical analysis to see how the County complies with the Land Use Plan; and they found that 90% of the vacant parcels and 95% of the developed parcels did not comply with the density standards. He stated staff cited a lot of old studies and various provisions to the Land Use Plan, but never repudiated the applicant's statistics, which show that the County has a Land Use Plan that it violates more than it observes in the South Beaches. He stated their consistent position has been that by downzoning the property, the County is placing a disproportionate burden on the applicant and other limited property owners by trying to make them comply with the density requirements. He stated the only way developed properties comply is where the County has grandfathered them in; on the undeveloped properties, the County is permitting substandard lots to develop; the core point is that the County is applying a disproportionate burden because it is trying to pull out the existing density that the property in question and a limited number of other properties have. He stated the density and density analysis they had still stands; it has not been repudiated by the staff report; and by taking the rezoning action, the Board will be costing the property hundreds of thousands of dollars. He stated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of trying to purchase the property; and reiterated the Board, by taking the action to downzone, will bring down the price of the prospective property and cost the property owner several hundred thousand dollars.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Echols wishes to speak; with Mr. Echols responding no. She requested staff address the consistency and percentage issues.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott clarified the staff response was only a few pages; and entered into the record the South Beaches Small Area Plan which was adopted in 1992, a photograph of the subject motel that was taken from a helicopter after Hurricane Irene, the South Beaches Transportation Land Use Study which was done by the MPO Director and was part of the 1999B package; and the entire 1999B Amendment package which dealt with the original Echols amendment which was denied. He stated to do anything other than that would require the Board to go back and reconsider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and submitted for the record copies of the November 30, 1999 Board meeting minutes in which the Board denied the Plan Amendment after expert testimony, and the 1992B Amendment package which first put the wheels in motion on the Echols property. He stated the 1992B Amendment package was the first batch of amendments in the South Beaches that implemented some of the recommendations to the Small Area Plan. He advised with regard to the notion that the County left the majority of the developed and undeveloped lots inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff's counter-position, which is backed up by Code, is that those properties in the South Beaches are not inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map; any parcel which had an existing use or was otherwise vested with the zoning classification at the time of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, such as the Echols property, shall not be considered inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map series; and there is nothing to be gained by saying more than it is in the County's Code.

Mr. McClelland stated the applicant's position is clear; and he assumes the Board understands that what Mr. Scott is saying is the County grandfathered in the existing development, and the County is grandfathering in substandard lots. He stated 90% of the vacant lots and 95% of the existing developed lots do not comply with the Future Land Use Plan for the South Beaches; and commented on public policy where there are density requirements, but as a wholesale measure, both existing and potential development do not comply with it.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman O'Brien.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 2 as recommended based on years of work with the documents that are before the Board, as well as the refuting of the claim in regard to non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Voltz stated she will vote no because she has consistently voted no for any administrative rezoning that the owner of the property opposes. She stated she has no problem with administrative rezoning as long as the property owners agree.

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

Vice Chairman O'Brien passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

Item 3. (Z0003101) Edward Schumers, Trustee's request for a Mixed Use District Boundary Expansion and a change of classification from GU and RU-1-11 to EU-1 on 6.1 acres located on both sides of Riveredge Drive, approximately 0.60 mile south of Riveredge Drive and Washington Avenue split, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Attorney John Evans, representing the applicant, stated when this was tabled, it was requested the matter be sent to the Titusville City Council for comment; the record indicates the City Council declined to make any comments, except for staff comments; and Keith Cunningham sent a letter advising it is in compliance with the City regulations. He stated he is ready to bring in expert testimony, but in light of the fact the City did not make any negative comments, that may be avoided.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the issue is that it is preferable to have the project developed with sewer rather than septic tank; and inquired if Mr. Honeycutt wishes to address that issue. Rodney Honeycutt stated the applicant is prepared, if they get the rezoning, to apply to the City of Titusville for public sewer and water. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands the City declined to take any comment; and inquired if it was possible to discern, from the Council's discussion, whether it would consider annexation for that purpose. Mr. Honeycutt advised that was not discussed. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the City said it would not annex; with Mr. Honeycutt responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is clearly an enclave; he asked staff about restrictions; Policy 3.9 of the Coastal Element places severe restriction on the placement of septic tanks and drainfields along the Lagoon; and commented on capacity to fully develop the property due to its configuration. Mr. Evans stated that is one of the main reasons they applied to the City for sewer and water; but if for some reason the City did not annex, they would have to comply with the State and County regulations. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is to everyone's mutual benefit because the City has taken the posture to eliminate enclaves; it is to the community's benefit not to have septic tanks on the Lagoon; and the developer can more intelligently sell and develop the parcels. He inquired if the applicant would agree to a condition approving it subject to development with sewer as an element; with Mr. Evans responding yes, provided the City of Titusville grants it, but if the City does not, they may only be able to put one or two units, and as long as they comply with County regulations, they would still ask to develop it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it could be approved subject to City approval of sewer. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the City did not want to annex, the Board would have probably heard that. Commissioner Carlson stated what the Board was saying was that it was an enclave and it wanted to give the City an opportunity to comment on what it wanted to do with it. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would have preferred if the City had said if an application was made for annexation where sewer could be provided, it would favorably consider it. Chairman Higgs suggested approving it subject to sewer hookup. Mr. Evans stated he has no problem applying for sewer with the City of Titusville; and the area meets the criteria for annexation.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve MUD expansion and EU-1 as recommended, subject to development of sewers.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Council asked why the Board requested it act on this specific request; and inquired if the Board responded. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think that has been done yet; and there may have been a failure of communication.

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

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Enos advise the City of the Board's comments at this evening's meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAY 4, 2000

Item 1. (Z0004101) Jim S. Moore's request for change from GU to ARR on 1.04 acres located on the southeast corner of Terri Lee Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0004102) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by Clifford P. and Mary W. Trainham on which a development order had been submitted initiating consideration of a change from AU to ARR in accordance with the provisions of Future Land Use Element XIII, Policy 10.2, Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, as adopted on September 8, 1998, et seq. on 2.2 acres located on the east side of Charles Place, approximately 300 feet south of Breckinridge Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z0004103) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by Crown-Simplimatic, Inc., c/o Key Equity Capital Corporation on which a development order had been submitted initiating a consideration of change from BU-1 to PIP in accordance with the provisions of Future Land Use Element XIII, Policy 10.2, Brevard County Comprehensive Plan as adopted on September 8, 1988, et. seq., on 21.94 acres located on the northwest corner of U.S. 1 and Sunset Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 3 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (Z00004104) Steve and Linda Kastner's request for change from FU to AGR on 1.94 acres located on the northwest corner of Florida Palm Avenue and Cabbage Palm Street, which was recommended for approval with no mobile home by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Enos explain what has been done in cases similar to the Kastner's. Zoning Official Rick Enos advised with nonconforming lots of record, when a property is being rezoned, in this example from GU to an agricultural classification, the existing Code requires that the new classification have the same lot size or greater; and that is why the Kastner's application is for AGR instead of AU, even though much of the neighborhood is zoned AU. He stated that has created a problem in some instances because of the mobile home issue in neighborhoods that do not have mobile homes; and the Board has directed staff to initiate a Code change that would allow the consideration of AU zoning; however, that ordinance is not going to be considered by the Board until May 9, 2000. He stated he expects if the Board adopts the ordinance on May 9, 2000, it will direct staff to initiate administrative rezoning of all the parcels, including the Kastner's, from AGR to AU. He noted the administrative rezoning would be at the County's initiation and the Kastners would not have to comment or attend, if they did not want to; but they will be notified that the County is going to rezone the property.

Steve Kastner advised that is acceptable.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board, with no mobile home.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca suggested tabling the item until May 9, 2000. Commissioner Scarborough stated they discussed that, but he would like to let the Kastners go home and not worry; and the Board will be doing others, so it will just do them all at once. Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. (Z0004105) Dwayne and Korrin Sunday White's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.50 acres located on the west side of Dixie Way, approximately 430 feet south of Burkholm Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z0004106) Walter W. Smith, Sr.'s request for change from GU to AGR on 2.38 acres located on the east side of Florida Palm Avenue approximately 800 feet south of Cabbage Palm Street, which was recommended for approval with no mobile home by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Item 6 is the same situation as Item 4; and inquired if the applicant has any problem with him making the same motion as on the prior item. Patrick Moran, representing the applicant, advised he has no problem with it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board, with no mobile home. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0004107) Nicholas G. Rinaldi's request for change from RRMH-5 to AGR on 10.07? acres located on the west side of Blounts Ridge Road, approximately 0.5 mile north of Aurantia Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z0004108) Roy D. and Denise Harrell's request for change from GU to ARR on 2.13 acres located on the northwest corner of Reese Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval as AGR by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Enos gave him some information about wetlands on the property and requested he comment. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated the original application was for ARR, which if approved would have permitted the splitting of the property into two lots; the review indicated wetlands on the property; because of the wetlands, it recognizes the existing lot, but would not allow an additional split into two lots; and so the recommendation was to approve as AGR. Mr. Enos stated AGR and ARR are similar in nature, but AGR does not allow the property to be split. Commissioner Scarborough stated on this item it will not be necessary to come back and do what will be done with Items 4 and 6; with Mr. Enos advising that is correct, because this neighborhood already has mobile home zoning established.

Benny Baldwin stated AGR is fine as he has no plans to split the property.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. (Z0004201) Walter L. and O'Dessa L. Bryan's request for Conditional Use Permit for a Convenience Store with Gasoline Sales in a BU-1-A (Restricted Neighborhood Retail Commercial) zone on 0.47 acre located and having frontage on the east side of Joan Drive, and on the northwest corner of South Tropical Trail and Emma Drive, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Roger Williams, representing Walter Bryan, owner of the Dog Gone Grocery Store, requested the item be tabled because he has not received all the necessary information, including drawings and information from the environmental attorney in Tallahassee. Chairman Higgs inquired what would be the date for the continuance; with Mr. Williams responding May 25, 2000 would be the next available time. Chairman Higgs stated she will allow the speakers to speak; and inquired if Mr. Williams has anything to add. Mr. Williams stated the drawings he has coming are critical; the situation now is they have a store that has been there approximately 60 years; it is in bad condition and needs repairs; and they want to pull this into one unit and resolve all the problems. He stated it went through staff without any problems, pending the environmental issues of the removal of the existing gasoline tanks, pumps, and canopy; and there was no issue concerning the building meeting the Codes. He stated it is an old SUP; the gasoline tanks and pumps are considered abandoned; and as a result they have to be taken out and replaced with new ones. He stated without the drawings, it is hard to pull the whole thing together; and if the environmental issue is not cleared, then there is no sense in doing anything with it. He outlined multiple problems on the site; stated all issues have been addressed and would be resolved; and the new site would be brought up to complete compliance with a new retention pond, pollution control devices for new tanks, spill requirements met for new tanks, and the possibility of putting above-ground tanks. He reiterated his request to table the item

Chairman Higgs advised generally when the applicant indicates he or she wishes to have the item tabled in advance of the meeting, the Board honors that; and inquired about Board policy in regard to requests at the meeting; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding the Board's policy has been to consider it on a case by case basis.

Robert McCoy, representing the residents of the Brentwood Subdivision, River's Edge Estates, Robin Lee Subdivision, and Sunny Acres Subdivision, stated they are against any rezoning. He requested those who are against the rezoning to stand; with a group of approximately 15 to 20 people standing. Mr. McCoy stated there is a petition signed by over 50 people and a map of all the houses in the surrounding area owned by people against the item; and submitted them to the Chairman. He advised of the original rezoning for a gas station and required variances; and read aloud from the 1982 minutes concerning the binding site plan. He commented on the history of the property and loss of Conditional Use Permit. He stated Mr. Bryan wants to remove the Binding Site Plan and get another one so he can improve his property again; but the residents do not want it there. He advised of traffic counts and problems, lack of frontage on the road, and other possibilities for the Bryan property. He stated the residents do not want a gas station at that location; and requested the Board uphold the decision of the Board in 1982 which denied this unanimously.

John Lynn stated his property is across the street from the Dog Gone Grocery; and submitted letters from residents in opposition to the zoning request. He outlined reasons to deny the request, including not abutting a public right-of-way of at least 60 feet wide, and not being located near an intersection of two collector roads or an arterial and a collector road. He stated Mr. Bryan has not operated the fuel pumps in quite a few years, so it will not be a disservice to the community not to have gas there; and failure to meet the Code is reason for denial of the zoning request. He commented on the drainage problems and plans to put a culvert down the west side of Tropical Trail.

James Bennett, speaking on behalf of 18 to 20 abutting property owners, stated Mr. Bryan has not lived up to the Binding Site Plan which is currently in effect on the property which was placed there in 1982; and advised of violations. He noted Mr. Bryan stopped selling gas, and lost the permit to sell it; Mr. Bryan does not give any cause to believe he will abide by zoning changes; and recommended the zoning request be denied.

Bettie Bryant advised of the history of the property, maintenance and Code Enforcement problems, and the 1982 zoning change and the Binding Site Plan. She commented on improvements to the building after the 1982 zoning change; and stated the request is to remove the Binding Site Plan and reissue a Conditional Use Permit, which had expired, for gasoline sales. She stated the existing tanks have to be removed no matter what; Mr. Williams, who has no substantive interest in the property, could be representing a potential buyer or may at some time in the future; if the store has made a profit for years without any pumping of gasoline, then a potential buyer could also do so; and if it has not made a profit just as a convenience store, then the best use of the property may be to remove the commercial zoning and make it conform to the surrounding residential zoning. She requested the Board deny the item; and stated if Mr. Williams wants to come back in six months after doing the proper work to prepare for a major change, he may do that.

Gordon deDeugd advised of the location of his property in relation to the Dog Gone Grocery; and commented on drainage problems. He stated he has nothing against having a store at the location, but the gas pumps are too near to the river.

Roger Williams stated he hears the concerns of the speakers; right now the Dog Gone Grocery is in peril; it is in the worst condition it has ever been in, but that is due to medical problems of the owner; and the proposal will put a shiny penny on the map. He stated the speakers said staff had objections, but that is not true; the proposal is solid; and the Dog Gone Grocery is a historical landmark that has been around for a long time. He stated they have a plan to bring the property into compliance and eliminate all the problems including the environmental problems which are a huge concern; and advised of the new plan which is the safest state-of-the-art method. He commented on the planned renovated building and redesign of the site; and stated all staff concerns have been addressed. He stated the gasoline is a critical part of the business; with the South Courtenay Parkway Extension, the business lost the traffic count; and the store cannot function without gasoline sales as an integral part of it. He requested the Board seriously consider the end result.

Chairman Higgs stated she met with Carol Roach on May 3, 2000, and she went over the history of the site and her concerns. Commissioners Voltz and Scarborough advised they also met with Ms. Roach. Commissioner O'Brien stated he spoke with Ms. Roach, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Bryan.

Commissioner O'Brien stated regarding the request to table, Mr. Williams knew that any evidentiary materials had to be presented at this evening's meeting; to wait until the last minute when so many people have come to discuss this is inappropriate; and he would like to proceed with tabling the item. He stated the way the new building would look is not the issue tonight; staff did have heartburn with this request; the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial; and if Mr. Williams needs more drawings, he will have an opportunity in six months because his motion will be to deny. He inquired if Mr. Bryan lost his CUP for gasoline sales because he did not operate for six months; with Mr. Enos responding yes, that is correct. Commissioner O'Brien stated the community has had concerns since 1982; explained what happened at the 1982 zoning meeting; and read aloud names of people who signed the petitions. He stated the Dog Gone Grocery is not a historical landmark; it is a symbol of poor zoning choices made 20 years ago and a mirror of an era where poor construction was allowed and maintenance barely existed; and the request for removal of the binding site plan and granting of conditional use permit for gasoline sales should be denied for compelling reasons. He stated the property does not abut a public right-of-way of at least 60 feet in width; South Tropical Trail is 50 feet wide at this location; and the property does not meet the requirement that it is to be located near the intersection of two collector roadways or near the intersection of an arterial and a collector roadway. He stated the owner has not operated fuel pumps in years, and the CUP has been removed; therefore, no service to the community will be lost; and there was a failure to meet the minimum requirements of the County Code. He advised other objections came in; the residents of Emma Drive and Joan Drive cannot use South Tropical Trail as an exit during daylight hours because of trucks, trailers and signs on the Bryan's property, blocking the view of oncoming traffic on South Tropical Trail; and at night the lights of approaching traffic serve as a warning. He stated another petition says expansion means more traffic in the residential areas of Sunny Acres and South Tropical Trail, and will increase dangers to residents and motorists; a statement was made that the updating of equipment would not increase traffic because all areas surrounding the site are fully developed and traffic counts have been established; but that is not true. He stated to the south of this area is a new development with approximately 287 homes which will affect South Tropical Trail. He stated there was a letter from Charles and Betty Ducharme advising the grocery store was started by the Poole family many years ago, never should have been permitted in a residential neighborhood, does not abut public right-of-way, and endangers the safety of children by the increased traffic created by gasoline sales. He stated the letter says truckers parking along the roadside while patronizing the store or making calls on the stores pay phone create hazards for drivers; the store does not meet requirements for collector or arterial roads; and since gasoline sales were discontinued in 1993, denial of the zoning will not create a loss of revenue. He stated there was comment about the environmental impact; the system has been classified as abandoned or unmaintained since 1994; and there was no proper closure assessment to determine whether petroleum contamination exists as required by law. He stated he also received a letter from John and Susan Lynn who advise the two stores at the corner of Courtenay Parkway and Cone Road are plenty, and as the store is not on an arterial roadway and does not meet the road width requirements, the request should be denied.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to deny Item 9, as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. (Z0004301) Frieda Frei Meland's request for change from GU to EU-2 with a Binding Development Plan limiting density to two units per acre maximum on 2.5 acres located on the west side of Highway A1A approximately 116 feet south of Mar-Len Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board, with a BDP limiting density to two units only, and a proposed site plan ready by the County Commission meeting.

Chairman Higgs advised she has met with Ms. La Drew and some of the residents abutting the property; and inquired if Ms. LaDrew has a binding development plan. Gina LaDrew responded she does; and submitted the original and copies of the plan.

Gina LaDrew, representing the applicant, stated they are requesting a change from GU to EU-2 with a binding development plan; the zoning change being requested does comply with the Comprehensive Plan which allows for two units per acre; and the request is for two units on 2.4 acres. She stated the density to the south is approximately 8 units per acre and the density to the north is two units per acre; after the P&Z meeting they worked closely with the adjoining neighbors; and the neighbors have no objection.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman O'Brien.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 10, as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there were comments at the zoning meeting; and inquired if everything has been worked out; with Ms. LaDrew responding affirmatively.

Vice Chairman O'Brien called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Vice Chairman O'Brien passed the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

Item 11. (Z0004302) Edward L. (III) and Eleanor R. Carlisle's request for change from BU-2 to EU on 0.58? acre located on the east side of U.S. 1, approximately ? mile north of 1st Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 11 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. (Z0004401) John and Victoria Mansur and Walter and Christina Holloway's request for change from RR-1 to BU-1 on 1 acre located on the east side of Murrell Road, approximately 0.38 mile north of Barnes Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board as BU-1-A.

Chris Holloway, representing the applicant, stated they are asking to have the property rezoned from residential to commercial in order to convert the existing domicile to office suites in the future; they have spoken to all the neighbors; and described the area with the Fire Department, Airport, office building, and Baptist Church. She noted it is getting to be a commercial area; and requested the Board approve the rezoning.

Commissioner Carlson stated this particular area along Murrell Road is historically moving toward BU-1-A; and there have been a number of rezoning requests.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 12, as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. (Z0004501) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on its own motion authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by Roy Wayne Yates on which a development order had been submitted initiating a consideration of a change from PUD to AGR in accordance with the provisions of Future Land Use Element XIII, Policy 10.2, Brevard County Comprehensive Plan as adopted on September 8, 1988, et. seq., on 238.957 acres located adjacent to the west side of Babcock Street and immediately south of the Deer Run Subdivision, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 13, as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. (Z0004502) William A. and Lisa A. Troner's request for change from GU to RU-1-13 on 1.3 acres located on the west side of North Riverside Drive, approximately two miles south of Eau Gallie Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 14, as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RECOMMENDATION OF THE NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT ON APRIL 13, 2000

Item 1. (NMI00401) Chester L. & Annmarie Lovett's request for change from RR-1 to AU on 2.514 acres? located on the north side of Chase Hammock Road, approximately 0.4 mile west of Wildwood Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board, limiting the AU use to horses only, no other livestock permitted, maximum of ten horses on the property, and development to adhere to 1,200-square foot minimum for a residence.

Louie Lovett stated they recently purchased the property with plans to build a home; and advised of his daughter's activities in 4-H, Pony Club and horse shows. He stated they want to build a home and a barn, and have a place for his daughter to have her horses; and one day if his daughter decides to build a home on the property, he will grant her that wish as well. He stated they purchased 6.5 acres for a future homesite; and advised of his contracting business and a family business. He stated when they acquired the property the though he could build a barn before he built his home, but he was told at Planning and Zoning that he would be unable to build the barn before building his home; therefore his only recourse was to apply for rezoning of two and one-half acres on the back half of the 6.5 acres to AU in order to build the barn first so his daughter has a place to board her horse. He stated currently she boards her horse at a public facility in Rockledge; his 6.5 acres has 445 feet of frontage on Chase Hammock Road; directly across the street is North Hammock Stables, which is a public boarding facility; the 6.5 acres to the west has all AU zoning; and he does have some opposition from the neighbors to the south. He stated at the first hearing, he made his request contingent upon no other livestock being allowed and the house being a minimum of 1,200 square feet. He stated his request is conditional upon horses only; RR-1 presently allows him that; granting the rezoning does not change any of the permitted uses; and the way he plans to develop the property is for his home. He stated the subdivision to the north of him is opposing the rezoning to AU; his property has a drainage ditch and mature grapefruit trees; and once he finishes putting up his house, barn and riding rink, he will have complete privacy, and no one from any direction will be able to see his house or barn. He stated he does not understand the opposition based on the condition that no other livestock would be permitted; and requested the Board's consideration.

Paul Danielak stated he and several of the residents of Stone Lake Estates will speak to urge the Board to deny this application; and displayed an aerial photograph of Stone Lake Estates and the subject parcel. He stated Mr. Lovett's parcel is zoned RR-1; Stone Lake Estates is zoned SR; and advised the photographs of the houses will give an idea of the character of the neighborhood they are trying to protect. He commented on the compatibility matrix indicating possible incompatibility between AU and SR and RR-1 uses, commonality between SR and RR-1 zoning in land developed primarily for single-family use with permitted accessory uses, and other incompatibility issues including sights, sounds, smells, and structure height. He noted commercial activity is permitted in conjunction with agricultural pursuits in AU, but not in RR-1 or SR; and expressed concern about storage of equipment, vehicles, and materials. He advised in 1988, the Board directed the property to be rezoned from AU to RR-1; subsequent to that Stone Lake Estates was zoned SR; and commented on reasonable expectation that there was a commitment to the primary use of the land as single-family commercial. He expressed concern about precedent being set and creation of a dilatory effect on buildout of Stone Lake Estates. He advised of legal necessity to disclose to a potential buyer that there is AU property across the street; stated Mr. Lovett has indicated he does not plan to build a residence on the 2.5-acre plot; and expressed concern about having someone buy the property and expand the use under the AU rules. He stated rezoning is an extreme remedy to the conflict; it will be solved with the passage of time; saying no to the zoning request does not say the Lovetts cannot have horses; and residents of Stone Lake Estates do not object to having horses, but do object to unattended ownership.

Robert Dowd advised of safety issues involved with unattended animals including attraction to small children, presence of a ditch, injuries related to fencing, injuries from animals, animals escaping, attraction of rodents, and runoff affecting the lake. He advised of the possibility of standing water creating a breeding ground for mosquitoes; and need for property to be cleaned, mowed and sprayed; need for fences to be maintained; and stated he doubts if an absentee owner will take care of the property. He inquired who will be responsible if a child is injured, an animal gets out and destroys lawns, or the lake is ruined by runoff. He stated the proper zoning is already in place; the County put much thought into the zoning; and RR-1 is the correct zoning as AU is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He suggested Mr. Lovett board his horse at the stables across the street from his property; and stated after the Lovetts build their home, they are welcome to build a barn and have horses as the zoning allows. Mr. Dowd reiterated his concerns; and recommended the zoning remain as it is.

Commissioner Voltz advised she had a meeting with Gemma Levesque and two other gentlemen. Chairman Higgs stated they were probably Mr. Mayfield and Mr. Stone. Commissioners Scarborough and O'Brien noted they also spoke with Ms. Levesque, Mr. Mayfield, and Mr. Stone.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is one of the finest presentations by a homeowners group that he has ever seen; and he plans to keep it as an example. Commissioner Voltz agreed it is one of the best presentations she has seen.

Gemma Levesque commented on the flag lot designation; and inquired what are the legal implications if the owners sell the AU property and barn separately from the remaining parcels, and what will that mean for the Stone Lake property values. She advised of reduction in property values and tax revenues to the County; expressed concern about runoff going into the lake or Banana River; and commented on building her house and house position determined by inspectors. She expressed concern about animals being left unattended and necessary daily care of horses; and inquired if the Lovetts are not there, how will they care for their animals.

James Marek stated he is in agreement with the previous speakers; and advised of inconsistencies in the timeline presented at the April 13, 2000 meeting. He stated the date of the survey was November 3, 1999; the parcel was pre-planned for rezoning; the sale of the property occurred on December 13, 1999; the application for rezoning was made on February 10, 2000; and read aloud a statement made by Mr. Lovett at the meeting of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board concerning when he decided to rezone and why, which is in contradiction with the date on the survey. He noted Mr. Lovett's statement indicates rezoning was never an issue before the purchase of the property; but the survey shows that four months earlier there was some type of planning for rezoning; and due to that information being withheld and the manner it was withheld, he has grave concerns about what is going on. He expressed concern about use of the flag lot and precedent being set for additional AU; read aloud a comment made by a member of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District concerning AU which he felt was biased; and requested the Board remain open-minded to the issues. He submitted copies of the April 13, 2000 minutes.

Terrance Mayfield stated he is a resident of Stone Lake Estates; the issue is not horses and barns as many of the residents of Stone Lake have embraced the idea of having horses across the way; but it is an issue about responsible ownership and neighboring which means realizing the true value of the common good. He stated he really wants Mr. and Mrs. Lovett to be neighbors, but good neighbors should live on the property, not downtown. He commented on the risk associated with the rezoning, unattended ownership issues, safety concerns, and responsibility to protect children. He stated if the owners are residents, the risks are mitigated; requested the protection afforded by the additional safeguards in RR-1 zoning; and commented on liability issues if a child is injured or an animal gets loose. He advised of effects of unattended ownership, requirement to disclose items which affect value during sale of property, setting of precedent, and three other 6.5-acre parcels that were purchased when Mr. Lovett's property was purchased, each by a different party. He stated no one wants a repeat of the Hans Knoebel debacle; there is risk the Lovetts may never build a home; and Mr. Lovett's statement at the April 13, 2000 meeting that he may build in two years when he regains some capital from several business ventures, is to open-ended and fraught with risk. He inquired where are the safeguards to insure the owners ever build a home; and stated the risks are unnecessary if the zoning is maintained at RR-1. Mr. Mayfield commented on the flag lot issue, possibility of commercial use, Mr. Lovett being in the construction business, and foreknowledge of zoning constraints before purchase. He stated this is the Board's opportunity to do the right thing for everyone.

Charles Thompson advised of the character of the Stone Lake neighborhood; stated the neighborhood does not harbor animosity or ill will to the Lovetts; and invited Mr. Lovett to visit his home. He stated everyone who built a home or is in the process of building in Stone Lake Estates did so in good faith and with reasonable expectation that the adjacent properties would remain zoned RR-1; and a number of property owners who will not speak tonight support his position as indicated in the letter that was submitted which bears their signatures. He commented on no incompatibility issues with RR-1, unattended ownership and safety issues, and potential property value issues; and stated rezoning is not required for the petitioners to enjoy a lifestyle consistent with owning horses in a rural environment. He requested the Board respect the residents' rights and expectations; stated the neighborhood is a small SR-zoned development in a sea of agricultural land; and most of the AU land is for sale. He reiterated they bought their properties in good faith and by the rules, and expect others to follow the same rules; and requested the Board respect and protect the residents' rights. He stated the residents are not the ones changing the rules in the middle of the game, but will be the ones to suffer in exchange for a petitioner's gain; and recommended the request be disapproved.

Molly Mayfield voiced objection to the rezoning based on safety reasons.

Simone Spiess, representing the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, stated they have not met with any of the parties present tonight; but Mr. Thompson did contact President Richard Snyder. She stated the rural character of the area is what attracted most people to the area; and pointed out the areas of North Merritt Island on the map, including agricultural use, RR-1 areas, and the property that is the subject of the rezoning. She commented on various densities, drainage problems in North Merritt Island, and the concerns of the Stone Lake Subdivision. She noted Stone Lake Estates is across a road and a ditch from the property, and a compromise of AU zoning, while not impacting the residential character of the area, is possible. She stated Mr. and Mrs. Lovett already volunteered to limit their use to horses and to adhere to the minimum house size of 1,200 square feet, which addresses the specific concerns from the Stone Lake residents regarding the future use; and if there are other specific concerns, they should be discussed so a compromise can be reached. She stated Mr. and Mrs. Lovett are planning to build two residences and a horse barn on a total of 2.5 acres; and the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association would support this change in zoning from RR-1 to AU to allow a barn to be built prior to the construction of the residences.

Don Stowell stated there is nothing he can say that his neighbors have not already said; and he has no objections to horses as long as they are properly maintained and kept, and someone is there to look after them.

Darryl Dickinson stated he recently purchased lot 3; and commented on having to deal with a nearby kennel, animals roaming in the neighborhood, noise, smell, and visual pollution. He requested the zoning of the property in question not be changed.

James Stone commented on good neighbors and good neighborhoods, and the history of development of Stone Lake Estates. He advised of the size and location of ditches, rules of disclosure to potential buyers, and character of the neighborhood. He stated his investment was over $400,000, and he is almost at the break even point for the development; the County required him to prepare the lake for water runoff; when the last rainstorm hit, water flowed from the Sykes Creek Basin into his lake; and the last land the water flowed over into the lake was the property being considered for rezoning. He stated there was at least a four and one-half foot differential between the Sykes Creek Basin level and the level in Stone Lake; Stone Lake can take a lot of water; and if North Merritt Island is developed reasonably, the water problem on North Merritt Island will be solved, but it will not be solved with the green environment zoning. He stated Ms. Spiess said she represents 400 homes on North Merritt Island; the Homeowners Association makes all the rules, although it represents only 800 acres out of 12,000 on North Merritt Island; and advised of difficulty in addressing the group.

Mr. Lovett stated he is overwhelmed because there is more opposition tonight than at the previous hearing; but if he understood correctly, one lady said they would accept the request for AU if some conditions were elaborated on. He indicated willingness to access AU conditioned on no permitting commercial activity; and stated with regard to unattended horses, they have to feed and water their horses morning and night, and work within one mile of their future home. He stated there was concern that the AU would devalue property; but anyone who did not want AU property around them bought in the wrong place because everything out there is AU and RR-1. He stated the horse facility across the street on Chase Hammock Road has 20 to 30 horses there, and no one stays overnight to his knowledge; and he does not understand the concern about unattended horses. He stated he does not know if it is possible to elaborate on the conditions; and inquired if there is anything that can be added to the conditions to satisfy the new neighbors as far as granting the AU.

Commissioner Scarborough stated on page 8 of the presentation, they are addressing the barn; and inquired if it can have a height of 35 feet in RR-1 and 45 feet in AU; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Lovett was going to build out there directly, what would he be doing with the barn differently; with Mr. Lovett responding it would complement the house. Mr. Lovett stated if the rezoning is not granted, he will be forced to build a small residence in order to build the barn; and he is being forced to build something less desirable in order to get the immediate end result in RR-1 zoning. Commissioner Scarborough stated if a person is living on the property, there is a manner in which they deal with agriculture which may have a different feeling than if they were absentee; and it could be a matter of cleanliness, care of grounds, etc.

Commissioner Carlson inquired why Mr. Lovett created the flag lot; with Mr. Lovett responding that is where he wants to build his barn, and explained the configuration. Chairman Higgs stated she does not see why Mr. Lovett needs the flag lot; with Mr. Lovett responding he wants his barn behind his house; and inquired how else could it be divided if he wants two houses that front on Chase Hammock and a barn in the back. Commissioner Higgs suggested if Mr. Lovett wanted to develop the property as two homes and a barn, he could divide it in the middle and put the barn behind the houses. Mr. Lovett stated there has to be an area for the horses; and they will want paddocks, a riding rink, grazing area, and things of that nature, which would require a minimum of 2.5 acres. Chairman Higgs reiterated why does Mr. Lovett need the flag lot; with Mr. Lovett responding he had to come up with some kind of 2.5-acre designation; and the minimum impact on his parcel was by doing it along the back. Commissioner Carlson stated she understands the reasoning, but inquired if Mr. Lovett considered putting the agricultural portion on the frontage of Chase Hammock and putting the homes in the back for the seclusion. Mr. Lovett responded with 6.5 acres, there is plenty of room to be secluded; and with the amount of vegetation that is there, he will never see Stone Lake.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he received a letter from the Stone Lake Estates property owners dated April 29, 2000; he remembers the County doing some rezoning on Merritt Island; and the letter says they purchased their properties in good faith and with the reasonable expectation that the adjacent properties would maintain their current zoning. He stated that is an important statement to all communities, not just North Merritt Island; when doing research to buy property, people look across the street, and if the zoning is RR-1, they may say they can live with that; they can envision the neighborhood growing across the next 20 to 30 years; and if someone comes along and wants to change the rules, it is a little late to do that. He stated the downzone would be good for Mr. Lovett, but the neighbors would not appreciate it. He stated in AU the barn structure could be 45 feet whereas in RR-1 it can only be 35 feet; and someone mentioned that AU could have two units per acre, but he is not sure that is right. Mr. Enos advised it is one unit per 2.5 acres for the AU; and the Stone Lake Subdivision is two units per acre. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board approves the rezoning tonight, all the properties that are zoned RR-1 in this area will demand the benefits of downzoning to AU; and that would destroy all the benefits that are presently enjoyed by the people who live there. He stated if the Board approves the rezoning and the Lovetts decide to sell of the southern part of the ranch, it would be as AU, not RR-1. He stated the solution is for Mr. Lovett's daughter to continue to board her horses; there is a public stall across the street on Chase Hammock; the neighbors to the south would be detrimentally affected by the rezoning, and want it left as RR-1; and he agrees. He stated Mr. Lovett can move in, and then build his barn and use his residence on the property according to the rules of RR-1; and there is plenty of AU land all around the area that could have been purchased to meet Mr. Lovett's needs, but he chose to buy RR-1 and convert it to AU. He stated Ms. Spiess, who represents the Homeowners Association, admitted she did not even meet with the residents of Stone Lake Estates, but made comments; and that is kind of unfair. He stated he finds a tremendous amount of incompatibility; and commented on AU and RR-1 properties in the area. He stated the people in Stone Lake Estates have invested their life savings in their homes; and it would be reprehensible of the Board to change the zoning now. He stated the drainage and flood problems of North Merritt Island are being addressed by a multi-million dollar effort, so are not part of the argument. He complimented the speakers on their presentations; and stated it is a hard decision to make. He stated Section 4 of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan has a land use compatibility matrix which indicates that AU is only possibly incompatible with RR-1 and SR uses, with incompatibility attributable to the proximity of animals and their associated odors and noises; and Section 6 says the possible incompatibility of AU with RR-1 and SR classifications raised in Section 4 should be considered by the Board. He advised of the provisions of Section 62-1336 dealing with the RR-1 zoning classification; and stated it is to minimize possible incompatibility with residential development. He compared the provisions and restrictions in AU and RR-1 including limitations on animals and fowl, barn height, and commercial activity. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board approved a rezoning of the property from AU to RR-1 in 1988; people built homes in good faith and with reasonable expectation that improvement of the property would be per RR-1 zoning; and the requested rezoning could set a dangerous precedent and create a dilatory effect on the buildout of Stone Lake Estates and surrounding property. He stated it is fair to say rezoning is an extreme remedy; the conflict will be resolved by the passage of time; and disapproval of the application is consistent with the Board's previous actions. He commented on allegations that animals would be left unattended, that there would be rodents in animal feed, and that future buildout of existing lots in Stone Lake Estates would diminish as prospective homeowners would be unlikely to build their homes in a neighborhood where adjacent zoning affected property values. He advised approval of the rezoning would set a precedent for the remaining parcels in the group; and if someone wants or needs AU property, they should buy it and not rezone RR-1 property.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 1 (NMI00401).

Chairman Higgs stated she will support the motion, but there have been discussions in other areas about AU and RR-1 incompatibilities; the description here is very useful; and she hopes the Board will think about it again. Commissioner O'Brien noted he voted with Chairman Higgs every time.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING

Item 1. Section 22, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 250 and 251, from BU-1 to GML-P, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 1 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.

ATTEST:

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)