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

Commissioner Cook led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL TO FILE PETITION, RE: CHALLENGE OF DENIAL OF EXTENSION FOR SYKES CREEK INJECTION WELL BY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

County Attorney Scott Knox stated he received a letter from the Department of Environmental Protection indicating its intent not to extend the County's permit for the Sykes Creek Injection Well; and the deadline for filing a petition to challenge that denial is February 2, 1995. He requested authority to file a petition; and stated he would expect to file the petition to preserve the County's rights, and return at a future meeting to brief the Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize filing a petition to challenge denial of extension of permit for Sykes Creek Injection Well by the Department of Environmental Protection.

Chairman Higgs stated by filing this, the Board is simply preserving its rights; and once the Board knows the particulars, it could make any judgment it wanted to. Mr. Knox advised the Board could withdraw the petition if it had to.

Commissioner Cook stated he is going to vote against the motion because deep wells are a bad idea, and always were.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the deep well injection is the only method for taking care of sewage from that area; and if it is not used, the sewage is going to be dumped back into the river. He stated there are ways to reduce the amount of sewage being put into it; and one is by recycling water back out for lawn sprinkling, reducing the overall impact. He stated it could be so much that water would be taken back out of the injection well to feed the lawns and things like that. He stated in a very short time, Merritt Island intends to put the reuse lines down Courtenay Parkway; and that will start reversing the process. He stated it gets to the point, there has not been enough water to put down the well; drawing back out will reduce the pressure on it; and that is why DEP is after the County. He stated there is too much going down there causing problems with the salt water bubble above it; but it can be corrected and come into compliance. He stated deep wells were never a good idea; but they are in two places, on the beaches and in Merritt Island; the County spent $8 million to $10 million on them; and if the County does not do that, it will cost $95 million to go the other way.

Chairman Higgs inquired how long would the County be given in a consent order if it did not apply for an appeal, and how long before it would have to get out of the deep well. Mr. Knox stated that has not been negotiated yet. He stated one of the things DEP wanted to impose was a consent order on the County; and there is a new Statute that went into effect in 1993 which may allow DEP to do it in a different way than in a consent order. He stated DEP may be able to extend the permit and make the County come back for a new permit at the end of the five years for which the County originally applied; but that is something that staff has yet to work out with DEP. He stated what DEP wants to do now is say the permit is over, and the County has to do a consent order to get out of there. Chairman Higgs inquired the Board has until when to file; with Mr. Knox responding until Wednesday. Chairman Higgs stated it is unacceptable that DEP would give five days. Mr. Knox stated DEP gave fourteen days; the County got it on January 19, 1995; but Water Resources Director Dick Martens has been out with pneumonia; so he did not get a decision from staff level until last Thursday; and he could not get it to the Board before tonight.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board should approach this as keeping its options alive and not a long-range commitment. He stated if there are better options, he would like the Board to address them; but since the Board needs to keep its options open, this is one way to do so; the Board can decide to go in a different direction later; and he assumes this is going to go on the next agenda. Mr. Martens advised it can go on the February 7, 1995 agenda.

Commissioner Ellis stated he would support that; whether deep well is a good idea or not, the State was one of the prime factors leading the County into deep well; and the Board needs to send a letter to the Legislative Delegation advising what is going on. He stated it bothers him that DEP can lead the County into spending millions of dollars and then change the rules after the money has already been put into the grounds; and that is not right.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not disagree with anything that has been said. He stated he agrees with Chairman Higgs that he does not understand why this has to be a snap decision; and he would like to have more time to consider it. He stated he will oppose the motion; he understands it will keep the County's options open, and is not averse to that; but deep wells were one of the worst decisions the County ever made.

Chairman Higgs stated she will support the motion tonight; but it is unfair to the Board to come to it with no information and ask it to make this kind of decision; and it could result in a bad decision. She stated having no preliminary information is unfair and not a good way to do business; but she will support the motion tonight. She stated she wants to say no because she does not support deep wells; but she does not think that would be smart to do tonight when she does not know the implications.

Commissioner Cook inquired what are the ramifications of voting for this tonight. Mr. Knox stated the Board is not committing itself to anything; all it is doing is authorizing filing a petition to preserve the County's right to move forward on a hearing with DEP, if the Board chooses to do so; and when it comes back on February 7, 1995, the Board may decide to do nothing at all, in which case he will withdraw the petition and go on with DEP. Commissioner Cook inquired if the Board is not making any support of deep wells or anything else tonight; with Mr. Knox responding all the Board is doing is keeping the option open. Commissioner Cook inquired if the decision will be made on February 7; with Mr. Knox responding the Board can do that on February 7 or after that, whenever it decides it is comfortable with it. Commissioner Cook inquired when will this come back to the Board; with Mr. Knox responding Mr. Martens will get it back to the Board on February 7 as far as the details of where the County is going in the permitting process.

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

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board should have a second motion to send a letter to the Legislative Delegation.

Commissioner Ellis stated he would second such a motion because DEP needs to get things straightened out; the County is having to make long-term capital expenditures subject to rules that are always changing; and the County cannot change multi-million dollar projects as fast as they can change the rules in Tallahassee.

Chairman Higgs stated she has not looked into how the rules have changed or any of that information, so she does not want to vote on a motion tonight.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated he was told this was a federal regulation that was the driving force behind this; and the Board may wish to hold the letter until it receives a report on February 7. Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table consideration of sending a letter to the Legislative Delegation concerning denial of extension for Sykes Creek Injection Well by the Department of Environmental Protection. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

DISCUSSION, RE: PORT CANAVERAL

Commissioner O'Brien stated the last time the Board met, it discussed Port Canaveral; he had a discussion with Representative Futch; the Legislative Delegation's mind is made up; and it will take a lot to change their mind. He stated the Board should have put forward in its package a request for Port Canaveral to become an autonomous political subdivision of Brevard County.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County asked for the District 4 Taxing District to be abolished effective a year later; the City wrote a letter requesting it not be rushed; and the Legislators said they are not going to do it even though it is deferred for a year. He stated the County requested a week to get some comments together; and the Legislative Delegation did not want to listen.

Commissioner Cook noted the Board of County Commissioners does not have much clout with its Legislative Delegation.

Commissioner O'Brien stated free and open debate never took place; and that bothers him.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board still has the opportunity, if it chooses, to oppose the Port becoming a subdivision of the State; so it still has that option. He stated the Board cannot put forth anything that it would like to do; but at least it can oppose if it chooses to do so.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this has been distorted by the newspapers as to the position and what is available to the public; and the public has been misled as to what is really going on.

Commissioner Ellis stated the other option if the Board cannot get things worked out with the Port is to put a straw ballot on next year to bring the Port under the County and sell it. He stated if it goes to referendum, the Board can take that to the Delegation next year.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not know about selling it; but he feels strongly it should be a subdivision of the County and not the State. He stated if it becomes a subdivision of the County, the County can collect TDC taxes on hotels; and that puts them on a level playing field all along the beaches. Chairman Higgs stated she thinks the TDC tax can still be collected on this hotel, and believes Commissioner O'Brien is wrong.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board has to decide whether it wants to oppose the Port becoming a subdivision of the State; and that is the only option for this session.

Chairman Higgs stated if the Board wants to have free and open debate, it needs to place this issue on the agenda for the next meeting and discuss it. She stated staff is still talking with the Port; if some acceptable arrangements can be worked out, the Board can go to the Delegation in Tallahassee and oppose the move that is being made; these options are still open; and she does not think any options have been lose. Commissioner Cook noted the Board lost the ability to put forth its own bill. Chairman Higgs recommended putting the issue on the agenda so people are aware the Board is talking about it; with Commissioner O'Brien agreeing.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF NOVEMBER 7, 1995 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its meeting on November 7, 1995, as follows:

Item 15. Salesianos De Don Bosco's request for change from GU & AU to PUD on 376.16 acres located east of Fleming Grant Road and west of Sebastian River Estates, which was approved with PDP to include 1.88 acre commercial tract, and tabled at the November 29, 1994 Board meeting.

Chairman Higgs explained the procedure to address the Board. Discussion ensued on the time requirements.

Leonard Spielvogel, Attorney representing the applicant, stated his intention is to respond to questions from the Board and the audience. He stated he appeared before the Board on November 29, 1994; this is a continuation of that hearing; the Board wanted additional information from staff and the applicant concerning the County's review criteria; and his client filed a report on January 17, 1995. He stated it is his understanding copies of the report were distributed; and he has submitted a copy to the Clerk. He stated he has been advised his responses to the criteria were satisfactory to staff; but the consultants are present to respond to any questions. He advised he also submitted a document called Royal Sebastian Property/Fleming Grant Road which points out similarities and dissimilarities between the PUD being requested and a standard subdivision. He stated a memorandum from Transportation Consultant Sans Lassiter dated January 30, 1995 has also been submitted which responds to a memorandum from the Transportation Division of the Planning and Zoning Division. He introduced developers Colonel Fogler and Todd Schweizer, Engineer Hassan Kamal of BSE Engineering, Community Planner John Ware, and Transportation Expert Sans Lassiter. He stated they are requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development of 470 single family homes on 376 acres in the Micco area.

Sans Lassiter, 15 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, stated he is a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida, and is President of the firm of Lassiter Transportation Group. He stated originally they did a traffic study for this project which he submitted for staff's review; and staff reviewed it and conducted a study of travel times in the area. He stated as a result of the original study he concluded that the project met concurrency requirements; and they went beyond the requirements of the Concurrency Ordinance in looking at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Micco Road which is over two miles away. He stated they have proven that intersection, even with the impacts of the project, would operate as it exists, which is acceptable within County standards. He stated he received a copy of a memorandum to Zoning Official Rick Enos from Bob Kamm and Billy Osborne of the Traffic Engineering Division; and he responded as quickly as he could. He stated he agrees with staff that concurrency is not an issue; there is capacity on Fleming Grant Road; and they agree with the travel time study which concludes if you drive fast enough it is equidistant to U.S. 1 whether you go north out of the project via Fleming Grant Road to Micco Road or south out of the project on Fleming Grant Road through the myriad of streets to Main Street. He noted when he conducted his study, he conducted it at the speed limit; and at the speed limit, it was faster to get from the project to the U.S. 1 and Main Street intersection by going north to Micco Road and then back to U.S. 1. He stated it may not be legal, but there is an ability to drive faster; but just because you can drive faster that is not a reason for saying you can have a faster travel speed via the southern route. He stated staff did exceed the speed limit and advised there were pedestrian and bicycle conflicts when they drove that fast. He stated illegal speeds to the south are not to be encouraged; the streets are narrow; there are too many driveways; there are very slow curves as well as right angle turns on the southern route from Royal Sebastian to U.S. 1; there is even a park where children play; and with an advisory speed of 20 miles per hour, it is not a recommended route. He stated he would never recommend the speed limit be exceeded even if the person in front of you is driving fast; and his recommendation is to enhance travel to the north. He stated the proposal is to force traffic to turn right leaving the project to go north along Fleming Grant Road; they propose to construct an eastbound right turn lane at U.S. 1 and Micco Road; and the third is reservation of an eastern access. He stated in the event there is additional access available to the east, there is a spot picked out where there is right-of-way available adjacent to the eastern boundary.

Chairman Higgs requested Mr. Lassiter address the reservation of right-of-way. Mr. Lassiter stated the demand is to the east and to U.S. 1; what they have is a proposed connection which they would reserve from their ring road to the eastern property boundary, aligning with Jonquil; and they propose to reserve that for access to a public street to get to the east. He stated there needs to be additional access to the east of U.S. 1, not so much because of this project, but because of the total development that is occurring there. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is a possibility of reserving right-of-way adjacent to the north or south boundary. Hassan Kamal, BSE Consultants, 312 South Harbor City Boulevard, Melbourne, stated the reason they chose the location was because it lined up with an existing road right-of-way that was central to the Little Hollywood area; this is the best location if there was ever any access on the east side of the property to U.S. 1; and they did not see any benefits of going all the way south on the property because they did not see anything that lined up. He pointed out the area on the map.

Chairman Higgs stated she knows where the street is, and it does not go all the way through. Mr. Kamal stated Jonquil Street gets you all the way to the railroad track which is as far as you can go unless you are on Main Street, and Main Street is on the other side of the railroad track. He noted when he says go all the way through, he means through the second row of lots; and on the east side of Honeysuckle, there are no through streets. Chairman Higgs inquired what does Jonquil line up with on the other side of the railroad tracks; with Mr. Kamal responding Jonquil is offset by 50 to 75 feet from the extension of Main Street on the other side.

Commissioner Ellis stated even if you try and take that through, you would still end up on Main Street. Mr. Kamal stated they do not really know right now what the long term solution will be in this area; but when one is achieved, they want to be able to participate and take advantage of it. He stated that is why they want to reserve the easement so they can get out of the property going east without having to come through the long path which is highlighted on the map in green. He stated if they set this aside and at some time in the future there is a solution and an alternate access, they would be able to take advantage of it.

Chairman Higgs requested staff address whether there is any other right-of-way between Micco Road and the project's north boundary. Planning and Zoning Director Peggy Busacca stated Mr. Osborne advises he is not aware of any. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is nothing along the section lines; and stated the reason she asks is if the Board is going to try to look at the long term solution of access for that area.

Commissioner Ellis stated a trail is indicated on the map as Honeysuckle ends at Iris and proceeds north. Mr. Kamal stated the dashed line may be the FP&L line that runs through there.

Mr. Spielvogel stated he previously submitted resumes for all of the consultants so that would be incorporated into the record, and wishes to incorporate by reference the entire proceeding that took place on November 29, 1994 and the record that was established at that time. He stated one of the points that was made in Mr. Osborne's report addressed the matter of the $100,000 that has been committed to pay for the right turn lane at U.S. 1 and Micco Road; and the question was whether $100,000 was sufficient to pay the cost of that. He stated his client is willing to agree to do the work regardless of the cost; whether $100,000 is sufficient or insufficient is no longer the issue; and his client will do whatever is required to put in a right turn lane at Micco Road and U.S. 1 which meets DOT standards.

Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Lassiter referenced the directional device at the entrance of the project, and it might assist in directing traffic to the north; and inquired is that part of what the applicant is willing to do. Mr. Spielvogel responded yes, and that was also reflected in the Osborne report or memorandum. He stated Mr. Osborne talked about channeling the access; they would provide that those exiting the project would have to go right, which would be going north up Fleming Grant Road to Micco Road; if someone wanted to change their mind and go south, they would have to make a u-turn; and in most instances, that is not going to happen. He stated they are willing to agree there would have to be a right turn out leaving the project. Chairman Higgs stated that would be a left turn going in; with Mr. Spielvogel agreeing. Chairman Higgs stated you would have to cross the median and go across the channeling device to make a left turn or u-turn. Commissioner Ellis stated it is a directional median. Chairman Higgs inquired if it is a raised device as opposed to painted; with Mr. Spielvogel responding it would also permit emergency vehicles to move in and out in any direction; they would have to simply go over curbing; and that is important for emergency vehicle flexibility.

Chairman Higgs advised of the procedure to address the Board.

Mary Flood, 5000 Wagon Master Trail, Sebastian, stated her property is 25 acres on the immediate north boundary of the proposed development. She stated there have been a lot of problems about the Main Street traffic and on Fleming Grant Road; there are houses on the south side built too close to the road; when people have guests their cars stick out in the road; and as a laid back community, they should be able to go around the cars and not get too impatient about them. She stated on Micco Road and Fleming Grant Road there have been problems in the ten to fifteen years since Barefoot Bay has come; this developer should not have to be responsible to address that; the people have paid taxes; and the County should address it. She stated there are $1.7 million in impact fees coming off this property so there should be enough funds to put in any kind of road improvements for the development. She stated a lot of people are talking about salt water intrusion and water pressure; when the Sotilles used to pump water for the groves, they put out a lot of water on thousands of acres; and this project should not have that kind of impact. She stated landowners who are pumping out water themselves right now should be respectful of equal opportunity for other landowners to come and pump water for their projects. She stated the State of Florida is going to have salt water intrusion and it will have to be addressed eventually; but this developer should not be responsible for something that is going to come whether they do their project or not. She stated there were comments that The Nature Conservancy or the State should buy this property; it was an abandoned orange grove; there was no natural vegetation except in the northwest corner which was hit by fire in 1989; and there is very little natural foliage or fauna on the property, so development is not going to be a problem as far as that. She stated if they had the old oak trees and such on the property, it would be more of a problem. She noted there is a problem with sewer effluent and that sort of thing; but she would much prefer having this planned development using a sewer system with the effluent going onto the golf course than having 300 houses on individual septic tanks. She stated if the developer has taken the time and money to design a plan such as this and goes through every one of the agencies including St. Johns River Water Management District, he has put a lot of time into the planning; the plan is going to evolve because they will have to go by the new rules and regulations; and if they are able to pass all the inspections for these agencies and abide by all the rules, regulations and laws, they should be allowed to do so.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Ms. Flood owns the 25 acres to the north; with Ms. Flood responding yes, she borders Wagon Master Trail and lives right above the blue lake on the northwest corner shown on the map. Commissioner Cook inquired if Ms. Flood lives on the property; with Ms. Flood responding she does.

Bob Audette, 9633 Honeysuckle Drive, Micco, stated he lives close to the proposed development, and it appears they will be the back door to the development. He stated he went to the meeting at the church on Tuesday; Mr. Kamal did not say anything about a back door then; this is something new; and he is upset to hear now that there is a back door route. He stated he is sure everyone on Honeysuckle Drive would have come if they had known it was going to affect them; all this will do is shift traffic from Fleming Grant into his neighborhood; and the bottom line is this development is in the wrong place. He stated if the development was on Micco Road, with the traffic going on Micco Road, that would be fine; but what the Board has before it is a precedent setting proposal; and the Board needs to be careful. He stated what is going to happen is the Board is going to let one PUD in and then there will be more and more of them; and this is going to set a precedent that is going to mess up the neighborhood. He stated everybody is operating on the premise that it could be developed in one-acre lots; but that is not a given thing. He stated he understands from Mr. Myers that this could be zoned into one unit per two and one half acre lots; and it should be denied because of the traffic problems. He noted even Mr. Kamal admits there is a traffic problem; that is the bottom line; and all the other arguments are just wasting everybody's time.

William Schachtel, 9495 Hibiscus Avenue, Micco, stated Jonquil Road was never mentioned before; and he is concerned because he is one of two houses on Jonquil Road. He advised the road stops at the railroad track so either they are going to put a crossing over the track or they are going to have to cut over into Honeysuckle which is a quiet street with lots of children. He stated they think FP&L has the right-of-way; he knows FP&L has it; it is in back of his house running north to south; and it is on all the maps. He stated they say they have a right-of-way; the property across the street from him is privately owned and extends over the so-called right-of-way; and that should be investigated. He stated there are scrub jays and indigo snakes in the area; he has seen bald eagles in the neighborhood; he thought all these things were protected; but no one has mentioned it; and he wondered if there have been studies on that. He stated as far as the traffic goes, it is ridiculous; Micco Road would be the only way out without disrupting the whole neighborhood; and it is dangerous because there are a lot of children there. He stated in the morning these children are waiting for the school bus in the dark; if traffic is coming down through Jonquil, it is going to create havoc; and he personally does not want the development.

Adeline B. Higgins, 9685 Mockingbird Lane, Micco, stated she has been a resident and property owner since 1964; and as Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Committee of the Micco Homeowners, she is obligated to report that the majority of the Committee and the Board of Directors of the Micco Homeowners voted against the development proposed by the Royal Sebastian Company at this time. She advised their main objections include density, traffic and safety; the developers held several meetings with the Board, and altered the design plan to include an additional access road; and there was a standing room only community meeting held in Micco. She stated the Board of Directors of the Micco Homeowners summarized by saying that not until the County solves the road problem in Micco should any further development be undertaken; Micco has been too long neglected; and it is one of the fastest growing areas in the County. She noted she was asked not to give her personal opinion; but it is important for everybody to speak pro and con. She stated with the cooperation of the Planning Division, we can see what is happening in Micco; the building is unbelievable; there are fourteen new houses along Fleming Grant right now; and they say there is going to be a road in back and another fourteen houses. She stated she saw an aerial movie of this area; the area from Micco Road down to Fleming Grant and the Sebastian River is owned by four different people, several from out of the country; but this is the tip of the iceberg. She stated the planners could help because there is a railroad problem, and a river problem; BSE promised a tertiary treatment plant which will do away with the problems that they had with Barefoot Bay, and still have with the 90-day permitting so they can dump into the river. She stated the people have voted against this unless there is some action by the County's Road and Bridges Division. She stated on her way to the meeting she saw the sign to Baytree which is another BSE development, and was overwhelmed. She stated if a planned development can be put in Micco as pretty as Baytree with all the lakes and golf courses, it would be an asset and bring additional tax money into the County. She stated there must be railroad experts and other people who can solve the problems.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there is a way to schedule Road and Bridge or Engineering staff to take a look at permitting another railroad crossing. He stated clearly we cannot get through at the point to the east; and suggested a point further north. Traffic Engineering Director Billy Osborne stated he would be happy to inquire with the FECRR about another railroad crossing; their policy has been if you open a crossing, you have to close another crossing; but he will be happy to look at the issue. Commissioner Ellis stated there is no way to get east of the railroad track from the development; but there is potential long term if you could go north all the way to Micco Road, and then somewhere along that corridor go east over the railroad tracks. Chairman Higgs stated that is where they are going; with Commissioner Ellis advising not on Fleming Grant. Commissioner Ellis stated he is talking about a north-south corridor from the edge of the development all the way north of Micco Road, finding somewhere there to make a crossing to U.S. 1; regardless of the outcome of tonight's issue, the problem about the railroad crossing has been highlighted; and requested staff take a look at that.

George Koraly, 9868 Riverview Drive, Micco, requested all the Micco residents who are concerned to stand; and a group stood. He stated Mother Nature is fickle; it seldom rains the right amount; it is either too wet or too dry; golf courses take a tremendous amount of irrigation; and consideration should be given up front in this project to piping the water to irrigate individual residential lots. He stated that would allow the golf course and the water from the lakes with a minimum demand on the aquifer, to the extent of a deed restriction in a development for individual lots for all the residences. He stated the Florida Administrative Code refers to this; and he talked to Mr. Powers of the St. Johns River Water Management District who is of the same opinion. He stated they cannot discharge all of this water from the golf course with the nutrients and pesticides as much as three months out of the year; and if the County refers this to the State, it would make a mockery of the new Surface Water Management Office. He stated in the early 1950's Melbourne was a fishing village; there was a caution light at New Haven and U.S. 1; but that is history. He stated with this development, Main Street is history. He stated a lot of people will be detrimentally affected; the potential problems generated by adding 470 units to the main access road must be addressed; zoning for more than 400 acres south of the proposed PUD unit is one unit per acre; and that would be five hundred units for another PUD. He stated the Board is not going to be able to deny that if the Board approves this; and there are 600 undeveloped half-acre lots west of the railroad tracks, trapped in there. He stated Holly Road crossing to Riverview and Main Street are the only access to most of the amenities. He stated according to Mr. Kamm's report of January 23, 1995 and the photographs which he presented at the previous hearing, the current traffic problem on Main Street shows the current circulating system is not functioning satisfactorily. He stated recently he was eastbound on Micco Road; the trains were slowly passing on the double track; he counted 72 vehicles backed up behind the railroad crossing; and it was fourteen minutes before he was able to make access to U.S. 1. He noted in addition there is a spur to the cement plant at that crossing; and he questions the wisdom of directing the traffic from the PUD to merge with a large portion of the Barefoot Bay traffic. He stated fortunately for Barefoot Bay, once the residents of the PUD experience that, it will send them back south, which is unfortunate for Micco. He stated if Micco Road was six-laned, it would not correct this problem. He noted there is a lot more potential development to the west which he will not go into. He stated it is amazing that Mr. Kamm believes the intersection of Holly and Riverview Drive running in front of the park with no sidewalks or bicycle paths, only eighteen feet wide, with children walking, bike riding, rollerblading, etc. is adequate. He stated, with reference to the traffic report, it is Riverview not Riverside, and it is not west but south of Central; and he does not know where the confusion is or whether it is just a typographical mistake. He stated it is costly, but widening Main Street directly to the railroad and moving the Holly crossing to Main Street is the logical solution; and this would give access to 2,000 proposed units to the west of the tracks. He advised the plat map does not agree with the aerial photograph. Mr. Koraly stated the developer paying $340,000 over a 20-year period has the right to develop the property; but he is an individual holding two parcels which are development; and he will give the County that with little more than an acre and a half. He noted he is paying taxes at the current rate of $3,858.50 for one parcel and $2,103 on the other; and multiplied times 23 years, that is half as much as the developer is paying on his property. He inquired if he and the rest of the local taxpaying residents have an equal right to at least the safety, health and financial conditions that currently exist; and stated the owner has a right to develop his property, but not at the expense of the permanent residents. He stated the Board has a legal obligation to rectify the existing traffic problems that will be affected by the development; and this project should not be approved until correction action of the traffic problem is in progress. He stated the plat maps do not agree with the aerial; a lot of the streets are not as far offset; and there is another problem with that as well.

Commissioner Ellis requested Mr. Koraly go over what he said about changing the railroad crossing. Mr. Koraly pointed out the area on the map; and stated the problem is the dangerous crossing. He stated moving the crossing to Main Street would give direct access to development; there are 400 acres south; and there is no reason why that will not be another PUD if this one is approved. He stated one of the advantages of doing this is it would get the traffic away from the park. Commissioner Ellis stated the proposal is to improve Main Street, put another crossing at Main Street, and hook that to Jonquil. Mr. Koraly stated it would eliminate all the traffic to the park; and if the PUD is allowed, they will all be going by the park because that is the way to 90% of the amenities. Commissioner Ellis inquired how much traffic would go out that, if there was not a direct access from the PUD; with Mr. Koraly responding if there was just this access potentially you would have 1,500 to 2,000, excluding the 470 units. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is existing; with Mr. Koraly responding no, it is zoned for that. Chairman Higgs clarified there is land use for that in the Future Land Use Plan, not zoning. Commissioner Ellis inquired about existing. Mr. Koraly responded he has tried to count, but it is difficult; there is a lot of building going on right now; the traffic is heavy enough especially at the crossing at Holly and Main Street; and on an average of once every two months, there is a close one there. He stated fortunately speeds are slow enough, that there has not been an accident except for one a week ago at Main Street and U.S. 1. He stated that is another big problem; on U.S. 1, DOT has to reduce the speed on the southbound lane coming over the bridge; and he is sure staff has access to the accidents that have occurred in that area.

Chairman Higgs inquired what is the right-of-way on Main Street; with Mr. Osborne responding he is unsure, but believes it is approximately 50 feet. Chairman Higgs inquired what is the pavement now; with Mr. Koraly advising it is a 30-foot road. Chairman Higgs stated it is a 30-foot road on a 50-foot right-of-way. Mr. Koraly stated they say it is 40 feet; but he has done measurements, and it is only 30 feet with the right-of-way. He stated there is no question everyone will be affected; the Main Street residents will be affected the most; but it has to be done; and in the long run, it will be the most economical.

Commissioner Ellis stated regardless of the PUD, the County needs to take a look at the cost factor on these and try to schedule them in.

Commissioner Cook inquired how much in impact fees will the development generate; with Mr. Kamal responding the impact fees on the residential units are anticipated to be approximately $500,000; and there will be some additional impact fees associated with the golf course, plus the commercial component. Mr. Kamal stated based on what is actually developed, it will be approximately $600,000 just for traffic impact fees.

Don Miller, 708 N. Bougainvillea Circle, Barefoot Bay, President-elect of the Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association, stated many people refer to Barefoot Bay as that big trailer park in the southern part of the County; but that is not so. He stated Barefoot Bay is a PUD zoned for mobile and manufactured homes; there are 4,551 homes at present; the population is 9,000 in winter and 6,000 in summer; and there is a registered voter base of over 5,000 people. He stated Barefoot Bay is divided by Micco Road; approximately one-third of Barefoot Bay is south of Micco Road; and their concern is the traffic on Micco Road. He stated the Traffic Engineering report memo advises 54 cars a minute got between Fleming Grant Road and U.S. 1; that is 7,784 cars in a 24-hour period, which is a lot of cars on a very narrow road; there is a narrow bike and walk path on both sides of Micco Road, down to the railroad track; and last year there were approximately 50 accidents at the corner of Micco Road and U.S. 1. He stated there is from 1,025 to 1,050 feet from U.S. 1 to the railroad; when the gates are down, traffic backs up; and there has been traffic backed up to the extent that it interferes with the traffic on U.S. 1. He stated it is tough getting into Micco Road from either way; Micco Road cannot handle the extra traffic which would be generated by the proposed development on Fleming Grant Road; and the County has no timetable in place to take care of the problems that development would create. He stated the developers and the Planning staff are urging the majority of the traffic to go north on Fleming Grant Road, east on Micco, and down to U.S. 1; this would create more chaos on Micco Road than there is now; and without a definite road plan in place along with a timetable for completion, the Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association would strongly oppose the rezoning request which is on the agenda tonight.

Frankie Schott, 3545 Heather Lane, Micco, stated she is a member of the Planning and Zoning Board for the Micco Homeowners Association; and she has been asked to speak on their behalf tonight. She stated she has conferred on a regular basis with Surface Water Management Director Ron Jones about the work going on; they looked over the County plans on Main Street; and what Mr. Jones has been able to find is that from U.S. 1 for 200 feet, there is a 40-foot right of way, but as it goes further west, it narrows down. She stated where Main Street curves into Riverview, it is very narrow; and Mr. Jones is having difficulty in seeing where the stormwater drainage is going to go in through there because there is no right-of-way. She stated the marina has given Mr. Jones permission to cross its property, but as he gets past the marina, he does not know where he will go with the drainage problem. She stated she walked with Mr. Alward of the Road Department who advised they cannot do a thing with Main Street because it is a mess; they do not know where the road goes in places or how wide it is; and his opinion is it cannot be touched. She stated the Micco Homeowners Association is approximately six years old; the Planning and Zoning Committee has been in existence for a long time; and every time there have been zoning changes in the area to increase the density, they have come and spoken to the P&Z Board and the Board of County Commissioners to express the problems with the exit roads. She stated those Commissioners who have been on the Board for a while have heard this over and over; but the new ones have not. She stated they have been totally ignored in the past; there has never been any hope from the County that it was going to help; she has lived in this area which is close to the development on Fleming Grant Road for 26 years; and Main Street has not been improved in any way in 26 years. She stated it is time to get a decent east-west corridor road that will move the people out of the area safely. She stated the developers have told many times about the taxes they paid in the last 23 years, $340,000; but this is a little less than $40 an acre; and she will trade with them any day. She advised over the past 25 years, her taxes have averaged $250 an acre; right now it is over $600 an acre; and she still does not have decent roads. She stated the developers should consider that a privilege of owning ground in Micco because the tax has not been that high; and the people are also not only concerned about roads, but about the pollution of the river. She stated in 26 years there has been a big change in the river; it is not clean anymore; it is not abundant in fish; and density is the biggest problem in the area. She stated the people are concerned about future density and future pollution of the river. She stated she was told that Ms. Flood who spoke earlier has her property up for sale; and inquired if that is true. She stated the people do not want any increase in density until the infrastructure can handle it; they do not want promises because they know what happens where there are cost overruns in other parts of the County; they want action; and this is the message which she has been told by the Micco Homeowners Association to convey to the Board. She stated they do not want any more density until they see action for safe roads in the community.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be possible to get a cost estimate on Main Street improvements, widening the roadway and taking it over the railroad tracks; with Mr. Osborne responding yes. Commissioner Ellis stated the estimates can be done for phases. Mr. Osborne advised when he said 50 feet previously, he was referring to Micco Road; he checked the records; and they indicate Main Street is between 35 and 40 feet. He noted it is difficult to tell without doing a survey, but it is somewhere around 35 feet for right-of-way. Commissioner Ellis stated he would expect a factor in doing the improvement would be acquiring the right-of-way; with Mr. Osborne advising that is correct.

Chairman Higgs stated any report that talks about that street needs to talk about the character of the area and what would be done to the character of the area with improvements along there; and that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Ellis stated you cannot have it both ways. Chairman Higgs stated it is possible to build a four-lane highway down Main Street; the engineering is possible; but the impact of that needs to be a part of the picture, and not just the cost. Commissioner Ellis stated the Homeowners Association probably thought of that before coming to request improvements on Main Street. Chairman Higgs stated there are people nodding both ways; it would change the character; it might be expensive; the people want things done; but they also recognize the compromise; and the Board needs to look at both.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he was concerned about a few things; if the rights-of-way are not there for Main Street, then it would be totally insufficient to receive the impact of not only this PUD but others that would come in the future; and he is worried about evacuation needs on some of the roads. He inquired if an emergency management study is needed that takes into account this project and perhaps one or two others that will be there in years to come so the Board can make a viable decision. He stated the last time the Board considered this project there was talk about the school problem; he called the School Board to request two comparisons, how many children get on a school bus coming out of the Savannahs, and how many from Baytree; and he never got an answer. He stated those are both golfing communities; one is half developed and the other is pretty well on its way to being built out; and he wondered about the number of children impacting the schools locally.

Chairman Higgs stated there are 721 children who get on a school bus from the area south of Grant Road to travel to Palm Bay to go to school, which is at least a 40-minute to one hour ride one way. Commissioner Ellis inquired if that is all twelve grades; with Chairman Higgs responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien stated these are the issues that have to be looked at.

Commissioner Ellis stated the more likely evacuation would be by Fleming Grant Road rather than trying to go through Little Hollywood. He stated when you buy a home, you know where the schools are; and if you buy a home that is 40 minutes from the nearest school, you accept the fact that our children have to ride a bus to school; it is not as if there was a school there, and it was knocked down; and a factor when you look for a home is how far the children have to travel to go to school. He stated he does not understand how the school issue comes into effect here; if you have children and want to be near a school, you buy a home near an existing school; you do not buy a home in Scottsmoor or Little Hollywood, hoping to have a school built; and since the school was not there to begin with, anyone who bought in that area knew their children were going to have to go a long way to school.

Commissioner Cook stated schools are magnets for growth; and if you build a school, you are going to have growth.

Commissioner Ellis stated when Discovery Elementary School was built in Palm Bay, the place was nothing but boondocks; but as soon as the school was built, the whole place built out.

Chairman Higgs stated you can take the same perspective on roads or schools; if you build them, people will come. She stated you can also recognize that people have moved to this area who have children; there are now 721 children who are riding a significant distance which is a costly service for the School Board to provide; and at some point even though people knew what was there, it becomes difficult for children to do that. She stated when you talk about hurricane evacuation going up Fleming Grant Road, you have to remember that there are 9,000 people who live in Barefoot Bay who will be evacuating also; so there will be significant people on the road.

Pete Player, 3685 Main Street, Micco, stated he has been a resident for approximately 40 years; the west end of Main Street which runs from Riverview is a 30-foot road; and he should have brought his deed which proves it. He stated everyone wants to push this road through Main Street; at the very least it would create dangerous conditions; and to widen the road to 40 feet which is required to put a railroad crossing in, the County, developers and State would have to spend a lot of money to buy five feet of everyone's property on both sides. He stated this is a serious problem in the community; it is pitting subdivisions of Micco against each other; some people want roads here; others want roads somewhere else; someone else does not want it; and the logical thing is some day it is going to be necessary. He requested the Board continue this matter for a minimum of 30 days to allow everyone to become educated on these facts. He inquired if there has been any study done into the environmental impacts by a federal, State or County agency, or was this study done solely by the developers. Planner II Tom Myers responded the Natural Resources Management Division reviewed this and found it to be consistent with its policies for development of the property. Mr. Player inquired if this coincides with all State and federal regulations. Mr. Myers responded the State regulations as far as protected or listed species or internal regulations need to be fully complied with as part of the permitting for the development; and they would have to comply before they could be issued a permit. Mr. Player requested the Board consider continuing this matter so the people of the community can educate themselves more as well as the developers and Commissioners. He stated this is not a project which can be decided hastily tonight; the Commissioners do not live in the community; and this is creating a lot of problems. He stated his end of Main Street is a dead-end section; it is a very old section; and they intend to preserve it. He stated when the good people wanted to pave it, they got a petition to stop it to preserve the country atmosphere of the area, and because they disagreed that the drainage project was going to work in the low lying area.

Cheryl Bruns, 9737 Riverview Drive, Micco, stated she was present at the last meeting to speak about schools; and Columbia Elementary School, which her children attend, is at 147% capacity. She submitted a petition opposing the rezoning; and advised the signatures and addresses are of people who will be directly affected. She stated she does not think anyone in Micco is opposed to growth or development; it is the density that is being projected; and there is no need for tiny lots in this area. She inquired how many of the Commissioners have driven on Main Street. Commissioner Ellis responded he was down there five or six years ago; and the previous speaker pointed out, it has not changed in 26 years. Ms. Bruns stated the area has grown a lot; the houses along Fleming Grant Road are big and beautiful 2,000 to 3,000 square foot homes on acre plus lots; they are $120,000 to $150,000 homes; if the developer wanted to stay with one acre lots and put in the golf course, the residents could probably live with it; but density is the biggest problem. She inquired if it is upgrading to take an acre lot with a 3,000 square foot home on it and then stick a bunch of 1,300 square foot homes on quarter acre lots next to them. She stated they keep mentioning changing the railroad crossing; but no one has brought up the fact that between Main Street and Micco Road, there is a layover lane for the railroad; trains stop nightly and wait between Main Street and Micco Road for other train traffic going west; and if anyone thinks it takes an act of Congress to move a railroad crossing, they should try and move a layover track. She stated one of her concerns is on U.S. 1, if you are going south and going to make a left-hand turn onto Micco Road, if a train is going by, it is less than a tenth of a mile, and traffic backs up onto U.S. 1 frequently. She stated if you are driving north, coming home from the two-mile trip to shopping over the bridge in Sebastian, you have another left hand turn situation where you can only fit four or five cars; and there is nowhere to increase that lane because of the bridge. She stated traffic backs up on the bridge; you cannot turn onto Main Street; and people will not go north, but will drive up Main Street and out Fleming Grant. She stated no matter how someone got out of the community, when they come back, that is the way they go. She stated a lot of the septic systems and wells are outdated; it is an old town; and a lot of them could use revision. She stated she just put in a septic system and well in order to enlarge the home; and it cost a lot of money. She stated it is very effective; and with enforcement of the Codes and the way things are done, septic systems and wells are not the problem they used to be. She requested everyone from Micco stand; and a group in the audience stood. Merdean Lord, 9773 Honeysuckle Lane, Micco, stated she understands the wells for the water system will be 1,000 feet from Honeysuckle Lane; she remembers about the water wells when the Sotilles were here; the water system went very low; and it also brought a lot of salt up. She stated she has lived in her home on Honeysuckle Lane for 32 years; and she has seen a lot. She stated this year there has been more water than at any other time since she has been living there; her yard for the first time was up to her garage; and she lost her screen enclosed back porch because of the PUBLIC water. She stated at least five people from the County came down to look at the water that was in five yards in that area; the residents were promised some help; but after the water went away, no one else has been down there. She stated there are seven new homes on Honeysuckle Lane; and it seems like they get the help, not the older residents. She stated she has paid taxes for 32 years; she should be number one on the list; and the reason she is saying this is if the developer is going to pay millions of dollars, the County is going to be helping the developer, not helping those on Honeysuckle Lane.

Chairman Higgs stated she is not aware of Ms. Lord's particular problem; and requested her address. Ms. Lord reiterated her address.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board looked at addressing different flooding problems at its last workshop; and Micco was one of the areas that came up along with parts of Rockledge, Merritt Island and West Eau Gallie. Chairman Higgs stated the focus is on the Grant Road area. Commissioner Ellis stated this was the most rain since 1960. Ms. Lord stated this was the first time she had this much rain; and because of all the construction on the street, the water is pushed on her. She stated she is two blocks south of where the south end of this proposal is supposed to go in; due west of her is nothing but water; she has been promised help; but she is not getting anything; and she is upset. She stated there was discussion about Main Street; this afternoon coming out, she realized that there is one place where there is a drain or culvert under the road, and water has been standing there for years. She stated every time it rains, you have to drive slow there because the water is four or five inches over the road.

Commissioner Cook stated he concurs with the speaker that drainage has to become the priority of the County because there are major drainage problems all over the County.

Chairman Higgs stated that information should be passed to the County Manager to get Road and Bridge to check on Honeysuckle Lane. Commissioner Ellis suggested staff evaluate the drainage in the area like was done in other areas such as Merritt Island and West Cocoa.

Tommy Goforth, 3720 Main Street, Micco, stated he is opposed to the PUD because they are talking about a cross street through Main Street which is where he lives. He stated he lives at the end of Main Street; there is a switch track; and if a cross street is put in, he would not be able to get out of his yard. He noted there are several other people on Main Street who feel the same way.

Frank Leizo, 3970 Main Street, Micco, stated he does not see any point in trying to build that road; he has lived in the area for ten years; he owned a couple of homes there; and he did not see any building on Main Street whatsoever. He stated his land washes off down the street every time it rains; there is a drain off system right down the road from him; it is a pipe about two feet in diameter; and that is not a flood area. He stated he flies on a weekly basis around the area, and has aerial pictures for the Board. He stated after the last storm which destroyed half of Barefoot Bay, it swamped the area the developers own; and he has pictures of the area next to their property which is half untouched. He stated the property has small lakes which are man made which drain off the property; and that is the only reason the property did not swamp as bad as the property next to it. He stated Central Street was swamped; there were two feet of water in Central Street; and the water came from up the road, from higher land. He stated the Sebastian River, the inlet, Long Point and other area would be touched by letting this builder build there. He stated the developer is talking about two wells in the aquifer; but two wells is the same as 370 wells for individual use because the individuals are not watering golf courses. He stated they do not have a 7-Eleven in the middle of the development; they do not want that; a few thousand people have their dream homes in the area; and they did not move there to have Palm Bay developed in the middle of their neighborhood. He stated Barefoot Bay was supposed to be a dream retirement center, but now there are thousands of children living there. Mr. Leizo displayed and explained the pictures. Mr. Kamal stated he recognizes the property because of the existing man made borrow pits; but he cannot see flooding in the adjoining area; and he does not know when the pictures were taken. He noted there have been record rainfalls this year; and he is sure there are areas of Micco which are wet. He advised the last three pictures do not show any of the developer's property.

The meeting recessed at 7:18 p.m. and reconvened at 7:34 p.m.

Chairman Higgs stated a couple of questions were raised; one was in regard to water and the effect outside the area.

Mr. Spielvogel responded his client's application has served a useful purpose; the people in Little Hollywood who live in close proximity to Main Street had the opportunity to voice their concerns and bring real grievances to the attention of the Board. He emphasized they will be going north, not through Main Street; they have no intention of encouraging residents or directing them to go through Main Street; and they are taking solid steps to influence those who buy in the subdivision to go north. He stated the roads meet concurrency requirements; if there are going to be rules laid down by which developers and their counsel must play, then everyone needs to play by the same rules. He stated concurrency can either stop them or permit them to go forward; so as a part of the development investigation, the County checks the roads that service the property and see whether there is capacity. He stated they recognize that the project is located in a position where they can go north; and going north is better because the road is better. He stated by channeling the exit, people will be encouraged to go north; it is interesting that the people of Little Hollywood do not want them to go south, the people of Barefoot Bay do not want them to go north, the development to the east does not want them to go east; and this is sounding like a good operation for a helicopter. He stated he has not met Ms. Flood before; she inquired why this developer is being required to spend money on U.S. 1; and if the Board wants to persuade him not to spend it, he would be fine because this is a possible $100,000 or more that the developer is volunteering to spend to improve the intersection of U.S. 1 and Micco Road. He noted he did not hear Barefoot Bay volunteering to pass the hat among their 9,000 people for the money necessary to improve that intersection; but the developer is offering to do that because it is going to be a good thing for everyone using Micco Road. He stated instead of traffic backing up at Micco Road because people want to go left, there is going to be a right turn, which will be good for everyone utilizing that road. He stated there was a time when he thought a PUD was about as good as it gets; they are asking for 1.25 units to the acre because they are furnishing water and sewer; and they will pay impact fees every time they build a house. He stated the County will receive money for wastewater treatment; but the developer is building his own facility, the cost of which will be absorbed by those who buy the homes. He stated he would love to think there would come a time when he would come before the Board, and someone would pat him on the head and say he had a good project; but that may not be in his lifetime.

Mr. Kamal stated there was a question of why there are smaller lots instead of one acre lots; and the primary reason is because this is a PUD which will have significant advantages versus a standard zoning. He stated there is a large amount of open space being dedicated; the County minimum is 25% open space; and they are actually doing quite a bit more than that. He stated they are providing on site recreation facilities which you would not have with standard zoning; there will be a golf course, club house, park facilities, conservation areas, and nature trails; and they are providing on site commercial use which will help minimize off site trips and internalize those trips so people do not have to use the roadway network as much. He stated the PUD will be a master planned community allowing the project to be designed to best fit the land and all the existing features of the land; it also allows for controlled growth; and the County has better control over this PUD versus the standard subdivision. He stated they are providing for a master water system which they would not have to do if this was standard zoning; and they are providing for a master sanitary sewer system to service the entire project. He stated there was a question raised about the potable water system and what impacts the wells would have on the project; the next step they have to go through is detailed permitting criteria; they have to get a consumptive use permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District; and part of that process is a detailed analysis and inventory of existing wells to determine that their use would not adversely impact any of the existing users. He stated those are the kinds of things they are going through in the next step; with a high degree of certainty he can say that a centralized water treatment system is going to be a much better facility than a number of individual wells that are not regulated to the same level as the facility will be; if this was developed at one unit per acre and everyone pulled their own well permit, there would be no jurisdictional agency that would be reviewing that on a master basis to see what the cumulative impacts are; and the same is true of the sewer plant. He stated there is going to be a centralized sewer system versus a large number of individual septic tanks; the sewage can be collected and treated at the plant; and it will be recycled through irrigation on the golf course, which is a huge benefit versus standard development where everybody would be having septic tanks, and there would be continuous problems with septic tank failures.

Sans Lassiter, 15 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, stated one of the key concerns heard tonight is the proposed eastern access; they do not require or need it; it is not required for traffic circulation; and they thought it was something that was being requested by the County. He stated they are willing to withdraw it if there is concern. He stated they are meeting concurrency; he does not think staff has any doubt about it; they are willing to improve traffic even though they do not create a negative congestion below acceptable levels; they will improve the intersection of Micco Road and U.S. 1; and this will help all traffic on Micco Road that uses this intersection. She stated they are also willing to restrict the traffic to turn to the north; and that is a key benefit to the residents to the south along Fleming Grant Road and the areas of Little Hollywood and Micco.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it would be possible when setting up the PUD to allow potential right-of-way plugs for either a new north-south corridor running to Micco Road or a potential north-south corridor if there is ever an opportunity to straighten out Fleming Grant Road to the PUD property. Mr. Lassiter responded they would be willing to look at whatever might be proposed in that area. Commissioner Ellis stated some subdivisions leave a plug opening. Mr. Kamal pointed out various areas on the map; and stated there may be some potential to do that.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired is that the same area that Mr. Spielvogel said was the ball parks last time. Mr. Kamal responded there are two different uses in that area; it is a fairly large tract; the southern part is reserved for a park; and the northern part is the utilities site. Commissioner O'Brien stated he recalls bringing up the question last time he saw these maps; he inquired why it was not drawn in if that was going to be a park; and he was told it was going to be a park but it does not show up. Mr. Kamal responded it is a 12-acre piece of property; so there is room to meet the requirements of the park plus the utilities site. Commissioner O'Brien stated he voiced concern that it was not drawn in; unfortunately not all developers are good developers, although he is not saying Mr. Kamal is not a good developer; but sometimes the developer says there are going to be tennis courts and a bridge across the waterway; but when it is built out, that has disappeared somewhere along the way. Mr. Kamal stated this is a color schematic that is used for a lot of different purposes; but the plan that was submitted to the County and which is on record does show that as a park facility and utility site; and that is what they will have to develop to. Commissioner O'Brien stated he lives in a subdivision where it showed walkways over to the school; but after it was built, those walkways were never there, nor was there property for them.

Commissioner Ellis inquired about the access road. Mr. Kamal stated referring to the cul-de-sac, when the facility is built, this would be extended to serve as the park. Commissioner Ellis stated that would give the alternative route out. Mr. Kamal stated all the roads would be built per County standards.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he had an opportunity to drive down to the area with staff; they drove the distances twice; and his observation was that going through Little Hollywood was about equal driving time. He stated he has some real concerns; every time a developer comes forward, the County tries to reach out and make things work; but the shopping in Indian River County being two miles away is going to be a thing to be calculated; and if you are going to and from the development to the shopping, it is going to be impractical to go up to Micco because when you are at Micco and U.S. 1, you are an additional distance away from that two-mile shopping. He stated one person pointed out the stacking over the bridge from Indian River County; and that concerns him. He stated there are some visibility problems already as you come out of Little Hollywood onto U.S. 1; he wishes he could say that all developments work well all the time; but at this time, this is asking for some dangerous traffic. He stated it is a health and safety issue; it goes beyond inconveniencing people in a neighborhood; he cannot tell people where to drive; they will do u-turns, jump curves and do everything in the world to get some place faster; people chase him through school zones in the morning; and he cannot support this zoning.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to overrule the P&Z Board and deny Item 15.

Commissioner Ellis stated he is going to vote against the motion; a planned unit development is the type of development over which the County has the most control; and if the Board does not go with a PUD, it will end up with piecemeal development. He stated instead of having 470 units on 400 acres, it may end up with 300 units spread out on septic tanks and wells; there will still be the same traffic problems; and it is going to make development more difficult. He stated if it is broken up, it can still be developed; but there will not be a master storm water system; he is a believer in the planned unit development; and a master engineer plan will work better than a piecemeal plan. He noted the property is a former orange grove; there has been talk about scrub jays and gopher turtles; but that is not going to have much effect in an orange grove which has already been drained or you could not have a grove on it. He stated if the PUD is denied, over time there will be something worse on the property than what has been presented tonight, as it is done in a piecemeal fashion. Commissioner Higgs stated she is supporting the motion to deny. She stated the County has inadequate transportation facilities and infrastructure in the area; and it would produce a health and safety issue. She stated the County has an obligation to provide an infrastructure; it produces a serious problem in the area; and until the County can resolve the infrastructure problems, it should not proceed with allowing additional impacts to that infrastructure.

Commissioner Ellis inquired does that apply to the whole area; with Chairman Higgs responding until she can be confident that the development she is approving does not impact the surrounding residents in a negative way resulting in a health and safety issue, and that the infrastructure would be adequate.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how do you handle the development that happens in this area. He stated people are already building on Fleming Grant Road; they are already building in the Little Hollywood area; each home that is built adds to the problem; and inquired where do you decide to draw the line as to who is allowed and who is not allowed, and where does the County finally step in and correct the problems. He stated even if this is denied, there will still be people building on Fleming Grant Road and in Little Hollywood; and the problems will still need to be addressed. He stated it is not fair to turn down a PUD but allow all that piecemeal development; and that is just adding to the problem. He stated his concern with piecemeal development is drainage more than anything; if there is no master drainage plan, it will be that much more difficult in the future for the surrounding residents in this area to build out.

Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Spielvogel said it very well; the hearing is achieving a useful purpose in pointing out the problems in the southern part of the County if development is allowed without providing proper infrastructure; and this is a perfect example. She stated she is not going to argue the merits of a planned unit development over a piecemeal development; but you cannot approve a development without adequate infrastructure. Commissioner Cook inquired if there was adequate infrastructure, could Commissioner Higgs support this. Chairman Higgs responded if the infrastructure were adequate to not negatively impact what is there, she would have no problem with what she has seen or read. She stated no one is questioning the quality or the development or saying they do not want it in their neighborhood; most people would say it is nice; but what people want to see is the County insure there is an adequate transportation system to handle it; and the County does not have that. Commissioner Cook stated the current residents would have to fund that to make sure the infrastructure is in place which would then allow new development; some impact fees will be gained from new development; and he is happy to support it if the current residents want to pay to have that infrastructure which will have to be done; but it will allow new development.

Mr. Koraly advised the people from Commissioner Cook's District will pay for this area because the people in Micco paid for theirs.

Commissioner Cook stated he is saying that we are going to lose impact fees from development; as the current residents improve the infrastructure and the traffic flow, that is going to allow new growth; and he is not sure that is the position everyone wants to be in; but he will support the motion.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if it was purely a Micco road problem, he would concur; they said it was going to be 20% Little Hollywood and 80% Micco; but he thinks it is going to be reverse. He stated that is going to be a dangerous intersection; it is going to be a mess on U.S. 1; and as a practical matter, the Board is going to have to handle these problems. He stated growth is occurring; the County is getting impact fees; the County needs to be able to direct some things; and this is a U.S. 1 problem.

Commissioner Cook stated he was out there; he had many of the same concerns; and he supports the motion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this County made a lot of mistakes back in the 1980's; the infrastructure was not in place even for well planned PUD's; and it ended up costing five times higher in taxes in a very short period of time. He stated it is a game of catch-up; and he cannot support it either because of the obvious severe traffic problems. He stated until a viable solution is found, it is incumbent upon the Commissioners to use their brains to figure this one out.

Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board wants to make a real commitment to correct these problems, nothing prevents it from having the improvements done by the developer for an impact fee credit, if the issue is truly an infrastructure problem. He stated the Board can request the developer make the outside improvements for an impact fee credit, up to the full $500,000 or $600,000 in impact fees. Commissioner O'Brien noted in six months there may be no impact fees. Commissioner Ellis stated then the developer would have an impact fee credit that is worthless.

Commissioner Cook stated it is obvious there are severe infrastructure problems in this area and that there is a traffic problem; but the Board has to be honest with people that the effect of doing the improvements is promoting growth. He stated that is the result of the improvements that are needed out there; and the County is going to have to do that; but as the County makes the improvements, it is going to create growth, just like schools create growth. He noted he is not saying that is a good thing; but everyone needs to realize it.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF DECEMBER 5, 1995 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING

Chairman Higgs stated there is one person present for the administrative rezonings on the South Beaches; it is 8:00 p.m. and the Board is just getting to the regular agenda; and the person who is present would not be upset if the administrative rezonings were continued to the next meeting. She noted staff advises the February zoning meeting is fairly light.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to continue the public hearing to consider the zoning recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its December 5, 1994 meeting to the February 27, 1995 Board meeting. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners O'Brien, Higgs and Cook voted aye; Commissioners Scarborough and Ellis voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF JANUARY 3, 1995 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its meeting on January 3, 1995, as follows:

Item 1. Courtenay Christian Fellowship, Inc., a Florida Corporation's request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Security Trailer (renewal) in an AU zone on 2.9 acres located east of S.R. 3, south of the intersection of S.R. 3 and North Tropical Trail, which was approved for one year with one administrative renewal by the P&Z Board.

Gary Montecalvo, 6200 North Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, stated he is Pastor of the Courtenay Christian Fellowship Church which is where the security trailer is located; and he is requesting the one year renewal with at least five or even permanent renewals on the security trailer. He stated he was first at the P&Z meeting; the P&Z Board recommended one plus one; then after he left, the next two protested and received a recommendation of one plus five. He stated he was told that was because he was reapplying and theirs were first time applications; but he found out later that theirs had been there for even longer than his; and that is why he is requesting the Board reconsider. He stated the Church still has the same problems that it had initially when it requested the security trailer; it is a remote site; there is little housing around; and the area has been plagued by vandalism and burglary. He stated police protection in that area is by the Sheriff; there is no local police; and it takes quite a bit of time to respond due to the large area they have to cover. He stated the Little General store across the street has been broken into; kids stay out in the road watching for the Sheriff while others are breaking into the store; and then they run back into the woods when the Sheriff's Deputy gets there. He stated it is an area that can be broken into easily; having a security trailer has helped; and they have had little vandalism. He stated he does not see development in the area or having a local police department in the near future; and requested the Church be allowed to have the security trailer on the property. He stated security trailers are supposed to be for a certain amount of time until a permanent structure can be built; and there is one permanent structure on the property as well as the security trailer; but people are not in the permanent structure all the time, so the security trailer really helps. He stated he would like the same consideration as is extended to other parts of the County in that area as far as school grounds and such; they have security trailers indefinitely; and it would help if the Church could have theirs a bit longer.

Commissioner Ellis inquired how many administrative renewals Mr. Montecalvo is asking for; with Mr. Montecalvo responding he was told there was a possibility it might be made indefinite until the situations change; he does not know if that is a possibility; but until the area changes, there are going to be problems. Commissioner Ellis stated he understands Mr. Montecalvo's point because the schools and parks have security trailers that sit there forever.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he agrees.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 1 for one year with five administrative renewals.

Terry Rosenberger, 250 Imperial Street, Merritt Island, stated he lives in a mobile home; and he is in agreement with the Pastor on this issue. He stated he attended the P&Z meeting and felt Item 1 was unfairly discussed as wanting to change the County policy on security trailers; and therefore the one year with one renewal was granted as a recommendation. He stated then the succeeding applicants in AU and BU zonings were granted one year with five renewals; and that was unfair. He stated he reviewed the regulations as they are currently on record with the County and found some areas that seemed to be areas the Board could utilize to extend a longer renewal time for the first applicant. He noted he sent a letter to the Board through the Zoning Department; he is requesting the Board override the P&Z Board for all of the security renewals in the January, 1995 agenda, allow more renewal years for the first applicant and restricting renewals to fewer years for agenda items two and three; and adherence to present County policy would justify this request. He stated if there are areas of the regulations that are unclear, he would request that the County go through the process to clarify it, open it to public input, and get some direction for the County rather than having one thing on the record but in the field having actual use that is totally different where it is more permanent than temporary. He stated he is a security guard; he lives in a trailer; and he would appreciate some clarification in these areas.

Chairman Higgs stated Mr. Rosenberger referred to the County Ordinance regarding security trailers; the staff recommendation was for a renewal of one year with one administrative renewal; and requested an explanation of what the Ordinance states. Planner II Tom Myers advised the Ordinance states the purpose of the conditional use permit for security trailer is to alleviate an urgent and temporary security need, and to alleviate the need on a temporary basis while arrangements for a more permanent security solution are investigated and constructed. He stated the staff recommended the one year with one administrative renewal which would give the applicant two years to construct some sort of permanent security arrangement. Chairman Higgs inquired what does the Code say about the administrative renewals; with Mr. Myers responding it says that once a person has had one year with the five renewals, then when the Board considers them again, the Board should restrict administrative renewals to encourage that a permanent solution be found. Chairman Higgs stated the applicant has had the security trailer since 1989; with Mr. Myers advising that is correct.

Commissioner Ellis stated what is needed is an Ordinance change; clearly the County needs to live by its own Ordinances; and this is not the policy the County takes right now, nor does the School Board in relation to security trailers. He stated some security trailers have been in the parks indefinitely; it has been brought up on other issues that the rules need to be the same for everybody; what is a hardship for the private sector should be a hardship for the public sector as well; and he supports the original motion. He stated the Board may need to bring the Ordinance back for review.

Mr. Myers advised staff is currently reviewing this Ordinance as requested by the P&Z Board. He noted that was part of the discussion on all three items; and that investigation probably resulted in the difference between the first, second and third recommendations. He stated the original motion was to do this and have a plan in two years; as discussion ensued, the P&Z Board decided to approve this applicant and when they come in five years, they will have to comply with the new rule; the new rule is being formulated; and that is scheduled to go to the P&Z Board in the next couple of months.

Commissioner O'Brien stated sometimes the Board gets so involved in trying to make an Ordinance correct when it would be better to allow a little elasticity; the Board keeps boxing itself in leaving no latitude; and that has already been done in some Ordinances. He stated this is one the schools and parks use; and he is saying one plus five for a church because if it starts building out toward the church and becomes a heavy neighborhood, the Sheriff is going to say he is sorry, but the Church will have to build a security house or have someone live there. He stated this is a rural area; this is allowing something to occur that is not exactly by the rules; but the Board should stop trying to comb the nits out of this.

Commissioner Cook stated he agrees with Commissioner Ellis; since the County does not live by that rule, it should not force anybody else to; the County should be building permanent structures; but since it is not, he does not see how the Board can deny the right to have a trailer at the Church.

Mr. Myers advised the County and the School Board are under separate rules; the County has an accessory use on Government Managed Lands for security trailers; that is also the current scheme for industrial land use where there is no temporary nature; and the School Board does not have to obey the County's rules.

Chairman Higgs stated she agrees the County needs to follow the same rules as everyone else; but she believes the current rules should be followed, and the Ordinance is clear in regard to this, so, she cannot support the motion. She stated the other two have had trailers since 1973; this one has been there since 1989; and the Board needs to follow the Ordinance until it is changed.

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

Item 2. Dottie Mae Nail's request for Conditional Use Permit for a Security Trailer (renewal) in an AU zone on 20 acres located approximately 400 feet west of Turtlemound Road, and approximately 1,350 feet north of Post Road, which was approved for one year with five administrative renewals by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 2 for one year with five administrative renewals as recommended. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Cook and Ellis voted aye; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct staff to change the rules regarding security trailers so there is conformity with the rules the Board lives under and the rules the community lives under.

Commissioner Ellis inquired is that what staff is bringing to the Board; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding staff is looking at it. Commissioner Scarborough noted he was advised to do this by motion.

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

Item 3. Arnold A. Mallard's request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Security Trailer (renewal) in a BU-2 zone on 3.46? acres located at the southwest corner of Lake Drive and Range Road, which was approved for one year with five administrative renewals by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 3 for one year with five administrative renewals as recommended.

Chairman Higgs stated the Brevard County Code states the CUP should not be extended unless the Board further restricts administrative renewal; and the purpose of the CUP is to provide a temporary solution to alleviate an urgent need, and to allow time for permanent facilities.

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

Commissioner O'Brien requested clarification of the motion; with Commissioner Cook advising it was to approve the CUP for one year with five administrative renewals.

Commissioner Cook stated he would be happy to look at having permanent structures at all locations; and it will come back to the Board.

Item 4. Bernard K. Osborne's request for change from GU to AU on 5? acres located 0.4 mile northeast of the intersection of Date Palm and Pine Street, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 4 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Joseph and Terri L. Uddo's request for change from RR-1 to AGR on 5 acres located on the east side of the cul-de-sac on Sweetwater Court, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 5 as recommended.

Chairman Higgs stated this is AU going into the middle of RR-1; it is a platted subdivision; and there is no one objecting; but she has concerns. Commissioner Scarborough stated this is off the end of a street which is off of S.R. 46; it is an agricultural area; this will allow more access to the utilization of the property; and the individual already has a house on the property. Chairman Higgs stated she will support the motion, but had concerns.

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

Item 6. David R. and Joan C. Cicirelli's request for a Conditional Use Permit for Agricultural Pursuits (the growing, harvesting and sale of sunflower sprouts, buckwheat, lettuce and wheatgrass) on 1.20 acres, located on the south side of Geona Street, approximately 370 feet west of the southern terminus of Knoxville Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board, subject to no retail sales from the property.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 6 as recommended. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the applicant is making whiskey and what is being grown; with Commissioner Scarborough responding sunflowers and lettuce.

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

Item 7. G. C. Smith's request for change from GU to AU on 2.28 acres located 0.6 mile northwest of the Beeline (S.R.528) and I-95 intersection, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 7 as recommended.

Chairman Higgs stated she had the same question about this item; this is in the middle of GU; there are one-acre lots; and it appears there are one-acre lots which are going to be RR-1 which will have AU in there. Commissioner Scarborough noted sometimes AU is used as a residential site; he does not know what everybody is up to; but it is not really moving to a great incompatibility. Commissioner Cook noted it is an eclectic neighborhood.

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

Item 8. Randall R. Wilhoit's request for a Conditional Use Permit for Towers and Antennae (293 feet) in a PIP zone (also having a CUP for a 280-foot tower and antennae) on 10 acres located on the south side of Kings Highway, immediately west of the F.E.C.R.R., which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Jack Kirschenbaum, 505 N. Orlando Avenue, Cocoa Beach, representing the applicant, displayed a map showing the location of the site. He stated the site was previously approved for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the building of a tower for cellular telephones to 280 feet; and what they are requesting is amendment of the CUP to allow the tower to be built to 293 feet. He stated the P&Z Board gave unanimous approval of the request; and they have received CUP's on other properties for the 293 feet. He stated this is due to the nature of the cellular communications network which requires towers to be located at a certain distance from one another at a certain height according to usage and other physical properties of the waves and transmissions; and that is why he is requesting the additional 13 feet. He stated in most instances the tower will be approximately 280 feet, but the equipment such as the antennas will go up another 12 to 13 feet; and that is the extremity of what is being sought.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why instead of raising this tower, the other towers cannot be lowered; with Mr. Kirschenbaum responding because then you would not have cellular telephones that work.

Commissioner Cook inquired what is the closest residential property. Mr. Kirschenbaum responded he cannot answer that, but it is a PIP zoning; it is quite a distance south of the Space Center Executive Airport; and it is an industrial area.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the tower had an accident and fell, could it land on someone else's structures. Mr. Kirschenbaum responded the property is approximately ten acres; the tower is in the center; the Code requires setbacks; and in this case, all of the setbacks are met, and are greater than or equal to the height of the tower. He stated the Code allows towers to be placed with setbacks of one-half of the tower's height; and that is because an engineering certificate has to be filed at the time of acquisition of the building permit setting forth that if the tower falls, it will fall within the confines of the property. He stated the towers are engineered like a home; they are designed not to fail; this particular type does not have guy wires; and the Board may be familiar with the three-legged tower which is to the west of the Government Center. He stated the towers are sturdy; they survived all of the hurricanes so far; some of the equipment has blown off, but did not fall on the house next door; and the towers have survived the hurricanes in Dade County as well as in South Carolina. He stated the engineering certificate sealed by an engineer licensed to practice in Florida has to be provided to the Building Division at the time of acquisition of the building permit; so the Code provides safety measures so the neighboring properties are protected. Commissioner O'Brien noted he used to climb the towers to change the light bulb; and it is an experience.

Terry Rosenberger, 250 Imperial Street, Merritt Island, stated his only concern is that the regulations governing towers near airports within three nautical miles call for them to be limited to 200 feet or less unless some specific applications are met; and the Board should require that of the applicant prior to granting any further extensions above even the 200 feet. He stated one requirement is for notice of the proposed construction to be given as required by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations; the second is the proposed structure will not raise the FAA established minimum descent altitude or decision height for an instrument approach to any runway, or cause the minimum obstruction, clearance, altitude or minimum in and out altitude to be increased on any federal airway; and the third requirement is the structure must not otherwise constitute an obstruction to air navigation. He stated this is a highly visible area to the nation since it is the Space Center, and this is the nearest airport; and safety in the area is a prime concern. He stated the FAA is probably aware of this application; but requested the Board stipulate that these considerations be met before approval is granted. He noted he has no personal objection to towers out there; but would object to seeing accidents.

Mr. Myers advised that is a requirement of the Code; he believes Mr. Kirschenbaum has already been through that hearing sometime in the last two weeks; and it is required as part of the land development process. He stated a site plan will not be issued on that until the applicant has presented the paperwork from the FAA indicating acceptance of the tower as meeting Part 77 of the Federal Aviation and Administration requirements; the County has no expertise in this area; and that is why it lets the FAA deal with it. Mr. Kirschenbaum stated the FAA will and has dealt with that; Ms. Martin has been in contact with the Space Center Executive Airport, speaking directly to Director Hutto; publications have been made; and all applications have been filed. He stated they would not seek site plan approval nor building permit until the FAA has signed off on it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the applicant has not received FAA approval yet; with Mr. Kirschenbaum responding that is not done until after this process is accomplished. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Hutto has been notified; and inquired if the Tico Board has considered this. Mr. Kirschenbaum responded he does not think the Tico Board has to consider it; certain people have to be notified under the regulations; and the applicant has proceeded with that. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to call Mr. Hutto personally to touch base.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table consideration of Item 8 to February 27, 1995. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioner Scarborough, O'Brien and Cook voted aye; Commissioners Higgs and Ellis voted nay.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if other Commissioners wish to discuss it, he wishes he could have withdrawn his motion to table to allow the discussion. Commissioner Cook stated the Board will be able to discuss it when it comes back; and he needs more information.

Commissioner Ellis noted it is already approved for 280 feet.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to reconsider the motion to table Item 8. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he did not want to cut off discussion; but he feels he should talk to Mr. Hutto.

Commissioner Ellis stated they are already approved at 280 feet; this is just adding 13 feet; so it is not like going from zero to 293 feet. He stated he does not see what the problem is; and while tabling is not a big deal for the Board, many times it has ramifications for the applicant as far as construction schedules and things they need to do. He stated he did not want to push them back 30 days; and that is why he wanted to go ahead and approve.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the things he found is a failure to talk to each other; there is an elementary school in the glide path for Tico Airport; everyone asks how things like that happen; and it is because people do things without talking. He stated he would like to talk to Mr. Hutto.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is anything in writing from Mr. Hutto; with Mr. Kirschenbaum responding not that he is aware of.

Commissioner Ellis reiterated it is already approved at 280 feet. Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands that; it has just been brought to his attention now; if he had known earlier there was a need to coordinate, he would probably have raised the issue; and he made a mistake previously. Mr. Kirschenbaum stated this is a zoning issue; and he does not think the Board is allowed to talk to anybody. He noted he would be happy to call each Commissioner to address the concerns, but he has been told that the policy of the County is this cannot be done because these are quasi-judicial things and everything the Board is supposed to rule on is to be presented at this hearing in a quasi-judicial manner. Commissioner Scarborough requested staff contact Mr. Hutto and get his response in writing to share. Mr. Kirschenbaum stated he can supply that kind of information; but this is the fifth or sixth time; they have done this by the Melbourne Airport and Rockledge Airport, and never been requested to do that; and the reason is because the staff will not issue any permits until everything is supplied in accordance with the County Code. He stated this is a zoning issue tonight, not an FAA issue; and that is historically what they have done.

Commissioner Cook stated he would feel comfortable with more information if staff will contact the Tico Director, and also he would like information on where the closest home is.

Commissioner O'Brien stated a Commissioner can talk to someone personally as long as he puts it on the record for public disclosure. Commissioner Cook reiterated he needs more information.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table Item 8 to February 27, 1995; and direct staff to forward to each Commissioner a written response from the Executive Director of the Tico Airport indicating what action Tico has taken and what action it anticipates taking in regard to this tower. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, Higgs, and Cook voted aye; Commissioner Ellis voted nay.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is the blue book and then a separate piece of paper; and inquired why the paragraph could not be put at the bottom of the page so it is all in the same book. Chairman Higgs noted this is the public agenda that is sent out; the public is not sent the entire book; and it is necessary to have something to give to the public. Mr. Myers stated that is correct; but what Commissioner O'Brien is asking for is to put what is needed to be read into the record into the blue book so that it is easier to read the items. Commissioner O'Brien stated it would also reduce the paperwork; and the U.S. Government stopped using legal size paper; because it is more expensive.

Item 9. Paul R. and Deborah L. Freck's request for change from AU to RU-1-11 on .71 acre located on the west side of Range Road, approximately 440 feet south of Stratford Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 9 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion and without consent of any owner of affected property, authorized amendment to the official zoning maps from GML with CUP for a Wastewater Treatment Plant to RU-1-11 on property located on the northwest corner of Holly Avenue and Wiley Court, pursuant to Chapter 62, Article VI, Brevard County Code, Section 62-1152, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 10 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. Kaleny, Limited of Florida, Inc.'s request for a Substantial Expansion of Pre-existing Use in a TU-1(20) zone (also having a Pre-existing Use-015) on 1.515? acres located on the east side of A1A, approximately 50 feet north of Flamingo Drive, which was tabled to the February 6, 1995 P&Z meeting by the P&Z Board, with no reprocessing fee required.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 11 to the February 6, 1995 P&Z meeting, with no reprocessing fee required as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. Celeste J. Banks' request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.76 acres located 700 feet east and 100 feet south of the intersection of Leghorn Road and Valkaria Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 12 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. O & O Properties, Inc.'s request for change from AU to BU-1-A on 2.43? located on the south side of Eber Road, 280 feet west of Dairy Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Glen Outlaw, 1230 North Harbor City Boulevard, Melbourne, stated he is available to answer any questions.

Reverend Edward Collison, 1050 Eber Boulevard, Melbourne, stated it was just recommended they be present to keep the opening in case there were any desired changes that they might want to speak to; but at this point they have no concern over Items 13 or 14.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 13 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. O & O Properties, Inc.'s request for change from AU to RU-1-11 on 4.68? acres located on the south side of Eber Road, approximately 580 feet west of Dairy Road, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 14 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Dan Matthews, 20 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, stated he is a member of the Xi Delta Alumni Association which is the landowner immediately east of the parcel that is sought to be rezoned; the current use of the parcel is a fraternity house; the proposed rezoning is to be residential; and while they are not opposed to rezoning the parcel to residential, they want to be sure they are good neighbors, and be sure the County helps them to be good neighbors. He requested the Board require that if the parcel is rezoned to a residential use that the developer build a masonry wall or have greater setbacks than are currently required so the fraternity will not be a nuisance to its new neighbors. He stated they want to continue to use the property as a fraternity house; and they would appreciate anything the Board can do to insure that the people who will move into the homes are not annoyed by the fraternity and vice versa.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the fraternity wants it further away because of the parties it will be throwing. Mr. Matthews stated he does not know exactly what goes on at the fraternity house; but he knows from previous experience with other Chapter houses around the state, that the farther you are from permanent residents, the better off you are.

Chairman Higgs stated the fraternity is directly to the east of the parcel that is being considered. Commissioner Cook inquired if the zoning is RU-2-4; with Commissioner O'Brien advising it is in RU-2-4 now, but it used to be in RU-1-11.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board looks at PUD's and gives them a hard time; then it looks at zoning something else residential; he thought it was planned a long time ago; and inquired why questions do not arise now concerning the impact of development on education or roads. He stated on one side the Board shoots at some people; on the other side it says there is no problem; and it makes no sense.

Commissioner Cook stated they are all judgment calls; at some point you have to decide whether you are confiscating private property; people have a right to use their property; but when the impact is large enough, the Board has to make those judgment calls.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board is doing this one lot at a time; but if you add them all up, that is a PUD. Commissioner Cook agreed it is; but inquired what is the alternative, a building moratorium. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not know what the alternative is; but he wanted to bring it to the Board's attention. He stated he is trying to talk about this to see if there are any solutions for the future; it does not jeopardize what is being discussed here; but he sees this problem generating along. He stated there is talk about looking at the big picture in Micco about flooding and everything else; last Tuesday the Board was looking at the big picture of rezoning and development; and to go along with something like this escapes him.

Chairman Higgs stated in this instance it is looking at a maximum of 16 units on Eber Boulevard; it is very close to Dairy Road which is currently programmed to be four-laned; the money is there; and Eber Boulevard is also a road that the City of Melbourne has in its plans to four-lane; so, she can be comfortable that the infrastructure is in place to deal with this. She stated Commissioner

O'Brien's point is important; and she has serious concerns about any rezoning where she does not know that the County has the money to provide adequate infrastructure.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the way he looks at it is there are different grades; there is the fundamental health and safety issue; and that is where it was in Micco as far as people stacking up over the bridge coming from Indian River County being dangerous. He stated if he had voted to approve that item, it would have been a threat to life, health and safety. He stated the next level is decreasing property values, and whether approving a development will result in a loss of value to the person who has already paid taxes and mortgage payments; and that is wrong. He stated the next level is someone may not like the rezoning and prefer to keep the woods next door; and that is the one he cannot buy off on. He stated there are degrees of impact; when you take the Micco situation where someone may get killed on U.S. 1, that is an easy decision; but when you have a fraternity house upsetting neighbors, that is different.

Mr. Matthews stated he found out about the P&Z meeting too late to prepare for it; and he was not present. He stated he knows that the P&Z Board unanimously considered it; but he did not make a presentation at that meeting.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not see building a wall; but if the property owners bother the fraternity, they can come to the Board. Mr. Matthews stated he is more concerned about the legal ramifications if the fraternity bothers the neighbors.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is anything the applicant can do to help alleviate the situation that will happen in the future.

Commissioner Ellis stated there has to be a legal limit or objective reasons for when the Board denies; it has to treat property owners fairly; and that was his concern on the PUD the Board considered earlier. He stated looking at the rate the PUD would be building out and comparing it with the rate of homes already being built in that area, a burden has been put on one property owner that has not been put on the other property owners. He stated as far as the railroad track issue, Lake Washington Road empties right on the railroad track on U.S. 1.

Commissioner Cook stated there is the issue about current residents building the infrastructure for new residents to occupy; that is a big issue; but he agrees there is nothing to preclude the developer from resubmitting a different plan or a lower density. Commissioner Ellis stated there is nothing to preclude the Board from directing how the impact fees are to be spent.

Glen Outlaw stated the fraternity house is approximately 300 feet from the eastern residential boundary; and if that is not enough buffer to keep the noise down, he does not know what is. He stated a fence is not going to make a difference when the fraternity has live bands; the live bands perform somewhere in the barn which is 150 feet from the eastern property line; and there is the Noise Ordinance in case there are any problems. He stated there is a retention area abutting; and he hopes the fraternity does become a good neighbor and recognize the rights of everybody involved.

Chairman Higgs stated you do not have to put up any kind of a barrier because it is multi-family and single-family. Mr. Outlaw agreed that is the case; and noted he would not be causing the noise. Mr. Myers advised buffering is required the other way if this was a new site; but single-family is not required to buffer against multi-family. Commissioner Ellis stated that seems fair; and he does not see why single-family should have to put in the buffer.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 14 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated there are some things the fraternity can do; but at this point the Board is not making a determination on what the applicant would have to do.

Commissioner O'Brien suggested Mr. Outlaw discuss the matter with Mr. Matthews to see if they could put up something to try and knock the noise down.

Item 15. Aquarina Developments, Inc., a Florida Corporation, as Trustee's request for Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages (On-Premise Consumption) in a PUD zone on 3.0 acres located on the northwest corner of A1A and Aquarina Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 15 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. Dave G. and Eleanor Shreve's request for Conditional Use Permit for Towers and Antennae (300 feet Guyed Communications Tower) in an AU zone on 28.10 acres located on the north side of Micco Road, .04 mile west of Bird Drive, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Cheryl Pence, 6650 Powers Ferry Road, Atlanta, Attorney for Dial Call, Inc., stated she is here to request a Conditional Use Permit on 28 acres on the north side of Micco Road; the zoning is agricultural at this point; and the proposed tower would be a 300-foot guyed tower. She submitted photographs of the property; and stated they have met all the setbacks required by Code. She stated the tower is 300 feet or more from the property line; it is well over 1,000 feet from the nearest residential structure; and the pictures show that. She stated there is no way even if the tower fell completely intact that it would hit any structure; the towers are designed to collapse down on themselves; and they will provide a certificate to the County during the application process. She stated they are forced by federal law to apply to the FAA, and must have FAA approval before they can go forward on a tower such as this. She stated that is always the case; and many jurisdictions do require that to be presented before issuance of a building permit.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he saw one of these towers cut down by a plane one time at an Air Force Base; and the whole thing came down mangled. Ms. Pence stated that could be a problem.

Commissioner Cook inquired how far is the tower from the nearest airport; with Ms. Pence responding a long way. Commissioner Cook stated it is several miles, and Ms. Pence advised the nearest house is over 1,000 feet away. Ms. Pence stated that is a conservative guess; she has seen the property; she has shown the Board pictures; it is a huge field; and the property owner owns the nearest structure which is well over 1,000 feet away.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not know the FAA requirements, but there is an agricultural air strip on the south side of Micco Road. Mr. Myers stated he is not aware of an agricultural air strip there; and that is one of the reasons this is left up to the FAA. He stated the FAA has the location of all air strips; there is no air strip showing on any zoning map; and that is why this is a permitting feature rather than a condition of the Conditional Use Permit.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the agricultural air strip was permitted by the County; with Chairman Higgs responding she does not know. Chairman Higgs stated it is not a particularly active strip, but it is still there. Mr. Myers responded he is not aware of any Conditional Use Permits for an agricultural runway; but that is a relatively new CUP, so it could be a grandfathered activity. He stated the FAA knows where those air strips are. Commissioner Cook stated these towers are going up all the time; and the County should start taking a good look. He noted he is not saying there is anything wrong with this; but the County should take a broader view rather than ending up with a landscape that has a tower every 500 feet.

Ms. Pence noted Commissioner Cook and the Board are not the only ones who feel that way; Dial Call has been in the paging and dispatch business for 14 years in the southeast; and 20 months ago it was licensed by the FCC to compete with the two other wireless communication providers throughout the southeast, so they have a relatively unique situation in that they will be setting up this system through out the southeast. She stated Dial Call is currently in merger negotiations with another company that has this kind of system; the system is digital based technology rather than analog; and because digital will do four things, the phone will function as a telephone, a mobile phone, and a pager as well as having a dispatch function for several people and an e-mail component. She stated rather than having a one line numeric read out as most phones do, it will have 140 characters, so instead of actually incurring the telephone cost, if you choose, you could send a message of up to 140 letters to someone else. She stated it is a better mousetrap; it is the better technology; and that is why they were able to get into this marketplace. She stated there might be cases where more information is needed; and she would respect that; however a 30-day tabling in this instance would tremendously impair them. She stated they are trying to get up and running while they have the competitive advantage; it is an important window of opportunity; the spine of the system is from Georgia to South Florida; and getting this running by spring of this year is critical. She urged the Board to go forward on this tower tonight.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Ms. Pence has FAA approval; with Ms. Pence responding she does not have it with her, noting she is a zoning attorney; and there is a whole set of attorneys who deal with the FAA. She stated she is sure if they do not have it yet, it will be provided before the tower is permitted, so the County is insured in that regard. She stated they cannot build until they present the FAA approval. Chairman Higgs stated she is reluctant to treat this item different than Item 8.

Commissioner Ellis stated he was reluctant to treat Item 8 the way the Board did.

Ms. Pence stated there are differences which distinguish between things; and they are different as far as locations and setbacks. Chairman Higgs noted there is no airport.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Tico is in the process of expanding its runways, bringing in more air traffic; he is not an aviator so he does not know if the proposed tower is in the glide path; but he does know the south approach is in close proximity. He stated it could be something that it would be worthwhile touching base with Tico on; but in this case, there is no airport nearby, so, there is no airport for him to call. He stated he does not have a problem if the Board wants to go ahead with this item.

Chairman Higgs stated she does not have a problem.

Commissioner Cook stated there is a distinct difference.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 16 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if these are like high tension wires that everybody gets cancer if they live next to them.

Item 17. Steven H. Lumbert's request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Marina in a BU-2 Zone on 0.5 acre located on the east side of U.S. 1, approximately 900 feet north of 1st Street, which was approved with a Binding Development Plan by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 17 with a Binding Development Plan as recommended.

Commissioner Cook stated this is a fine place for a marina.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Comprehensive Plan says each marina operator shall establish and maintain a permanent manatee educational display at a prominent location in the marina; and he is hoping this educational display will not show manatees being hit by boats and dying because manatees die of disease and starvation for the most part. Steven Lumbert advised it will be the standard sign. Commissioner O'Brien stated he has a problem with this lately; and it has gone too far. Commissioner Ellis suggested it be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.

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

Item 18. The Suntree Partners, a Florida General Partnership's request for a change from GML to PUD on 1.23? acres located 700 feet north of Spyglass Hill Road and 350 feet east of Forrest Lake Avenue, which was tabled by the P&Z Board to the February 6, 1995 P&Z meeting for readvertising for a Small Scale Plan Amendment at the recommendation of staff, with no reprocessing fee required.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to table Item 18 to the February 6, 1995 Planning and Zoning meeting for readvertising for a Small Scale Plan Amendment, with no reprocessing fee required, as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 19. Biblia Fellowship Community Church, Inc, a Florida Non-Profit Corporation's request for change from AU to TR-1 on 0.172 acre located on the southwest side of Tucker Lane, approximately 200 feet north of Sandpiper Drive, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 19 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m.

Item 20. Barry R. and Betty E. Ranew's request for change from RR-1 to IU on 1.003 acres located on the east side of Murrell Road, approximately 0.35 mile north of Barnes Boulevard, which was approved as PIP with a Binding Development Plan limiting property to business professional uses by the P&Z Board.

Robert Ranew, 514 North River Oaks, Indialantic, stated the Comprehensive Plan was set up to go industrial; the land classification he requested was not compatible; and so it was changed to PIP. He stated there were two parties present at the P&Z meeting who were in opposition; one of those has since agreed with the rezoning; and at the Comprehensive Plan study the other night, six of the eleven residents came out in favor with no opposition.

Russell Down, 3505 Murrell Road, Rockledge, stated he opposes being forced into an industrial area; he built his house in good faith; and the consideration ought to be for the people that were there first. He stated if you want a business, you should go to a business area. He stated if the Board is going to go through with this, it should be responsible to compensate him, or if it is overwhelmingly in the public interest, then his property can be acquired through eminent domain. Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Ranew's property directly abuts Murrell Road; with Mr. Ranew responding yes, it backs up on the airport and Murrell Road is in the front. Mr. Ranew stated there is a new Winn Dixie going in across the street; and he assumes the Board has his Binding Development Plan.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the request was for IU; the P&Z Board unanimously approved PIP; and inquired if Mr. Ranew is satisfied with PIP. Mr. Ranew responded he is happy with what they recommended. He stated to give him what he wanted, staff recommended he go to the IU; but they are doing a Comprehensive Plan study and will try to change it back to where it is BU-1 or Mixed Use so the residents can stay there. He noted he wants to use it for an insurance office. Commissioner Scarborough stated right now the Board is approving PIP. Mr. Myers stated the PIP zoning classification will give Mr. Ranew the use he wants; Mr. Ranew is prepared to enter into a Binding Development Agreement that would limit the use to professional offices, with the anticipation this area would be changed to residential, and he would be administratively rezoned to BU-1-A, which would give Mr. Ranew his professional office uses as well as doing what the people who live in the residences requested. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a long way from IU to a grocery store to a professional office; and he understands now.

Chairman Higgs inquired if this could be a Planned Business Park. She stated PBP is a less intense use than PIP; there is RR-1 all along there; it seems a little more compatible; and she questions the compatibility of IU.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Ranew will be able to do what he wants with that zoning; with Mr. Myers responding affirmatively. Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem with that. Mr. Ranew stated he has no problem; staff gave him the Binding Development Plan to protect the homeowners who are there; of the 11 homeowners, 6 came in support of what he is doing; and the only one he knows is in opposition is Mr. Down. He stated he understands Mr. Down's contention; and the Binding Development Agreement is supposed to protect Mr. Down while allowing him to do what he wants as far as an insurance office.

Chairman Higgs stated a Planned Business Park would allow Mr. Ranew to do the same thing, but would not go to the extreme of PIP.

Commissioner Cook stated Murrell Road is a hodgepodge; there is commercial further down; one time they tried to put a 7-Eleven in there next to Westport; and it is still zoned that way. Mr. Ranew stated the City of Rockledge wrote a letter against his going industrial because the City wanted it to go the way he wanted it to go; and he agrees. He stated he does not think the neighborhood is deserving of an industrial park because they have some nice homes in there. Commissioner Cook stated he agrees. He stated he does not have a problem with a less intense use; and he would be happy to support that.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 20 as Planned Business Park. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 21. The Viera Company's request for change from BU-1 with stipulations to BU-1 without stipulations on 10.09 acres located in the northwest quadrant of the Wickham Road/Murrell Road intersection, approximately ? mile east of I-95, which was approved by the P&Z Board with the

stipulation per memorandum dated January 3, 1995, from Billy Osborne, Jr., Traffic Engineering Director, addressing proposed connection from Cabot Court to Wickham Road.

Commissioner Cook stated Traffic Engineering advises all the traffic would be internal and there would be no driveways with regard to this cut.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 21 with the stipulation per memorandum dated January 3, 1995 from Traffic Engineering Director Billy Osborne, Jr. addressing the proposed connection from Cabot Court to Wickham Road, as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 22. The Viera Company's request for a Mixed-use Extension and change from PUD to BU-1 on 3.82? acres located immediately east of Murrell Road in the northeast quadrant of the Viera Boulevard/Murrell Road intersection, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 22 as recommended.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it says approval if the Mixed Use is expanded. Mr. Myers stated staff would prefer separate motions on the Mixed Use expansion and the zoning action. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Mixed Use expansion should be done before the zoning action; with Mr. Myers responding yes.

Commissioner Cook withdrew the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve the Mixed Use Extension in Item 22 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 22 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 23. The Viera Company's request for change from BU-1 to PUD with a change to the Preliminary Development Plan on 1.73 acres located immediately east of Murrell Road in the northeast quadrant of the Viera Boulevard/Murrell Road intersection, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Item 23 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 24. Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning from GU and AU to GML on property located in Sections 12 and 24, Township 26 South, Range 36 East, pursuant to Future Land Use Element XIII, Policy 10.2, Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 24 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he has a question concerning Item 22; it is changing from PUD to BU-1; and inquired why a Planned Unit Development would be changed. Mr. Myers stated what happened was the area was surrounded by an open space wetland parcel; due to the way it was located and the way they wished to develop the BU-1, they determined that the wetland was not exactly where they thought it was; so this is a minor adjustment based on the location of the wetland to make the commercial site work. He noted they are limited on the amount of square footage, trips, etc. by the Development of Regional Impact. Commissioner O'Brien inquired could that reduce the density of the PUD; with Mr. Myers responding no, it was an open space tract. Commissioner O'Brien inquired was it supposed to be like that when they planned the PUD; with Mr. Myers responding clearly they did not find the wetland to be exactly where they originally thought it was. Commissioner O'Brien stated there is something missing; he is questioning how you can have a Planned Unit Development and take a section out of it, making it Mixed Use after the PUD has already been approved. Chairman Higgs advised they are just going to redraw the lines. Mr. Myers stated that is why it had to come before the Board.

Item 25. Eau Gallie Christian Church of Melbourne, Florida, a not-for-profit Florida Corporation's request for change from GU to AU on 6.13 acres located on the west side of Croton Road, approximately 700 feet south of Aurora Road, which came to the Board with no recommendation.

Commissioner Ellis stated the reason for no recommendation was a question over the easement next to the Croton Nursery that leads back there; so, it was not really a denial of the use, but a question of use of the easement to that property.

Marvin Tallent, 1660 Croton Road, Melbourne, representing Eau Gallie Christian Church, stated Commissioner Ellis is correct; the question was the easement on the property; and he believes that has been worked out with the Hatches. He stated that has been worked out in an amiable fashion. Chairman Higgs inquired where are you getting the easement; with Mr. Tallent responding there is a parcel of land which the Church purchased to the west of the current parcel that was landlocked; there was a deeded access across their property; and what they have done is Quit Claimed that back to them.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he understands the Church will not use the easement. Mr. Tallent stated there are some conditional uses with that because there are some building needs; and it is described in an Agreement with the Hatches.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if the Church's plan is to use that for a construction entrance and when done, deed it back; with Mr. Tallent responding with just a small period of use for the Church's needs in construction activity; and they have no problem with that.

Terry Rosenberger, 250 Imperial Street, Merritt Island, representing First Fruits Ministries, stated First Fruits Ministries is a small nondescript ministry that encourages churches to utilize their agricultural use lands for raising vegetables and small livestock in order to bring the benefits of those things back to the people, and enhance the community by teaching and educating others and by home development of raising food products. He stated First Fruits Ministries believes the future is in small home gardens; and a six-acre tract would be very suitable if the Church had that as a potential idea for the use of its lands. He stated he is not familiar with the discrepancy; he saw the split P&Z vote; and he thought he would provide his input for the preservation of agriculture lands in the County, with development increasing rapidly.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has appreciated Mr. Rosenberger's comments throughout the evening, in particular the one in his District dealing with the airport; and inquired which item brought him to the meeting. Mr. Rosenberger responded his primary concerns were the Conditional Use Permits for Alcoholic Beverages.

Mark Hatch, 1720 Croton Road, Melbourne, stated as of today the Church has vacated the private easement to his property; and he is removing his objection and supporting the zoning change.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if Mr. Hatch will still have the easement for his use; with Mr. Hatch responding he has given the Church a temporary construction easement through there to finish with the Church's plans; and it is actually the driveway to his home and business. Commissioner Ellis stated access will not be impeded.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not think anybody wants to have cows wandering around their church property behind residential. Commissioner Ellis stated he understands that point; but that is the wrong issue; and there is a house already there. Commissioner O'Brien stated one of the speakers was just saying that we should have the agricultural side of this; and he is hoping the Board understands what he is saying. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not think that is the intention here. Commissioner O'Brien advised cows create a lot of methane gas; and the neighbors live right there.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 25 as AU zoning classification.

Chairman Higgs inquired if AU could have farm animals including cows, chickens and pigs; with Mr. Myers responding it could.

Commissioner Ellis stated there already is the existing Church; it is not vacant property; the Church wants to expand; and he does not think they are looking to farm.

Chairman Higgs stated the point is they could do that.

Commissioner Ellis stated the other point is even if the Church's plans fall through and it does not get to use this property the way it wants, since the only access is through the Church property, because of the vacation of the easement, it could not be used independently for those purposes.

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

Item 26. Donald and Julie C. Herndon's request for change from RU-1-9 to BU-2 on 0.39 acre located on the west side of Hibiscus Street, approximately 100 feet south of Date Street, which was approved as BU-1 by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Ellis stated the applicant's reason for the BU-2 is because of the use of the property for a pool repair business; this area along Croton Road is a very mixed area; and requested an explanation of why it has to be BU-2 instead of BU-1.

Don Herndon responded he was informed that if he went to BU-2, it would provide the classification needed for the pool company that was operating there; and the company is a pool service, and does not construct pools.

Commissioner Ellis inquired why do they have to have BU-2 for that company; with Mr. Myers responding because of the storage of the chemicals involved.

Mr. Herndon advised there is a paint and body shop right next door.

Commissioner Ellis inquired what sets the rule; and why can they not be in BU-1. Mr. Myers responded you could retail those pool chemicals; however if you are doing pool contracting, supply, etc., the bulk storage of those materials requires BU-2 zoning. Commissioner Ellis inquired if he is selling them retail and has three hundred five-gallon containers in the back of the store, what is the difference. Mr. Myers stated it is simply difference in scale between wholesale and retail.

Commissioner Ellis inquired in this case, what does the company do; and is it almost a home base. Mr. Herndon stated it is really an office; he read the zoning regulations, and the difference between BU-1 and BU-2 was outside storage; but he is not requiring any outside storage. He stated the pool repair company is considered a contracting office; and it does not need outside storage. Commissioner Ellis inquired is BU-2 required for a contracting office; with Mr. Myers responding if the applicant wants a contractor office only, that could be approved under BU-1. Mr. Herndon advised there are other BU-2's along Aurora Road, but not right on Croton Road. Commissioner Ellis stated the proper thing would be BU-1 use, then address why that type of business cannot fit into BU-1, and then maybe go for a zoning rule change. Mr. Myers stated this could be brought back to the Board as a Use on Review to get a more specific description of what the applicant is doing there, and determine that it is an appropriate activity for the BU-1 zoning classification. He noted the paint and body shop next door is BU-1 with a Use on Review for certain limited paint and body type activities; and this appears to be similar.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 26 as recommended.

Mr. Herndon stated the company that was there before was in BU-1 zoning as a contracting office, and did not have a problem with the County.

Commissioner Ellis stated if the Board can find out exactly what the problem is then it can address it.

Chairman Higgs stated there was a letter from the City of Melbourne; and inquired what was the City's objection. Mr. Myers stated the City did not like the heavy nature of the BU-2 commercial; and this would be acceptable to the City as well.

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

Item 27. Chris Boone's request for change from GU to AU on 4.96? acres located at the southern terminus of Gainey Lane, northeast of the Eau Gallie River, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

Don Gabbard, 206 Gainey Lane, Melbourne, stated his neighbors live in Michigan; and submitted a copy of the letter from the neighbors. Chairman Higgs stated the letter is from the Lombardos; and inquired if they object; with Mr. Gabbard responding everyone wants the Board to deny.

Ellen Gabbard, 206 Gainey Lane, Melbourne, stated Gainey Lane is a section of Brevard County southwest of Croton and Aurora Roads; she has been a resident of Gainey Lane over 30 years; and requested the Board follow the recommendation of the P&Z Board and deny the change. She stated as Gainey Lane is a dead-end road and the only access to this property, they see no reason for a church to be built on a dead-end road that is over 1,300 feet to Aurora Road and over 1,500 feet to Croton Road; the increase in traffic and the unimproved roads in the neighborhood as well as the added pressure of the construction traffic would create more problems on the roads. She noted she is sure the Board will be happy to hear there are no drainage problems in her area. Commissioner Ellis stated that is not what he heard a few months ago. Ms. Gabbard inquired if Commissioner Ellis is referring to Gainey Lane; with Commissioner Ellis responding it was not where Ms. Gabbard is, but a few streets over.

Commissioner Cook noted the applicant has not appeared; and inquired if the Commissioner of the District has a motion. Commissioner Ellis stated there is nothing agricultural in this area; and agricultural zoning does not fit. He stated unlike the previous item, there is no church here; there is not necessarily that commitment for a church; and he wishes the applicant was present because if it is GU, it needs to be zoned something.

Ms. Gabbard stated she has no objection to any type of residential.

Commissioner Ellis stated the proper zoning would be an RU-1-9 as the surrounding neighborhood is single family homes.

Coleen Ward, 955 Thompson Court, stated she wrote to each of the Commissioners on January 19, 1995; and read aloud the letter requesting the rezoning not be allowed as follows:

My family moved to Gainey Lane in 1964. My grandparents bought and built on the land adjoining my parents' lot. As children, my five brothers and sisters and myself hiked in the woods around our neighborhood. We learned to skate, play baseball, and ride bikes on the quiet road. Growing up on Gainey Lane was a wonderful experience. In 1984 when my husband Jeff and I were ready to purchase land and build our house, we chose to buy and build on the northeast corner of Gainey Lane and Thompson Court. Both of these roads dead-end within five hundred feet of our property. Also, both of these roads are uncurved and have no sidewalks. These facts and the zoning of the surrounding property definitely influenced our decision to purchase in this area. Our two children, now eleven and thirteen, hike in the woods and play in the street of this secluded neighborhood. In the woods and on our property, we have seen gopher tortoises, foxes, rabbits, raccoons, armadillos and many types of birds and butterflies. The minimal traffic is a major factor in this lifestyle. As I understand, the rezoning of this property is requested with the intent of establishing a church. Even if the membership numbers are small now, the whole idea of a church is to grow. In addition, if the rezoning is allowed, there is nothing to prevent the establishment of a church sponsored day care center or a K-12 school. I believe that the requested change of zoning on this piece of property would allow for a very heavy increase in the traffic flow of our neighborhood. Directly in front of our house is the only way to get into or out of the aforementioned property. If this property is to be rezoned, please choose to make it residential in keeping with the rest of the surrounding property.

Jeff Ward, 955 Thompson Court, Melbourne, stated what he is worried about with this zoning is agricultural; the intent is to put a church there; the idea of a church is to grow; and if the church expands beyond its parking facilities, the only parking would be along Gainey Road and Thompson Court which is where his property is located, bordering on those two roads. He stated if it expands beyond that, with the streets being uncurved and without sidewalks, they would be parking in the yards; and the traffic of a few hundred cars coming through there within an hour of Sunday services would be too much for the road to bear, unlike residential where you have cars in and out every once in a while.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 27 as recommended.

Commissioner Ellis stated the residents need to be aware that the property cannot be kept zoned GU forever; that is just a holding pattern; and if the applicant comes in for residential, that is highly compatible.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board needs to do anything else with the property since the applicant is not present. Mr. Myers advised with the AU zoning classification he cannot think of anything residential that would be less intensive that would be consistent with the character of the area. He stated the County Attorney's Office might like to make a specific finding of fact that AU was not reasonable when its intended purpose was for a church off a fifteen-foot access, or some specific finding of fact like that; and if the Board desires, this can be brought back as an administrative rezoning for a residential zoning classification consistent with the area. He stated those are the only choices he sees; and the Board does not have to do anything today based on a less intense zoning classification than that requested.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if there are rules in Statutes about agricultural zonings near residential areas. Mr. Myers stated there is some compatibility in the matrix which would address whether or not that is compatible; but he is not aware of anything else. Commissioner Ellis stated AU is not always less intense. County Attorney Scott Knox stated alternative two is the option he would recommend which is to come back with a new zoning classification which fits the land use. Commissioner Cook inquired if someone could talk to the applicant. Commissioner Ellis stated he had hoped the applicant would be present tonight because then it could move to administrative rezoning with the concurrence of the applicant. Mr. Myers stated the County Attorney just indicated that would still be an appropriate action to pursue. Mr. Knox stated the applicant will have to be notified anyway of what is going to be done.

Chairman Higgs stated she wants to get on the record that AU is incompatible with the surrounding land uses; and she supports the motion.

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

Commissioner Scarborough stated what is driving this is the fifteen-foot right-of-way; if this was a normal large boulevard, he does not know if there would have been this objection; and the problem was not the church or the AU zoning, but the access. He stated he would like a report from staff addressing the access issue and traffic demands as to usage; what he is hearing is there would not be an objection to the church or the zoning; but there is an objection under the circumstances of the road being of such limited capacity.

Mr. Gabbard pointed out the area on the map.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the road going back to this property does not have the safety considerations for the public at large; if the church was built, there would be the possibility of hundreds of cars traversing this roadway which would compromise the safety of the neighborhood; and that is the reason to deny the zoning.

Chairman Higgs inquired if any other action is desired on this item.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board had a rule that you cannot build a church there because it does not make sense, then the Board could have gone with AU but not with this type of traffic; and the traffic is not working the way it was conceived to work. He stated in Canaveral Groves, there was discussion about overburdening the roads; but the Board did not look at local roads because they were not connector roads; and the local roads were overburdened. He stated there is a fundamental problem in the way the County looks at transportation and allowing building. Chairman Higgs suggested expressing the Board's concerns to staff that the concurrency system does not always meet the situation; and directing staff to address the issue and report to the Board. Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to address the issue of concurrency not always meeting the situation and report to the Board.

Commissioner Cook stated he is concerned because staff could come back and say there should not be any development here because the right-of-way is too little; and this property is certainly deserving of some sort of usage for the applicant.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not saying it is denied usage, but the usage should look at the impact on the road structure. He stated something can be developed at one unit per acre and not overburden; but if you put in four units per acre, you are going to overburden. He stated the County has defined it to the point that it has ignored the local roads which are the ones that are going to be impacted the most; it has gone beyond that to look at the connector roads which are four lanes further removed; and the poor people in between lose their rights to the road system because the current plan does not look at it.

Commissioner Cook stated he is wondering what kind of effort that will require of staff.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County can talk about concurrency on collector roads, it can talk about concurrency on local roads.

Chairman Higgs stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough; the Board has ignored a significant segment of what the impacts are on adjoining properties and neighbors; and all the motion is asking for is to have staff look at the issue and provide options.

Commissioner Cook stated he has no problem with that; but he was trying to understand what Commissioner Scarborough was getting at.

Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem is this is probably not a zoning issue; zoning is one thing; the intensity of development is probably something; and with residential zonings it can become one. He stated what the County has is not just a blind spot in discussion but not having an answer for the person who owns the land.

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

Chairman Higgs inquired what is the time frame for this to come back to the Board; with Planning and Zoning Director Peggy Busacca responding she does not know how many staff people will be involved; but she will report to the County Manager who can provide that information to the Board. Commissioner Cook suggested having the County Manager come back because this could be an incredible undertaking.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to direct staff to proceed with administrative rezoning of the property in question to RU-1-9, which is consistent with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff would contact the property owner first. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not mind that, but he does not want the applicant to pay another fee. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like the property owner to be given a courtesy call. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the administrative rezonings can be continued to the next zoning meeting. Mr. Myers advised what staff is looking for at this point is permission to advertise an administrative rezoning. County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board needs to readvertise and notify the property owner. Commissioner Cook stated if the Board makes the decision tonight, it would not have to advertise; with Mr. Knox advising it would have to be advertised. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want the applicant to have to pay the fee again. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is some way to deal with the payment of the fee; with Mr. Knox responding the Board can waive the fee, but there should not be any fee if it is an administrative rezoning. Mr. Myers stated if the Board chooses to do it administratively, there would not be a fee involved; the process could be initiated; and the County would send the property owner certified mail advising that the County on its own motion and direction is going to rezone to RU-1-9.

Ms. Ward inquired if adjacent property owners will be notified; with Chairman Higgs responding affirmatively. Ms. Ward submitted a copy of a letter; and stated if it is zoned residential, she will not be against that.

Commissioner Ellis stated the RU-1-9 is the same as the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Myers noted the administrative rezoning ordinarily would not contain notice to the adjacent property owners; and inquired if the Board would like that done as well. Chairman Higgs stated the Board's desire is for staff to contact the property owner to see what his desires are and to provide standard notice. Commissioner Ellis stated he thinks the applicant may fine RU-1-9 the best thing. Commissioner Cook inquired if the neighbors will have a problem with that; with Mr. Ward responding no. Commissioner Ellis stated a lot of the property around Elbow Creek is going to be unbuildable; and that is why he does not want to get into the big lot issue because the applicant may lose a lot of land around the river.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, to direct staff to proceed with the administrative rezoning to RU-1-9 on the property which is subject of Item 28, with the stipulation the applicant be notified as well as the surrounding property owners. Motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what if the applicant does not want that; with Commissioner Ellis responding if the applicant does not want it, the Board will kill it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this is telling staff to advertise, so, regardless of whether the property owner likes it or not, an action is being started. Commissioner Ellis inquired is there another way. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it can be scheduled for the next regular Board meeting as an agenda item and have staff report back whether the applicant has a problem. Commissioner Cook stated he supports contacting the applicant. Commissioner Ellis reiterated he does not want the applicant to have to pay another fee.

Mr. Knox clarified what the Board is doing is initiating a rezoning to a particular category; and if the owner has an objection, he can ask for a change in the category, and the Board could change it.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to direct staff to schedule this issue for the next regular Board meeting on February 7, 1995, notify the property owner of the Board's desire to rezone the property similar to the rest of the community, and inquire if the property owner has any objection to proceeding with administrative rezoning at no cost to the applicant.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if he owned the property and did not attend the meeting, he might take the Board's administrative rezoning of the property as a hostile gesture.

Ms. Gabbard noted the applicant had an opportunity to attend tonight; at the next meeting the applicant may as for something else; and inquired if the Board would change it to something else; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it could.

Chairman Higgs stated the neighbors would be notified; and the Board is going to give an opportunity to see if there is an administrative category.

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

Item 29. Jacob Aaron Corporation, a Florida Corporation, and Cape Canaveral Heights Properties, Inc., a Florida Corporation's request for change from AU to TR-1 with a Binding

Development Plan limiting density to two dwelling units per acre on 136 acres located north of S.R. 524 and west of Adamson Road, which was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the Public Hearing.

DISCUSSION, RE: NOTIFICATION OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board does administrative rezonings, it does not notice adjoining property owners; he does not think that is correct; and the adjoining property owners should have the same rights with administrative rezonings and they do with other rezonings.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to direct that adjoining property owners in administrative rezonings be notified.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board has to make any kind of Ordinance change to accomplish that; with Mr. Myers responding no. County Attorney Scott Knox advised the Board needs to put it in the Ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Cook, to direct the County Attorney to prepare an Ordinance change to provide for notification of adjoining property owners in administrative rezonings in a manner similar to that used in regular rezonings, and schedule it for public hearing.

Commissioner O'Brien stated this is not frugality at its best. Commissioner Cook stated he agrees, but it is fair to notice people. Commissioner O'Brien advised stamps costs thirty-two cents today, and may go to half-dollar next year.

Chairman Higgs requested staff provide a fiscal impact when this comes back to the Board.

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

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m.

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

ATTEST:
SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )