The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on May 4, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Brevard Community College North Campus Gymnasium, 1311 North U.S. 1, Titusville, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Mark Cook, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Truman Scarborough.

Commissioner Mark Cook led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE REGULATING PUBLIC NUDITY

Chairman Higgs introduced the Commissioners, County Manager, County Attorney, and Assistant County Manager; and advised the Board is here to conduct a public hearing and hear public comments in regard to the proposed ordinance on public nudity; people are allowed to speak and listen; and it is important to maintain order so that everyone can be heard and the Board can hear all the comments. She stated there are approximately 50 speakers; and requested the public respect the right of each person and refrain from noise, applause, or boos so they can hear everyone. She asked the County Attorney to explain what the status of the ordinance is and where the Board is in the process, so that everyone has knowledge of what the hearing is about.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised this is the first public hearing of the public nudity ordinance; the second hearing will be held on May 18, 1995 at the same place and time; there are two other parallel proceedings going on which are a regional meeting of the Park Service in Atlanta on May 9 and 10, 1995 which will hopefully address the issue of establishing policies dealing with nudity at the Canaveral National Seashore Park; and on May 15, 1995, he and Commissioner Scarborough will meet with the Assistant Director of the Park Service in Washington to discuss this issue. He stated there are other things going on besides the public hearings, and all of that is designed to assist the Board in making a decision on the ordinance.

Chairman Higgs advised the audience if anyone wishes to speak, they should complete the cards in the back of the room so they can be recognized; and she will call the first speaker and the next speaker so that the next speaker can move to the front of the room and be ready to speak after the person before him or her. She stated if they wish to have the Board recognize only their support or non-support of the ordinance they can say that from their seats and will not have to come forward; and requested if all the comments have been made by the time they get to speak, they can indicate their feelings about the ordinance and not be repetitive. Chairman Higgs advised each speaker will be given three minutes and she will keep to the time limit.

Tom Mariani, 4210 Hickory Hill Boulevard, Titusville, Mayor of Titusville, advised he is not representing the City Council and is here on his own having been involved in this issue for over ten years as a beach goer and observer; and read a statement that indicated public nudity at Playalinda Beach and Canaveral National Seashore is out of control, that the rights of nudists have not been denied because a federal court stated public nudity in Florida is legal unless involved in lewd and lascivious acts, if public nudity is allowed to increase at Playalinda Beach, it will probably move to Jetty Park and south to Cocoa Beach, the Constitution provides rules for everyone to live together in peace and not in conflict, and the solution is to seek a balance for all concerned.

Tim Feeney, 6590 Arequipa, Port St. John, President of the Americans Civil Liberties Union of Brevard County, advised the ACLU is opposed to any County ordinance prohibiting nudity, as it is a direct violation of civil liberties and Constitutional freedoms, and seeks to force conformity of the entire population with religiously-based standards of a section of the population when no compelling interest exists. He stated the ACLU contends the Constitution protects the right to choose one's personal appearance, government regulation of personal appearance is fundamentally inconsistent with the right of expression, and laws that prohibit mere nudity are incompatible with those rights. Mr. Feeney stated the Florida ACLU rejects the view that government may prohibit conduct merely because such conduct is offensive to others; government must demonstrate a legitimate and compelling interest in the regulation; and the fact that nudity or style of dress may cause offense to others is not a legitimate governmental interest. He advised the Admiralty Law and U.S. Code defin the boundaries of Brevard County as from the seaward side to the mean high water mark on the shore, and that Brevard County does not have any right to extend enforcement of an ordinance beyond its borders. He stated other ordinances designed to control the use of beaches have been struck down, such as Harrison County versus the United States of America, 265 Supplemental 76.

Joyce Perry, 602 Peachtree Street, Cocoa, advised there is no restrictions on religions; there is no way the Board can restrict the right to free speech, the right to assemble, or the right to human behavior whether nasty or wholesome; and parents who cannot explain sex to their children need to take them to the beach because it is educational and will reduce pornography. She stated she does not go to the beach much, but she should have the privilege of dressing as she pleases.

Debbie Charvet, 2530 Evergreen Avenue, Titusville, advised as a parent she received instructional information from government to aid in teaching her children about strangers such as the Teachers' Manual for the third grade level of sex education adopted by the Brevard County School Board and a booklet used to deal with children who have become victims of sexual abuse. She stated children remember discussions on good touch versus bad touch, but those relate to physical touch; and the concept of having their eyes and minds touched by the exposure of private parts of strangers were not addressed. She indicated if the ordinance is defeated, they expect others will fail if challenged.

Phil Canada, 707 W. Bonnie Circle, Melbourne, advised he is opposed to the ordinance and any ordinance like it; Playalinda Beach is federal property and owned by at least 250 million people in the Nation; and it is not Brevard County's responsibility to control it.

George Kahrs, 467 Bonnie Boulevard, Palm Harbor, Florida , advised there are three aspects to the issue--emotional, economic, and practical. He stated he is offended by a lot of things, but laws cannot be passed outlawing everything people disagree with; and if they are offended by nude bathing on the beach and not comfortable going to a clothing optional beach, they should not go to that area. He stated Brevard County depends on the Space Program and tourism for its economic support; and the ordinance would stop some tourists from coming to Brevard County. He advised off the beach they dress like everyone else and conduct themselves in a normal manner; and how they spend their leisure time does not show in the way they appear. He suggested the Board not be misled by the number of people in favor of the ordinance because they were rounded up by a well organized group. He stated Canaveral Seashore is a federal park that belongs to everybody and for all Americans to enjoy within the law; and there is no federal law against simple nudity, but there are laws against lewd and disorderly conduct. He stated Titusville City Council has withdrawn from this issue, and suggested the Board do likewise.

Reverend Robert Westcott, 3646 Sand Court, Mims, First Baptist Church of Mims, advised he represents a large majority of people who believe in Christian ethics and embrace the standards of public decency, who will not expose children to public nudity, and who pay for public places and insist on the use of those places without fear of exposing their children to what they consider indecent. He stated they will actively use the democratic process to bring about the changes they deem essential. He stated public standards must always be higher in a pluralistic society than in the private sector; a County ordinance is necessary to bring about an environment of public decency; and they are not prepared to trust the other strata of government to take care of the problem. He stated the Commissioners are their elected representatives and have the opportunity to reflect their wishes; and asked the Board to do that in this matter.

Burl Ferguson, 17 Fairglen Drive, Titusville, advised he read the arguments of nudists for designating a portion of Playalinda Beach as clothing optional, and reasons why nudity should be banned; Brevard County is a family-oriented area; nudity belongs in the privacy of homes or designated private clubs, not on public property; the entire beach is for everyone to enjoy; and requested the Board adopt the ordinance banning nudity in Brevard County.

Richard Mason, 1316 NE 105th Street, Miami Shores, Florida, representing South Florida Free Beaches, advised the problems could be solved with signs informing people where the clothing optional beach is and where it is not; Dade County maintains a clothing optional beach; and over 900,000 people visit that beach in 12 months. He stated the police have no problems; felony calls have reduced in that area; and they take care of the beach area. He highlighted items in the folder he presented to the Board including Rules of National Park Service, letter from Attorney General Butterworth, etc.; and requested the Board vote against the ordinance.

Jack Frisbie, 8198 Pasadena Boulevard, Pembroke Pines, Florida, stated in America the majority supposed to protect the minority, but today the majority, the radical right, is pushing and imposing their will on a lot of people. He stated they have other things they could address such as poverty, children that need food; and good things that the mainstream Christians do; Dr. Valentine formed a group called the Interfaith Alliance which focuses and coordinates activities on mainstream Christians because they know the radical right is extremists; and hopefully Dr. Valentine will be able to resolve this issue through his good work.

Shirley Mason, 2730 SW 3rd Avenue, Miami, advised she is on the Board of South Florida Free Beaches which is a naturist travel club whose members are from the four southeast Florida counties; she is also on the National Board of the Naturists Action Comittee; and she is not here to lay blame but to work out solutions for those who want to go to the beach wearing clothes or not wearing clothes. She stated the naturists have no intention of being made criminals; they are willing to work towards a fair and equitable solution for all citizens and visitors; and inquired if the Board will work with them. Ms. Mason stated the two sides have not come together to talk and work out any solutions; they have families that visit clothing optional beaches and textile beaches; and advised of areas in Dade where nudity is allowed and thong bikinis are permitted that have existed for over 12 years. She stated the clothing optional beach last month put up signs; it has been there for four years; but they have managed to stay within the confines of the half-mile area without signs; but the signs were put up so they could be responsible to the people who do not want to see nudity. She suggested the County do the same, as it has worked.

Debra Giordana, 4345 Best Avenue, Titusville, stated she strongly opposes public nudity on the beaches and anywhere else; if the Board gives the naturists a section, it will have to do the same for other special interest groups; and the majority of people would feel the same way. She requested the Board adopt the ordinance that clearly states public nudity is not permitted in Brevard County; and once the federal government knows its stance, it will respect and honor it.

Pat Herron, 6185 Mangrove Street, Scottsmoor, Florida, gave a history of her personal family life, stated she believes in God, her Country, and her City, and have seen city leaders make mistakes and bad errors in judgment. She requested the Board not turn its back on a moral issue that affects her children and grandchildren. She stated she is a member of the Rotary Club, is part of the tourism industry, has been openly exposed to nudity in a place it should not have been; and she has never had one inquiry as to whether or not the County has a nude beach. She stated the tourism industry knows this is a safe place to bring families.

William Horner, 4413 Ellis Circle, Titusville, advised folks who do not live, work, pay taxes, or vote in Brevard County are interlopers; his daughter was exposed to a complete nudist at the beach; and requested the Board adopted the ordinance to protect the people.

Joe Ferguson, 3005 Mulberry Drive, Titusville, advised if nudists are allowed on the beach it will no longer be a public beach; the mixed message that will come if nudity is allowed would be devastating; a message like this would be most destructive to children stressed with trying to see absolutes, values, and character; and urged the Board to oppose public nudity and keep the beach public and the message clear.

William Perdue, 545 Chase Hammock Road, Merritt Island, advised Brevard County spent hundreds of thousands of dollars a few years ago trying to settle this problem and did not settle it; it is a federal reservation and the Board should let the federal government do it; if it passes an ordinance it will end up spending millions taking it to court; and there are not enough deputies to handle the problems that exist now. He stated the court system is overloaded and does not need more court battles; so if the County is going to write an ordinance, it should be one that both sides can live with so it does not have to go to court and spend money defending it. He stated he and a lot of his friends feel that way; they are not for or against the nudists; but they do not want to spend taxpayers money to enforce it.

Debbie Barkley, 2535 Alexander Drive, Titusville, advised she opposes public nudity; she has had no encounter since she will not go to Playalinda Beach because of the nudity; consequently, she goes elsewhere and spends her dollars outside of the County. She stated the nudists claim to bring money into the community, but they are running off a lot of people who would otherwise spend money in Brevard County if nudity was not allowed. She stated taxpayers are not responsible to pay for a place for nudists; there are private resorts they can go to which are not visible to the public; and recommended the Board let the federal government know it is opposed to nudity.

Jan Frandsen, 4467 Country Road, Melbourne, advised she has 2,000 names representing people in Brevard County and other areas and 181 names to give to the Board after she makes copies of them, because they collected 1,300 signatures the last time which cannot be found in the files. She stated this ordiance will not only affect Playalinda Beach, but the whole County; not long ago it was considered immoral for a woman to show her ankles and knees; and she is a parent opposed to the ordinance because nudity is healthy for her child although she would not impose it on someone who feels differently. She stated they are no more a special interest group than those who use the baseball stadium, golf courses, RV parks, and boat parking places; thighs and buttocks are exposed in circuses where children go; and inquired if someone will tell them they are no longer welcomed in Brevard County. She explained a document of normal bikinis, bikinis that are against the ordinance, etc; and stated they are normal people who do not want to offend anyone and will take measures to ensure no one is harmed by what they do not want to see.

Marvin Frandsen, 4467 Country Road, Melbourne, advised they closely reviewed the complaints Patricia Charpentier gave the Board, noting duplications and complaints primarily from Apollo and not Playalinda Beach in 1993; and gave the statistics of incidents in 1994 and 1995 of approximately 3 complaints per month indicating the best regulated, safest, and most enjoyable beaches in the Nation. He stated the problem is not a large problem; the propaganda, innuendos, and hearsay have been blown up to the extent that people believe it is a problem when in reality it is much smaller; and because it is not a great problem, they will take their plan and implement it. He stated they will offer cellular phones to call rangers when there is lewd activities under Florida Statutes 800.03, and not the statute they have been charging people for; they will buy an APB and run the beach and will put up money to hire off-duty officers to perform those duties; and they will go the whole route, and want a solution that protects everyone's rights.

George Haff, 109 N. Vanguard Circle, Cocoa, stated Canaveral National Seashore is national and owned by every taxpayer in the country not only Titusville or Brevard County residents; part of the problem is the Superintendent of the Park Service's unwillingness to work with informational signs and enforce the laws that are on the books that would stop lewd and lascivious acts; and he keeps aggravating the problem by putting out signs that they can go anywhere on the beach. He stated naturists never wanted to take the entire beach over; and the problem seems to be his Commissioner, the Park Superintendent, and the Mayor because if they do not get their way they will keep stirring things up.

Gerold York, Attorney practicing in Orlando who lives in Seminole County, advised it is ignorant to argue if there is carefully crafted accommodations for naturists on Playalinda Beach North that Brevard County would slide into becoming a sordid flesh pot; and the ordinance is not necessary because the blame lies on the maladroit administration of the Seashore over the past few years. He stated he understands how mad constituents can force issues and elected politicians respond to pressure; but there are few absolutes in the political process and sometimes compromise is the best thing and is good and moral. He stated if the Board passes the ordinance it will be expending public resources and involve the National Park system in criminal law; he has seen real crimes, and skinny dipping should not be a crime; and there are plenty of juries that said it is not. Mr. York requested the Board not pass the ordinance; and stated the problems are from technically correct but factually misleading signage. He stated he understands the anger of some of the people, but the situations they have seen do not represent the large number of naturists who use Playalinda Beach; and the activities they complained about remain criminal offenses if the Park Service charged those individuals under the right statute. He stated the Board should put the blame where it belongs and send a message to Atlanta to put up informational signage which will end the matter.

Bryan Morris, 120 Reserve Circle, Oviedo, Florida, advised the problems occurred when the naturists and textile dependent people met at the beach; there is increased usage by the naturists which means more money coming in because most of them are from out of town; and the lack of signage is a major problem. He stated the rangers are blocking access to the north end of the beach at Lot 8 and not letting them by; and since they are told it is legal anywhere, they go where there is parking. He stated parking and restrooms for health reasons are needed; and a solution is to put up signs, and get the rangers to patrol the area and stop lewd and indecent behavior. Mr. Morris stated the naturists are not interested in offending anyone and will keep to their area of the beach; the alternative is to pass a law that will cause ill will and a lot of money plus take deputies away from real crimes; and it will cost the taxpayers to enforce and litigate the law and to incarcerate offenders. He stated he will continue to visit the beach but will not spend a dime if the County does not want him here; he will be one that will be arrested under the ordinance and exercise every Constitutional right to demonstrate and protest against the law; and he will not pay a fine or bond if he is jailed. He stated he will sue Brevard County if it violates his Constitutional rights and any individual or agency that arrests him; so the Board needs to make sure the taxpayers are willing to spend the kind of money it will cost to enforce this law against him and other people like him.

Louis Hall, 2115 Kings Cross, Titusville, advised it was God who condemned nudity; in the Garden of Eden he put skins together to clothe Adam and Eve; he is a Christian and believes in God; and he is here to prove there are some who support the ordinance. He stated they voted for the Commissioners because they thought they were qualified to do the best job for decency and respect in the community and County; he has helped clean the beaches, enjoyed watching turtle nesting, fishing, and sunbathing, but he had proper clothes on; so it is with a sincere plea that he begs the Board to pass the ordinance banning nudity on Brevard County beaches.

Jill Ball, 2325 Black Willow Trail, Mims, advised she has enjoyed numerous outings to Playalinda Beach and treasured being able to go there with her family, but she was offended in October by a woman and teenage daughters who were nude. She stated she did not report it because she did not stay around to find someone. She stated Attorney General Butterworth's letter references Florida Statutes 800.03 as an arrestable statute; however, use of that statute requires a victim; police officers cannot just go to the beach and arrests nudists; so she would have had to stay at the beach, call a deputy, and hope they are still there when the deputy arrives. She stated it is not a practical law; and requested the Board consider adopting the ordinance.

Eugene Wurzler, 2904 Ivy Street, Titusville, advised the nation is dying from moral decay that has left an increase in crimes of all nature, including sexual nature; he always knew there were nudists, but they always were in private clubs and colonies and out of sight of the general public; and it concerns him that he can walk the streets next to criminals without knowing it just as nudists cannot identify sexual deviants who may come to their area. He stated there are many cases where families have not only been accosted, but nudity has been flaunted to the point of driving families off the beach. He stated his relatives were accosted; and the City of Titusville has taken an "I don't care" status; he expects elected officials to take the high moral road in these matters; and reminded the Board that those who try to be something to everybody in the end will be nothing to anybody.

The meeting recessed at 6:55 p.m. and reconvened at 7:15 p.m.

David Schultz, 895 Cynthia Drive, Titusville, advised he opposes public nudity; the state government, by not having time to get to this issue, has passed the buck; Titusville City Council has not represented him by voting to remain neutral on this subject also passed the buck; and thanked the Board for accepting the issue and proposing to do something about it. He stated he read the ordinance and is in favor of seeing it passed.

John Bates, 4460 Darden Avenue, Titusville, advised he is trying to raise his family in the admiration of the Lord; he cannot debate this issue in theological discussions because those who do not hold the Scripture as the truth have not the same traits for morality and ethics that he does; but they want to use the rhetoric of protection under the Constitution. He stated society has developed rules and regulations and ways of conduct; he cannot stand here and use vulgarity or slander the names of Commissioners although he is protected under the Constitution; therefore, nudity is not appropriate on the beaches. He stated three-fifths of the City Council voted not to listen to the community; and requested the Board help them who are young and trying to raise a family. He stated if his children were at a bus stop and a man exposed himself, the man could be arrested; but he has trouble with the idea that the same man on the beach would be protected by the Constitution; and requested the Board speak for them and let the federal government know that the people of Brevard County and Titusville are opposed to this and do not want nudity on the beaches.

Leonard Daye, 4270 Hemlock Lane, Titusville, advised the country was founded on Christian principles which are stronger than what man may want to alter or impose; talked about the newspapers referring to Bible thumpers, a Titusville City Councilman's recent practices, resolutions to Congress and the State Capitol, cowardly militia, and Dr. Spock. He stated nudists have no right to intimidate the people; and it is not an emotional issue, it is a moral issue that will stand stronger than any rights people have in this country.

Ralph Herron, 6185 Mangrove Street, Scottsmoor, advised of his private life and his beliefs in Christian principals and morals; and stated things that were right 20 years ago are now wrong and the things that were wrong are now right, which disturbs him. He stated nudity is wrong; the Commissioners are their representatives and leaders; this is their community; outsiders should not be able to dictate what is done here; and there are many outsiders here trying to influence the Board. He stated they have a well-organized organization and are trying to impose their will upon the way people in Brevard County live which disturbs many people; they are concerned about the moral decay in the State and country over the last 20 years; and this is another step down the road to moral decay. He stated they came to Titusville because they felt it was a wholesome place to raise their children; and he does not want to further pollute the community with nudity on what was a family beach for years. He indicated tourists fear going to Miami, and Brevard County will gain 20% of the tourist trade if it passes the ordinance.

Wendy Correll, 207 N. Deleon Avenue, Titusville, advised she taught school for 24 years in Brevard County, and would hate to see the beach not be a beautiful tourist attraction; she teaches children to respect the rights of others, not only academics, and when their desires impinge upon somebody else's rights, that is where their rights stop; and for that reason she opposes public nudity in any public place. She advised of how they handled an air conditioning problem in the school by teachers who were cold putting on sweaters because those who were hot could not take off their clothes.

Lori Bette, 1100 John Rodes Boulevard, Melbourne, advised of petitions with over 3,000 signatures she would like to make copies of and bring to her Commissioner's Office. She stated how the situation is handled depends on the Board; people are offended by nude bodies as well as lewd and lascivious behavior; she does not want her children exposed to naked bodies; and the Board better spend her tax dollars to enforce the law because the Board is here to protect her and she wants to spend her tax dollars to make sure her rights are not violated and that she is protected. She stated she does not want to pay taxes to a County that is not going to protect her rights or her children's rights; and noted people who are opposed to the ordinance have always been the overwhelming majority at all the meetings she has attended on this issue. She stated the Board needs to stand on the side of the majority and support them.

Robert Vogel, 2310 Cady Way, Winter Park, advised his opposition to the ordinance is based on it being too broad; just as the Board banned net fishing because too wide a net has dangerous implications on a sensitive estuary, this kind of ordinance would be cast too broadly in its effort to deal with lewd behavior when there are other laws on the books that can deal with that. He asked the Board to oppose the ordinance, and stated a simple solution is signage properly placed to allow everyone to enjoy the beach.

Angela Younger, 2910 Beale Street, Titusville, advised the Board should do what is right and not sit on the fence on this matter; children should not be exposed to public nudity; and if it is not right in a store, it is not right at the beach either.

Joan Wheeler, 3511 Constitution Drive, Titusville, advised the nudist movement began in 1980; her children were subjected to nudity in 1982 trying out improprieties not the water; there is a magna carte for nudism; the first demand is the elimination of all statutes and any legislation that makes public nudism illegal anywhere; they do not just want the beach; and this demand subjects the rest of the people to their beliefs which in essence is a cult forced on her and her family. She stated Playalinda Beach has a long history as part of the residents; they worked long and hard to make sure they had access to the beach; and newspaper articles have nothing that say nudists worked for their access. She stated the majority of the people do not want nudists at the beach no matter how much tourist dollars they will bring in; and requested the Board help them and not the people who came here in truckloads. She indicated the petition submitted had a lot of unofficial names.

Patricia Charpentier, 4450 Swift Avenue, Titusville, advised four times last year her family went to the beach, and four times adult men and women were nude in front of her family at places she knows never had nudity before; and described an incident where a man refused to go to Parking Lot 13. She stated when they are asked to leave and refuse, they have the right to be there, and she has no rights and no say as a parent. She stated she raised her children and set standards for them; never will she consider public nudity a standard she wants them to rise up to, and wants them to know it is unacceptable; and requested the Board give her back the right taken away from her. She encouraged the Board to pass the ordinance and solve the problem.

David Wasserman, 228 Park Avenue, Winter Park, representing Central Florida Naturists, advised he is not here to threaten litigation, but as part of the exercise of democracy; he heard a lot of talk about people who do not live or work in Brevard County; normally those people are tourists; this is still a free country; and it does not make someone a criminal because he does not live here. He suggested the Board ask the business community if it wants the Board to run off the tourists. He stated he is here to educate the Board with information from public records that show the abuse of power and deliberate attempt by Wendell Simpson to obstruct a peaceful resolution. He stated the parks belong to all of them, but there are some people who do not want to share them; Representative Ball, in one of the letters he provided to the Board, said he is not willing to compromise; and Congressman Weldon orchestrated a campaign of fear against the people and the Park Service threatening them with calls and faxes from energized pro-family voters. Mr. Wasserman stated Mr. Simpson said in a letter that the Sheriff informed Representative Ball he would have to arrest several hundred people; and inquired what would happen if they go to federal court and each person demands a jury trial. He stated U.S. attorneys would be setting aside heavy caseloads to prosecute those people; and he will pass out copies of the letters to anyone who wants them. He stated in a few days the Park Service is going to meet and deal with this issue in-house; and requested the Board give it a chance and do not try to regulate and politicize the federal parks, let Park Service do its job, and let them settle it without legislation and litigation.

Jim Belleur, 223 Park Avenue, Winter Park, advised the Central Florida Naturists have submitted more than half a dozen requests and proposals to the Park Service since 1992 to delineate a clothing optional area with clear signage informing the public which areas are clothing optional and which are not; one proposal contained three different alternative locations that the Park Service could choose from; the last proposal of this nature was submitted on February 21, 1995; and the common element of all the proposals is a clear definition of the clothing optional area from the non-clothing optional area. he stated Naturists are not bent on excluding others from clothing optional areas of the beach or any area of the beach; no one is asking for a nudity required area; just a clothing optional area; and there has been a widely recognized clothing optional area at Playalinda since World War II at least. He stated in the last year or so they have kept the clothing optional area at the north end of the beach; over the last several months he had occasion to visit the central and south areas of the beach while clothed to see if there were any individuals who were nude; most days he did not find any and on a couple of days he found some and askedthem to move to the north end of the beach; and he often heard they were told by rangers they could be nude where they were, and that rangers did not mention the existence much less the location of the traditional clothing optional area. he stated he found the people are newcomers attracted to the beach by media publicity generated by anti-nudity legislation being considered at various levels of government; and deliberately misleading signage placed by Canaveral National Seashore management and deliberately incomplete instruction provided by Canaveral National Seashore personnel have succeeded in generating the usual conflict that is necessary to generate the political momentum to get government to enforce the religiously and culturally-based standards of a vociferous minority of the population on the entire population.

John Moll, 4104 Lynn, Tampa, Florida, stated when people speak of being nude they should refer to the definition in the ordinance; he went to five bathing suit shops and asked for something that would satisfy non-nudity defined in the ordinance and was told it does not exist; so he could not buy a bathing suit that would not make him nude according to the definition in the ordinance. He stated it says fully opaque; and unless a person is wearing metal or tin foil he would be in violation. Mr. Moll read several sections of the ordinance relating to exemptions, etc.; and read parts of existing judicial positions indicating nudity is protected as free speech when combined with some mode of expression which is entitled to First Amendment protection, Federal Law 734, Federal Supplement at 610. He stated there is also a Supreme Court case that says the same thing; and suggested the people who are going to enforce the ordinance be trained to recognize the exemptions and do not subject people to false arrests.

Nelly Strickland, 536 Mendel Lane, Titusville, advised of activities and meetings with numerous elected officials and agencies regarding access to the beach, newspaper articles, the committee she formed, and what went on to get the access. She stated she has a file and will give copies to anyone; she is a believer in the Constitution and the rights in it; and urged the Board to pass the ordinance and put the pressure on those who can make decisions.

John Stiner, 3974 Ridgewood Drive, Titusville, advised he is an employee of Canaveral National Seashore, but is representing his own personal views; Brevard County is one of the few counties fortunate enough to have a national park; it is a true national park that has 24 miles of undeveloped beach and is totally unique to the East Coast of Florida; and the creators of the park limited the number of parking spaces to preserve the glimpse into Florida's past; however, a serious problem has developed because a special interest group has moved in and taken over the majority of the beach. He stated on a nice weekend, over a thousand nudists will occupy Parking Areas Nos. 8 through 13; that is six of the 13 parking areas at Playalinda Beach; they block the pristine six miles beyond the end of the road which is the real gem of the park; so in essence, they occupy 3/4ths of Playalinda Beach. He stated the situation will only worsen as Canaveral's reputation as a nude beach grows. Mr. Stiner advised he had an unfortunate incident at Parking Area No. 2 when a man deliberately exposed himself to his family and friends; and inquired if it is right for a small segment of society to trample over everyone else's rights to enjoy a national park which was set aside for everyone. He stated more people will not take their families to Canaveral because of the negative experiences with nudity; his wife cannot take her Brownie and Girl Scout troops to a pristine part of the beach because of nudity; a nudist told him regardless of what happens, he will still go to the beach but will put on a suit; and that way everyone can enjoy the beach. He requested the Board not buy the ruse about clothing optional; and invited the Commissioners to the beach to see how many people with clothes on are occupying the nudist area. Mr. Stiner stated some say it is not their problem, but it is; the country is not run by government agencies, but by people who let their wishes be known to those agencies; and the Board needs to be aware it is losing the national park to a special interest group and should not let that happen.

Greg Correll, 2800 Briarwood Lane, Titusville, advised he believes in God and His word, and that makes him a right wing radical, but he is against public nudity. He stated the nudists said they would not impose their values on the people, but that is happening at the beach; he has not been there since last year when someone with less moral values imposed his values on him and his family; and it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. He stated this is a representative form of government; the Commissioners were elected to represent the people; and all they are asking them to do, is to represent the majority of the people in the County; and if it does not think the majority is represented tonight, then it should have a referendum to know where everyone stands on the issue. He stated sometimes doing the right thing costs; and if the Board passes the ordinance they will challenge it in court and it will cost money to defend it; but some things are worth fighting for; and this is one of them. He stated it is not an economic issue; it is a moral issue; and inquired if the Board compromises on this issue, what will happen next week, where will it have to compromise again, and will it continue to compromise until there is no public beach that upstanding citizens can use.

Dian Hardison, 7005 Bismark Road, Port St. John, advised because of interests in the Space Program, there are visitors from all over the country; and identified people from Ohio, New York, England, Indiana, Chicago, and Pennsylvania, who would like to see half the beach signed as clothing optional and prefer to go to the beach without a bathing suit. She stated they promise to spend no money in Brevard County if this attempt to impose narrow-minded views of a few on the majority is seriously considered; the majority of beach goers are naturists; and they will not patronize restaurants or buy supplies here. She stated they promise to spread their views that Brevard County is backwards and subject to the whims of the few fanatics who would like to tell everyone what to do. She stated contrary to other speakers, the naturist movement has been in existence worldwide for several hundred years.

Gene Burress, 4865 Silver Oak Boulevard, Melbourne, advised the ordinance is similar to ordinances in effect in St. Johns, Hillsborough, Collier, Pinellas, and Polk Counties; and many cities have adopted ordinances prohibiting public nudity, with the latest being Clearwater. He stated the Federal Court ruled in favor of the St. Johns County Ordinance; it has stood the test of a court challenge; and there is no reason to believe Brevard County's ordinance will be overturned. He stated citizen support for such an ordinance is overwhelming; there were over 3,000 signatures collected requesting the ordinance; and any state, county or city which permits public nudity is in reality permitting open, active, sexually-oriented activities such as the hot dog girls. He stated to permit public nudity on the beaches thinking it will stay there is sticking your head in the sand; it will have far reaching implications in other public areas; and it promotes every aspect of pornography, as witnessed by the complaints at Playalinda Beach. Mr. Burress stated studies he presented to County Attorney Knox report negative effects of crime, economic deterioration, prostitution, illegal drug use, sexual battery, rape, child molestation as results of an immoral community; property values will decrease and blighted areas will increase; and beach accessory businesses are already reporting how drastically public nudity affected their businesses. He inquired what type of image should Brevard County present, and if it is going to be a moral decent family values county or a county where anything goes. He stated without a public nudity ordinance, crime will continue to increase and perverts will flock to Brevard County to be a part of open nudity; and urged the Board to pass the anti-public nudity ordinance.

Larry Linkous, 1403 Indian River Avenue, Titusville, advised those who oppose public nudity on the beach did not bring their attorneys or the ACLU; they do not expect the Board to represent the state or nation; they understand the Commissioners are not Congressmen nor the President; but they are elected by the people of Brevard County and are expected to do what the newly-elected City Council of Titusville would not, and that is to represent the people who put them in office. He stated they will appreciate it when the Board does that.

Kim Lucks, 7116 Sir Hamilton Circle, Titusville, advised there has been in excess of three generations of nudists at Playalinda Beach with no problems; a few years ago the new park ranger began a policy of harassment and deceit, and problems began; there is deceptive signage and misdirection by his rangers; so non-nudists going to the beach are caught by surprise by nudists. He stated informational signage will end the problem and everybody will be happy.

Tasya Williamson, 1108 Linda Avenue, Titusville, advised she respects the naturists who are pure, but people cannot be naive about things in society; and advised of offensive encounters by her friends and their families with people exposing themselves. She stated there are many people who do not care about families that are there to enjoy the beach; that attitude has prevailed at Playalinda Beach; they could all enjoy the beach if they would listen to what each other wants; but that is not happening, so they are asking for the Board's help. She requested the Board do what is best for Brevard County, look at the real issues, pass the biases, hard feelings and emotions, and see what is really happening. She stated the beach has been stolen from them; she is for public nudity in a perfect world where no one will get hurt and people can maintain a pure attitude; and until that day comes, she has to oppose public nudity and would appreciate it if the Board would stand for them on this issue.

Peter Diamondis, 1155 Redwood Road, Merritt Island, advised he resents basic rights being deprived by politicians passing laws; and inquired how long does the Board think it can tax people to solve real problems of society and at the same time pass laws that deprive citizens of their basic rights and that will cost a lot of money to enforce. He inquired what gives the extreme right the right to push their values on other people. He stated there is no need for a conflict; it is a huge beach and room for everybody; he has driven 20 miles and has not seen anyone on the beach; and he cannot believe people would go out of their way to go down where the nudists are and be offended. He requested they clean their house first and keep their hands out of other people's lives.

John Franks, 958 Logenberry Trail, Winter Springs, advised he has been going to Playalinda Beach for over 15 years because it is a wonderful pristine beach and the best in Florida if not the world; he has walked from Playalinda Beach to Klondike Beach and into Apollo Beach and saw no one except the birds and sea; and if anyone wants to find God, they should go to that area. He stated it is the most beautiful area in the world; and it is a shame to have an ordinance that would close off the area and limit it to certain people who object to clothing optional areas. Mr. Franks stated the naturists are not asking to eliminate anyone from the beach; they are asking for signage; they do not want to be in areas to offend people; and it is unfortunate that the situation on the beach is caused by signage that says nudists are allowed anywhere on the beach, which is not right. He stated there are certain elements of society that are sexually perverted and are taking advantage of the situation by going into areas where they can expose themselves with impurity; the way to solve the problem is to enforce the laws that exist; and if there were signs to keep naturists in the area where they would not interfere with people who are offended by nudity, it would solve the problem. He stated he has been married for over 25 years, has two children, is a Christian, and employed by the State enforcing laws; he would be offended being declared a criminal because he likes to go into remote areas and walk in the nude or sunbathe in the nude; and it is a strange society that allows vicious depictions of murder, rapes and every crime in movies and on television, but considers the nude body dirty or obscene. He stated he hopes the Board does not pass the ordinance.

Victoria Franks, 958 Logenberry Trail, Winter Springs, advised she has lived in Florida her whole life, loves Playalinda Beach, and hopes it will remain a clothing optional beach. She stated if there were more clothing optional beaches, the world would be a better place.

Don Jettia, 366 N. 3rd Street, Cocoa Beach, advised the biggest problem is not having the proper signage which for years they have been asking for; the naturists do not want to offend anyone; the nude body is not obscene; and it is what is in the eyes of the beholder. He stated something that is real spiritual is going to the north end of Playalinda Beach and walking in the nude with everything of nature around you, and thanking God that someone saved that national seashore for everyone. He stated with 76 miles of coastline in Brevard County, there are no clothing optional beaches; nudism is one of the biggest past times growing in the United States today; people come from all over the world to spend their money; and the solution to the problem is proper signage.

Richard Price, 2934 Long Lake Drive, Titusville, advised he is opposed to public nudity; signs are ignored by many people; the Board is here to represent them; and he hopes it will take a stand with them who are opposed to public nudity and let the state and federal governments know the people of Brevard County are opposed to public nudity. He stated if it is challenged in court and the Board loses, at least it made a stand; and it is time for people and representatives to be heard.

Laurel Price, 2934 Long Lake Drive, Titusville, advised she is aware of the 1,300 signatures presented to Titusville City Council on April 11, 1995; she is aware of the study that took place and data in the petition; she found the petition to be full of fallacies; and the naturists stood up and lied to the City Council. She stated they are aware of the falsehoods; their aggressive behavior on the beach is deplorable; her family and foreign visitors from Europe were offended last month by nude males at Parking Area No. 1; and they do not want the nudists' aggressive behavior affecting their children, or their children subjected to their immoral acts on the beach. She stated her friends have been approached at the beach and were offended; they do not want public nudity; and they are against the aggressive and immoral behavior which is not what they want in their community.

The meeting recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.

Douglas Hasencamp, 127 Pinedo Drive, Titusville, thanked the Board for considering the ordinance, and stated it is important to know what Brevard County stands for. He stated the majority of people in Brevard County and Titusville are opposed to nudity; the Board brought up the ordinance and he hopes it will pass it, stand for something, and not be intimidated by what others think.

Al Cave, 2710 Hickory Hill Court, Titusville, advised he is for the ordinance opposing public nudity, but in favor of private nudity; and read verses from the Bible relating to nakedness, noting the Bible inspired the U.S. Constitution. He stated there is a group that wants to see everyone on the beach naked; and inquired if the Board wants morality or choice. He stated morality leads to life and choice leads to death, as 1,500,000 unborn children died because of choice, so choice is a dangerous thing. He stated nudity is like a cancer, it starts small and leads to complete population and death; there is a philosophy or actuality that says where his eyes stop their rights begin; he wants to see down the beach; and if someone is nude, that person violates his right. He stated he hopes the Board will vote with God and for the ordinance.

Bryant Harner, 924 Club Sylvan Drive, Orlando, suggested the Board draw a line in the sand and allow the naturists on one side to enjoy the beach in a clothing optional manner and on the other side no one be permitted in any manner except fully clothed. He stated posting signs will eliminate the problems; naturists have been asking for signs for two years; the signs can be put in the parking lots or on the beach; and requested the Board manage the situation and not exacerbate it. He stated there are a lot of holes in the ordinance; it does not ban nudity for persons under ten years of age; it is full of assertions such as nude beaches attract prostitution; and a majority of conservative Christians are against public nudity, but the majority of people in Brevard County do not care one way or the other. He stated the authority of the Board does not extend into Canaveral National Seashore; there are 13 parking lots and enough room for everyone; Playalinda Beach is an isolated area; and with 24 miles of beach in the National Seashore, surely they can set aside two miles as clothing optional leaving 22 miles as clothing mandatory. Mr. Harner advised Titusville City Council recently repealed the ordinance and took a neutral stance; and requested the Board follow its lead as Playalinda is inside the national park and is not a Titusville beach, does not belong to the residents of Titusville or Brevard County, and belongs to everyone in the United States.

Kendall Wheeler, 173 Berkeley Street, Satellite Beach, advised Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison were both nudists; there is a long history of nudism in the country and world; and now that they are increasing in population, people are getting offended. He stated it has come to the point where the Board has to delineate where people can and cannot go nude; signs will be a great help; he has a family and loves Playalinda Beach; and he is offended by people telling him his morals are wrong because they are not the same as theirs. He stated the country was founded by Christians who believed there was a need for separation between church and state; there are people of all faiths who are wonderful people; a small part of the beach is causing a great deal of problems; and the ordinance is broad in spectrum and unenforceable, and will cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

Larry Davis, 1254 Karlovy Avenue N.W., Palm Bay, stated government has a fundamental interest in the institution of marriage evidenced by its legal recognition in the courts. He stated dissolution of marriage is like a crime; the solemn vow taken to forsake all others and keep only to a spouse is the foundation of marriage and ultimately for a free and orderly society; and marriage is the only protection of the beauty of sexual expression. He stated nudity is inherently a sexual expression because humans are inherently sexual beings; when he sees a naked woman that is a sexual expression to him and not something he can turn off; to see another human being like that must undermine the commitment to spouses; and that is the real reason why lewd behavior and prostitution are prohibited. He stated marriage is the heart of society and its institution is the foundation of the laws; to see that does not require the right wing fundamentalist point of view, but the simple and bare consensus of moral viewpoint which has been the foundation of all laws since the inception of this country; and while it is true mainly Christians have stood here tonight in favor of the law, others should see its merits as people cannot have the right to do what is wrong.

Grant Meadows, 6555 Dock Avenue, Cocoa, advised he has worked for a non-profit trade school for the last two years, and for the last six months have not been paid because the County does not want to support the education of children; it also does not have the money to enforce the laws currently on the books; and there are so many other things that are needed, including education of children, that are not being addressed. He stated the Board is wasting a lot of money to consider this issue; and he does not see how it can put more laws on the books when it has enough regulation already and people are being over regulated. He advised of his suits filed against the Sheriff, State Attorney, Judicial Circuit, etc. that did not relate to the ordinance.

Bobby Hickson, 475 Maple Place, Titusville, advised he is against nudity at the beaches; and naturalists believe they have a right to steal a portion of the public beach. He stated Jesus met the first streaker in Luke; and read a passage from the Bible. He stated most people are against the Bible because the Bible is against them; and quoted several verses about nakedness. He requested the Board vote against public nudity.

Kevin Kempanion, 1650 Riviera Drive, Merritt Island, Treasurer of East Merritt Island Homeowners Association, advised they were opposed to any anti-nudity ordinance because the Board has more important things to do than to worry about bikinis on U.S. 1 in Melbourne; and they still believe that now. He stated the ordinance should not pass because the County has more important things to worry about than what is happening on federal property; there are laws governing behavior out there; and if the Park Department cannot handle that, then it has to be addressed by the courts. He stated the courts have decided there is nothing illegal out there as long as there is no lewd and lascivious behavior; the taxpayers will spend millions of dollars for the Public Defender to defend those arrested; the jails are over burdened; the Sheriff can do the job, but there are other things the deputies would rather be doing; and it does not make sense, since there are laws on the books. He stated the County does not have the money to defend the suits that are going to be filed against the County; and they hope the Board will reconsider the anti-nudity ordinance.

Carol Alaimo, 8132 Lynhurst Drive, Niagara Falls, Canada, advised her family has been repeat visitors to Brevard County; she is a professional person, mother of two well-adjusted teenagers, and not a pervert or sexual deviant; and every winter her family likes to take holidays together where she can get a tan without tan lines. She stated they found Playalinda Beach a few years ago; last March she brought her children and mother and spent two weeks in Brevard County visiting the Space Center, Wildlife Refuge, Cocoa Beach, and Playalinda Beach; they collectively spent $4,000 in the community; and they were hoping to keep coming back until they heard about this ordinance. She stated it is a spiritual experience for her to go to the beach and see happy people stretched out in the sun the way God made them; she takes great exception to people who believe it is immoral or unchristian; and she believes they are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong. Ms. Alaimo stated she lives in a tourist town and it is tough being a politician because of conflicts between visitors and locals; but in an area like this that is fighting for tourist dollars, the answer is not to close the attraction that brings people into the area. She stated if the ordinance passes, there will be a lot of families like hers that will not come back to Brevard County; and if it passes, she will give her money to fight against it although she would rather spend it on vacations in this beautiful county.

Russell Jarvis, 2745 Knox McRae Drive, Titusville, urged the Board to vote for the ordinance to ban public nudity. He stated some people did not drive from Canada or Miami to be here; his special interest group is his family who enjoy the beach; and if the beach becomes a place where nudity is a common thing, it will exclude them from the beach. He stated he heard tourists want to spend money if they can be naked, and they will sue if they cannot and it will cost money; and inquired if money is more important than moral issues. He stated everyone has a higher moral fiber than that; and just because it may cost money, it does not mean the Board has to do the wrong thing.

Joyce Grable, 105 Cumberland Creek, Longwood, Florida, advised she is not a member of a special interest group, a sexual deviant, a child molester, nor a pervert; and she is simply exercising freedom of choice. She stated she has been going to Playalinda Beach for eight years on almost every weekend; she does not inflict her views on any person; but she has a right to exercise her freedom of choice. She stated she was raised a Presbyterian and resent people who inflict their views and morals on her lifestyle; she does not want anyone, including government telling her what her morals should be; the Pledge of Allegiance says liberty and justice for all, not just the religious right.

Bill Hall, 2445 Bar C Road, Mims, advised if he took his family to Titusville and a man came up to him and talked filthy, he could call the police and have him arrested; if a man comes up to him and unzips his pants, he could call the police and have him arrested; and inquired if all that can take place at Playalinda Beach and not in Titusville, what is this place coming to.

Marge Hildreth, 4435 Hood Avenue, Titusville, advised 1991 was the last time she went to Playalinda Beach; she took her daughter to Parking Area 3 and a man came within 20 feet of them, undressed and laid on his back; her daughter was shocked; they left and found a park ranger and told him they would never come back; and now there is a beach she will not go to. She stated she has no rights; she has been here since 1981 as a taxpayer; Titusville is one of the nicest places to live; she had first hand experience she wishes she did not experience; but she forgives that person.

Dean Pettit, 1666 Privateer Drive, Titusville, advised for the last 13 years he has surfed, fished, and did photography at Playalinda Beach south of Parking Area 8 and never saw a nude body; and he goes to the beach more times in one year than some of the people who are here will go in their lifetime. He stated a man made a comparison of Titusville and Miami and alluded to the fact that the nude beach in Miami may be related to its crimes; however, according to his information, most people who commit crimes in Miami are wearing clothes when they do it; and naked people do not rob banks, commit murders or burglaries, and do not shoot people because they cannot carry a concealed weapon. He stated he came here to see his government in action; what he has seen disturbs him because it is hatred and intolerance in the name of God; and that is not what He meant.

Edna Boardman, New Smyrna Beach, advised she lives in Volusia County, worked for many years and paid federal taxes, so the beach belongs to her as to anyone else; and she takes offense that people indicate naturists are criminals. She stated she is nearly 60 years old and has never had a parking ticket or a speeding ticket; she has never committed a felony and never told other persons they have to believe her way; and she feels they are trying to impose their beliefs on others. She stated she believes in God who has seen her through a lot of bad times; and inquired if it is a sin to take care of her mother, whose body is nude, because she cannot take care of herself.

Margaret Pinkard, 770 Delmar Court, Titusville, advised she is 25 years old, lived here 23 years, and thinks it is worth putting time and money into this ordinance because bad does not get better. She stated her daughter is smarter than some people here because she asked her why people are allowed to go to the beach nude and would be arrested if they walked around a mall or down the street naked, and what is the difference. She stated she is not placing her views on the nudists; they are imposing their views on her; her brother went to the nude beach at Playalinda many years ago and almost got raped; so no one can tell her when they take their clothes off they are not looking at people in a perverse way. She stated God knew that so he clothed Adam and Eve; she is a single mother, and it is hard raising her children without having this filth to put in their faces; and requested the Board vote against nudes and adopt the ordinance.

John Blasik, 4615 Treeridge Lane, Palm Bay, advised there is signage at the beach for oversized vehicles to use parking lot 2; the rangers seem to have no problem directing a stray RV or 18-wheeler to that parking lot; so signage can work.

Commissioner Cook advised he supports the ordinance; it is not a public duty to provide a private beach for a certain segment of the community; there is no Constitutional right to nudity; they have an option of doing what they wish, belonging to any club they wish, and exercising their rights in private; the key is that it is a public beach; therefore, the Board has a right to expect certain standards on the beach as it does in any other public place. He stated no one is allowed in the Government Center nude; that is a public building; and the beach is a public beach. Commissioner Cook advised the ordinance attempts to regulate certain conduct; it does not regulate speech because it is not a First Amendment issue; and sectioning off a portion of the beach for one particular activity would deny that portion to everyone else. He stated it is a public beach, and the Board should not do that; a lot of people talk about compromise; and one compromise would be for the naturists and nudists to put on swimsuits and enjoy the beach with everyone else.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to move the proposed ordinance prohibiting public nudity in Brevard County, Florida; designating a title; expressing the intent; setting forth findings; providing definitions; creating exemptions; providing for an area embraced; providing for penalties; providing for severability; and providing an effective date, to the second public hearing on May 18, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. in the Brevard Community College North Campus gymnasium, 1311 North U.S. 1, Titusville, Florida.

Commissioner Ellis inquired, if under current state law, a nude person in the Government Center or a mall or any other place can be arrested, why does that not apply at Playalinda Beach. He stated there is state law available; the Attorney General said the court has held that mere nudity in a public place, such as topless sunbathing at a public beach, may be prosecuted under Florida's disorderly conduct statutes; and inquired what is the problem with prosecution under the state law.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the way the disorderly conduct statute has been interpreted, and the way state attorneys and U. S. attorneys look at it, there has to be a victim in order to prosecute under that law; there has to be someone, other than a ranger, who sees it occurring; and it is difficult to get a victim to say he or she saw it happen, go find a ranger, and enforce the statute. He stated another problem is that statute requires an assessment of the situation; if a person is found appearing nude with many other nude people, that may be different than someone running around nude in the Government Center; so disorderly conduct at Viera may not be disorderly conduct on a nude beach and may not be enforceable in that context. Commissioner Ellis inquired what would happen if the beach was properly signed; with Mr. Knox responding if an area is designated for public nudity and another area not designated for public nudity, it would be more enforceable if a person appears nude in the mandatory clothing area.

Commissioner Ellis advised there are numerous beaches in Brevard County, and none of them have the problem that Playalinda Beach has, so clearly something is different at Playalinda from all other beaches run by the federal government. He inquired why is the problem under control at all other federal beaches without resorting to local ordinances, and Brevard County cannot get this problem under control. He inquired if the County would have a leg to stand on without signage; and stated if they had signage, the state law would apply. Commissioner Ellis advised there were problems at Canova Beach, and the Sheriff is trying to resolve those problems now; and inquired if the Sheriff can resolve those problems under the state law, why can't they do the same at Playalinda Beach without the ordinance. Mr. Knox advised being an existing nude beach, which has been used traditionally over the years, brings it under a certain set of circumstances. Commissioner Ellis stated it was not the entire beach; with Mr. Knox responding there has been an effort to enforce some of the statutes against people who are walking around naked on the beach; the federal courts have now rule that the statute dealing with lewd and lascivious behavior cannot be enforced if the person is just standing there naked on the beach; and as a consequence of the publicity surrounding that situation, there have been people who have spread the appearance of nakedness further south on the beach and using it more frequently which caused the problem. He stated the argument could be made that because nudity has spread further south, it is no longer a disorderly offense because other people are doing it. Commissioner Ellis advised even the naturists will testify the south area has not been historically used as a nude beach, so he cannot understand why the Sheriff cannot go to the south end and enforce the current state law. Mr. Knox advised it is not the Sheriff who would enforce the state law on the beach; the reason the state law is not enforced is because the federal law, which basically adopts all state criminal laws, implies on federal enclaves it is enforceable by anyone who is a designated federal law enforcement officer; and that can be the Sheriff, but it has to be done through the National Park Service. Commissioner Ellis inquired if under the ordinance the Park Service would have to designate the Sheriff to give him the ability to enforce the ordinance; with Mr. Knox responding yes, but there is statutory language which makes it their duty to cooperate in enforcement of County ordinances; and that is different from state laws. He stated they can cooperate with state and county laws and designate enforcement officials to enforce either laws. Commissioner Ellis inquired why was that not done, and why has the Park Service not designated the Sheriff's Department to enforce the state laws on the south end of Playalinda Beach; with Mr. Knox responding he does not have the answer to that, but perhaps Mr. Simpson can answer it.

Commissioner Ellis stated until the County has full cooperation of the Park Service, it is not going anywhere with any ordinance; he went to Playalinda Beach before coming to the meeting and there was no signage on the entire beach; and for anything to have an effect, they have to put signs on the beach. He stated he will vote to move it to the second hearing because Commissioner Scarborough and Mr. Knox are going to Washington on Monday, but if Park Service will not put the proper signage up, then he does not see the point of passing the ordinance. He stated the Park Service needs to take the responsibility to place proper signage out there otherwise the County does not have a leg to stand on; the County has worked for two and a half years trying to get something done with the Park Service and got nothing; and there is no point in passing the ordinance without the support of the Park Service.

Commissioner O'Brien advised a few days ago his community did not support the ordinance and he voiced that opinion to the newspapers and his community; and his community responded very strongly by saying it is time for government to set a community standard. He stated the real issue is the majority of people are offended when naked persons walk in front of their families; and without the ordinance the burden is placed on the majority to continue to fight for a law to have some kind of community standards. He stated if the Board passes the ordinance, the burden transfers to the exclusionary minority. Commissioner O'Brien advised the ACLU said there is no compelling interest; however, the compelling interest is the County must have a community standard or display no interest in the will of its communities. He stated the Board has a responsibility to the communities and their definition of wholesome; society has always tried to get along with and go along with; but frankly, the Board has gone as far as it wants to go with this issue; and if it goes much further , there will not be much culture in society left. He stated there has been a call by all Americans to look out for America; freedom is one thing, but community standards for this County are important to each individual; therefore, he will support the ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough advised everything he received is included in the packet of information being passed out by Mr. Sprague; he received calls from friends and people from all political persuasions and all types of ethical backgrounds regarding nudity; and there is a pervasive attitude of feeling intimidated. He stated some are perverted acts that can be prosecuted under current state laws, but others are clearly intended to drive people from the beach; the problem is not that someone is a naturist or goes to church; the problem is something that is occurring that cannot evolve as a standard of this community; and he would hate to see the community written up as a place not to visit. He stated the state voted against casino gambling; there are other things that can make the County attractive; and the Board should not let dollars lead it. Commissioner Scarborough stated there has been a lot of investment in making Brevard County a clean resort; it has the potential of being a part of the Disney idea; they are talking about bringing ships to Port Canaveral; so why would the Board want to blacken Brevard. He stated that is not to say there is something immoral with naturists; the issue the Board is facing is that it has become a problem; but he does not know if perverted activities exist because of the naturists or if it is something that occurred on its own that the naturists are fighting also. He stated the County Attorney has put together a good ordinance; the County does not have problems with its beaches, but the one it does not administer has problems; and what is wrong with the Park Service is the question he wants to go to Washington and ask. He stated if the Park Service needed Brevard County's help in this matter, it could have requested it or given instructions of what the County needed to do to help with enforcement without overly taxing the people; and the people in Atlanta and Washington need to let the Board know where it has to go and if they will work with the County.

Commissioner Ellis advised they have known there was a problem for the last few years; there is case law that will back up the statutes; he has never heard from the Park Service requesting a sheriff deputy out there; and inquired why is the state law not being enforced. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not his desire to have a deputy out there; whatever occurs should be handled by the park ranger, whether it is a County ordinance or not; and it will be an impediment to call the deputy miles out to the beach to make an arrest when the park rangers are there. Commissioner Ellis stated the letter from Park Service indicated a County ordinance can only be enforced by park rangers when those rangers are deputized, the ordinance would not be in the best interest of Canaveral National Seashore, and gave no help, support, or cooperation. Commissioner Scarborough recommended Commissioners communicate with the County Attorney their thoughts and concerns to Mr. Knox, and he can take those to Washington to be addressed. Commissioner Ellis stated there is no signage. Commissioner Scarborough advised the Titusville City Council Resolution urges the appropriate jurisdictions that have authority over Playalinda Beach and Canaveral National Seashore resolve the issue; so if it made that statement, it recognized that there is an issue that must be resolved.

Commissioner Ellis repeated the need for proper signage, no one requesting the Sheriff to go out to Playalinda Beach, and if the Park Service did not want to do anything, they could have requested the County take action. Commissioner Cook stated someone has to take the lead and hopefully get the cooperation of the Park Service.

Chairman Higgs advised the County will need the cooperation of the Park Service regarding the rangers, deputization, and its willingness to enforce the laws; the Park Service should also have a portion of the beach reserved for activity and provide signage; and requested Commissioner Scarborough find out from the Park Service if it would cooperate with the Board if the ordinance is passed, and if it would provide signage and enforce the signage through deputization of its rangers. Commissioner Cook stated it would be appropriate for Commissioner Scarborough to ask those questions, but not as a sense of the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be better if Mr. Knox asked all the questions. Commissioner Cook recommended telling the Park Service what the Board wants as a whole and ask for its cooperation. Mr. Knox advised he did not hear the question. Chairman Higgs requested the Park Service be asked if it is willing to allow the rangers to be deputized; and if it is the will of the Board that an area be designated for the traditional naturists activity, would they be willing to erect signs. She stated Section 6.a. of the proposed ordinance talks about exemptions; and inquired if it means a section of Playalinda Beach could be reserved for clothing optional. Mr. Knox advised it does not create an exemption. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is a section that would create the exemption; with Mr. Knox responding the section that addresses the issue designated by the federal government. Chairman Higgs inquired if to be exempt from the ordinance the National Park Service would have to designate the area; with Mr. Knox responding that is right, the ordinance does not apply to any area designated by the Park Service for nude sunbathing. Commissioner Ellis stated if it designates the south end as no nude sunbathing, it would be easier to enforce with proper signage, but they have no signs at all now. Commissioner Cook stated the Board's intent is to enforce the ordinance and get cooperation from the Park Service which does not allow for sectioning off the beach for private activities; and that needs to be made clear by Commissioner Scarborough and Mr. Knox.

Chairman Higgs stated if the Park Service designates an area and Section 6.d. remains, there could be a designated area of the beach. Mr. Knox advised if the federal government says something contrary to the ordinance, the County cannot do anything about it, and there is nothing the ordinance can do to affect that. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wanted to designate an area for exemption, would it have to go beyond 6.d.; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Chairman Higgs inquired if a subsection needs to be added to that Section; with Mr. Knox responding it could revise the area to exclude the portion that is not covered.

Commissioner Cook advised at the meeting with the National Park Service, it needs to be made clear that the sense of the Board is to enforce the ordinance prohibiting public nudity and not section off the beach or create designated areas unless someone on the Board wants to amend the ordinance tonight. Mr. Knox stated the County cannot do anything about what the Park Service decides to designate, but he can express that to the Park Service.

Commissioner Ellis advised if the Park Service wants to designate a portion of the beach as a nude beach, it can do so; it also has the authority not to let the Sheriff's deputies on the beach and to have its rangers not enforce the laws; so if the Board's goal is to get the nudists off the beach, it has a better chance moving the ordinance as is rather than gambling on all or nothing.

Commissioner Cook stated unless someone wants to make an amendment to the ordinance, they need to express to the Park Service what the sense of the Board is. He stated it has the responsibility to be leaders of the community.

Commissioner Ellis stated the ordinance is very clear and puts the burden on the Park Service whether or not to designate an area of the beach, so why does it need the sense of the Board; it has the ordinance as written; and if the federal government wants a nude beach set aside, it has the authority to do that ordinance or no ordinance, and there is nothing the Board can do about it.

Mr. Knox advised the ordinance prohibits any public nudity; but if the federal government says the ordinance does not apply on a portion of Playalinda Beach, there is nothing the Board can do about that, and the ordinance would not apply to that portion of the beach; but the ordinance as it stands and as presented is no public nudity.

Commissioner Ellis stated it will place the burden on the federal government to finally make a decision as to what it wants to do, a decision they have not been able to make for three years.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board starts amending the ordinance tonight, he and Mr. Knox will have scrambled eggs to present rather than the ordinance; and if there is anything Commissioners want to know, he wants to take their questions and return with a package of information for discussion prior to amending the ordinance. He stated the fact that the County did an ordinance and said it will get involved is all they need; it is their problem; and it is unfair to the Board to figure out how to apply everything without getting something definite from the Park Service. He stated if they tell the Park Service their dismay rather than being too detailed, they will be in a better position to see what the Park Service is willing to give the County.

Chairman Higgs advised she can support the ordinance if it will provide controlled nudity and exemption for a portion of the beach which has been a tradition at Playalinda Beach; that would resolve the problems as defined by the people; and that would be the way to do it rather than pass an ordinance that totally bans nudity. Commissioner Scarborough suggested deferring discussion on the pros and cons until they know where the Park Service stands.

Commissioner Cook advised the Park Service needs to know where the Board stands; Commissioner Scarborough is going to Washington as the representative of the Board, he does not want a blurring of the effect of the ordinance; the ordinance is very clear and prohibits nudity on public beaches; and that is a clear indication. He stated the Board needs the Park Service's cooperation, but it needs to also be strong as to where it is coming from so they know what the Board thinks should be done.

Chairman Higgs stated she is concerned about moving the ordinance forward in its present form because it does not reflect an ordinance she can support in the end. She stated an unbending position, such as the one Commissioner Cook is describing, is not one that will likely get full support from the Park Service; and to get the cooperation of the Park Service which is absolutely essential, it has to come forward with an ordinance that provides an area for naturists. She stated the ordinance in its present form would not get that kind of support. Commissioner Scarborough stated he disagrees; it is federal property and they need to define how to implement it as opposed to the Board trying to finalize an ordinance tonight. Commissioner Cook stated he does not want to send the wrong message, but he wants to send a strong message where the Board is coming from.

Commissioner Ellis stated he would prefer to get something done than to make a point; to do that the Board needs to have the authority to make arrests, it needs signage, and the Park Service's cooperation to send deputies out there if the rangers will not do it. He stated the ordinance as written provides that the federal government has the ability to designate an area of the beach; so he does not see what the problem is in letting them designate an area of the beach. Commissioner O'Brien advised enforcement is not the issue, it has nothing to do with this; and this ordinance is to cure a social problem that is totally out of whack.

Commissioner Cook stated he does not want people going to Washington thinking the Board's position is nebulous; the ordinance is clear cut; and if Commissioner Scarborough is going up there and representing the Board, then he should represent it in the spirit that it is going to move the ordinance on, and tell the Park Service that is what it wants as well as its support and cooperation. Commissioner Scarborough stated the ordinance can be changed at the second hearing; he, Commissioners O'Brien and Cook will move the ordinance forward if Commissioners Ellis and Higgs want to go against it; the Board has been pushed into a posture because the Park Service has not communicated; it has not been an easy task to get their attention; and he thinks they have it now and wants to see what they can come back with. Chairman Higgs stated it would be a better message if it had unanimous support for the ordinance; she cannot support it without an area designated that would be exempt and a provision that defines nudity in Section 4.b.(2) because G-strings and T-back bathing suits all over Brevard County would be subject to legal action; and she does not think the Board is ready to get into that kind of enforcement action. She stated it can be corrected at the second hearing, but she is uncomfortable voting for the ordinance as it is written. Commissioner Ellis stated the Park Service would not be cooperative if the Board designates a portion of its park because it is its responsibility. Chairman Higgs stated she is against regulating bikinis in Brevard County and totally uncomfortable with the definition of nudity because of the expense to enforce it throughout the County. Commissioner Scarborough stated he could communicate to the Park Service that the ordinance has been moved forward, but the Board may make amendments to it; and if the Board wants to express reservations, he will carry that to them, but he would like to go with the ordinance, which may not be perfect. Commissioner Cook stated that is not the message he wants to send to Washington; if the Board wants to amend the ordinance it should do it tonight; but it needs to go up there with a strong ordinance that says what the Board wants. He stated if they go up there and say it may do other things, that will not send a strong message where the Board is coming from.

Chairman Higgs passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Ellis.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to amend the ordinance to insert in Section 6 a provision that the traditional areas of Playalinda Beach for naturists be exempt. Motion died for lack of a second.

Vice Chairman Ellis stated he did not second the motion because he does not want to make changes until the second hearing.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the County Attorney to provide additional alternative definitions of nudity, in Section 4, Definition, Subsection b.(2) and to delete Section 3 which specifies particular bathing suits. Motion died for lack of a second.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion to send the ordinance forward as proposed. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Commissioner Ellis indicated if the Park Service needs a week or so to decide what it is going to do, the Board may have to delay the second hearing on the ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough stated he will meet with people who actually make the rules, and hopes he will know where the Park Service is on this issue and that it will give insight to the Board where it needs to be. Commissioner Ellis stated he sent a letter to Mr. Knox of his thoughts on the issue. Commissioner Scarborough thanked the Board for spending time on this issue which is basically a North Brevard issue.

Chairman Higgs expressed appreciation to the audience for their comments and reminded them of the second hearing on May 18, 1995.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

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

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