October 21, 2004

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on October 21, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chair Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: UNVEILING OF WELCOME TO MERRITT ISLAND SIGN

Commissioner Pritchard stated there will be the unveiling of the Welcome to Merritt Island sign tomorrow at noon at the Brevard County Service Complex on Courtenay Parkway, south of S.R. 528; and requested people come, enjoy the light refreshments, and watch the unveiling.

REPORT, RE: ASSISTANCE TO MERRITT ISLAND GARDEN CLUB

Commissioner Pritchard stated he was helping the Merritt Island Garden Club dig holes to plant the plants; he hit the sprinkler pipe; he thought if he does it at home all the time, why not do it on the job too; and he fractured the pipe good.

Commissioner Colon stated Commissioner Pritchard indicated he was helping, but she was told he was in the way.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the maintenance crew suggested he should stick to commissioning and not hole digging; and he considers it no good deed goes unpunished.

REPORT, RE: ASSISTANCE AFTER HURRICANE EVENTS

Commissioner Colon stated her office is still getting a lot of telephone calls from folks in the community who are still hurting from the hurricanes; Peggy Busacca was kind enough to mention some of the possible phone calls that the County can make on behalf of the citizens; and requested Ms. Busacca share the different groups that can provide assistance. She noted one particular individual lives on the beachside and is handicapped; and he is on the Army Corps of Engineers’ list.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responded there are specialists at the Agriculture and Extension Services Office that Jim Fletcher has advised would be very helpful in explaining to people what kind of mold they have in their homes and how to address the mold; she asked people in the Agriculture Center to contact the individual Commissioner Colon is referring to; Emergency Management Director Bob Lay explained at the workshop that the County was 2,000 blue roofs behind; and several of the fire departments have volunteered to put blue roofs on. Ms. Busacca advised she contacted the fire department in the vicinity of Indialantic; several cities are doing this as well; fire department staff is going to help the aforementioned gentleman with his roof; and there is a volunteer organization that is working six days a week out of the Emergency Operations Center. She stated if someone were to call 637-6670, he or she could be in contact with the volunteer group, which has a waiting list as well as volunteers; they connect up what the people need with the volunteers that are available; there are some other housing issues that Housing and Human Services Department can help with and it is involved; and those are the four areas that she is aware of where people can come for assistance.

Commissioner Colon stated a lot of folks are under the impression that things are back to normal, but they are not; there are thousands of folks who have been put out of their homes and their homes are condemned; she does not want people to have that comfort level thinking that everything is okay; and folks who are watching the workshop today can contact the County to see how it can provide assistance.

Chair Higgs stated Brevard County is still in recovery; and the Board had a long discussion about it, including the monitoring of it.

BREVARD TOMORROW SMART GROWTH PRESENTATION

Introductions

Kristin Bakke, President and CEO of Leadership Brevard, stated Leadership Brevard appreciates the Board’s invitation to be part of a Smart Growth workshop and to share more of the accomplishments that Brevard Tomorrow has made in this last year of its community journey; a community is a group, which has an interest in an area or a population with a distinct identity that says it is a community; whoever that is, they will determine the specifics of that community; and this kind of definition drives Brevard Tomorrow’s decisions and will be most apparent in its recommendations during today’s workshop. She advised Brevard Tomorrow is a vision initiated in 2000 by a group of community leaders who recognized a need for citizens to plan for the future and create a roadmap, an effort led by private sector citizens; a 24-member steering committing of local community leaders led the foundation for this grassroots journey, utilizing outside expertise and the input of over 100 citizens who, through a series of leadership team meetings, crafted a 42-page strategic plan, known as the Preferred Future for Brevard; workgroups were formed to begin the implementation of the priorities in five key issue areas, civic infrastructure, the economy, education and workforce, land use and growth, and governance; and within each issue area are several goals and suggestions for strategies of how to set those goals in motion. Ms. Bakke stated in 2002, Leadership Brevard assumed the stewardship of the implementation of the Brevard Tomorrow initiative, including fund development, volunteer project teams, and communication of the work at hand; it has been deliberate in maintaining a sense of balance in all it does from its funding sources to its volunteer project team members; the Board will see later the balance of interests represented on the Land Use and Growth Team, which is also representative of the four other teams; and over 70 Brevardians registered for a new team member or volunteer orientation that was held in August, 2004. She noted meetings are open to the public and posted on the website; Brevard Tomorrow celebrates milestones and advertorials in Florida TODAY and via Brevard Tomorrow’s investors’ newsletters; Brighthouse Networks is hosting a series of public service announcements, the first featuring Lieutenant Governor Toni Jennings; and Brevard Tomorrow is in the final phase of a 30-minute video that tells the story of it.

History of Land Use and Growth Project Team

Ms. Bakke stated today, Brevard Tomorrow focuses on the work that has been accomplished by team members of the Land Use and Growth Project Team. She advised what it will present today represents a framework to use in planning for the County’s growth; Brevard Tomorrow is not a no-growth group; it has brought to the forefront concerns of both pro-development and those less inclined to support growth; and in addition to the documents the Board will review today, one of the greatest accomplishments of the Land Use and Growth Project Team has been the open dialogue and building of trust and respect between potentially diametrically-opposed groups. Ms. Bakke stated the Team has spent hours crafting language that was acceptable to all, using consensus as its goal; it has done extensive research and made a commitment to the time it takes to develop Smart Growth guidelines for Brevard; and Brevard Tomorrow is ready to have more of the community embrace the guidelines and use them in the County and municipalities as it plans for a future that includes growth and careful management of that reality. She noted today’s agenda moves in an inverted triangle fashion, from an overview and brief introduction of what Smart Growth is and is not, to the overview of the Getting to Smart Growth in Brevard document, to a more specific explanation of each principle and suggested strategies that accompany each goal; Brevard Tomorrow is the living laboratory for smart growth in Brevard and allows a sounding board for municipal and County governments to test, and draft ordinances and policies for their compatibility with smart growth principles; the document Brevard Tomorrow presents today will not be implemented without the Board’s endorsement and that of municipal partners; and Brevard Tomorrow hopes by the end of its discussion this morning that the Board is better prepared to consider the goals and principles, and continues to partner with Leadership Brevard in the journey it calls Brevard Tomorrow. Ms. Bakke introduced members of the team who are present in support of the initiative, and those individuals making additional presentations today, as follows: Chairman of Leadership Brevard Board of Directors Suzanne Sparling of United Way of Brevard; members of the Land Use and Growth Project Team, including Jim Fletcher, County Extension Director; Laurilee Thompson, Dixie Crossroads; Teresa Monroe, Community Volunteer; Mario Busacca, Environmental Program Office at NASA; Bino Campanini, Stottler Stagg & Associates; Doug Sphar, Community Volunteer; Gary Tighe, Community Volunteer; Brevard Tomorrow Project Director Angie Christman; and Dr. Rod Clouser, Professor and Public Policy Extension Specialist at University of Florida Extension. She noted Dr. Clouser has served as staff to former Governor Bob Graham’s Task Force on the future of agriculture in Florida, as well as advised State agencies; and he has testified on numerous occasions on agricultural land use issues to Florida Senate and House Committees, as well as city, county, and planning commissions in Florida counties, ranging in size from Hamilton to Hillsborough to Palm Beach Counties.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Ms. Bakke mentioned the moving forward of the Strategic Plan requires endorsement of the municipalities and County; and inquired why the League of Cities or other municipalities are not present today. Ms. Bakke responded there are several League members and cities that are represented on the Land Use Project Team; there were discussions yesterday with the leadership of the Space Coast League of Cities; there is a meeting in
process with it, specifically about Smart Growth principles; and a presentation will be made on November 8, 2004. She noted the League of Cities will be attending the Land Use and Growth Project Team meeting on November 12, 2004. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Team will be speaking with the League, but he would have enjoyed hearing from Georgia Phillips, President of the League of Cities, today and making comments that could have ebbed and flowed with the County comments; and inquired if Ms. Bakke would mind that. Ms. Bakke responded it is entirely at the Board’s discretion.

Chair Higgs stated Ms. Phillips has a job she does for the County. Commissioner Pritchard stated she is also the president of the League of Cities. Chair Higgs stated it is not fair to do that to Ms. Phillips, the League, or the people she serves in the job. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board should let the Leadership Brevard folks do what they were going to do; and perhaps there can be some input back to the Board as far as the League’s commentary.

Ms. Bakke stated Leadership Brevard is very much engaged in dialogue with the League; there are several city managers that sit on the Land Use and Growth Project Team; the Board will hear later this morning one of the presentations it has made on the Smart Growth document, which was in Titusville; and City Manager Tom Harmer was at one of the forums held in North Brevard. She noted it may simply be that Leadership Brevard needs to have an opportunity to continue that conversation and have more information about how everyone works together after the first part of November 2004.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired will Leadership Brevard be making a presentation before the League of Cities; with Ms. Bakke responding yes, it is scheduled for November 8, 2004.

General Benefits and Outcomes on Smart Growth

Rod Clouser, representing University of Florida Cooperative Extension, stated he has been working with the Land Use and Growth Project Team since May 2003; this is his third trip to the County since the Team has worked on the process; Smart Growth is many things to many people; and the definition of Smart Growth from the International City/County Management Association explains that Smart Growth is not a long list of thou shalt nots. He stated Smart Growth is not anti-growth or no growth; it is not anti-economic development or no economic development, contrary to what the Board may have heard from a variety of different people; Smart Growth is development that provides future generations the same economic development, jobs, housing, transportation, natural resources, land, environment, and unity choices that the present generation has, incorporating the new design practices; and there are three important key definition concepts embedded here: Smart Growth does not limit alternatives; choices are not eliminated with Smart Growth; and Smart Growth is something that has to be sustainable long-term and into the future. Mr. Clouser stated when he first met with the Land Use and Growth Project Team there were a couple of things that needed to be accomplished; one of the reasons he initially was called to assist was because the Team was having a hard time moving forward; it asked him to try to help it bring some focus; and it had to immediately work on determining what are the core elements for Smart Growth in Brevard County from the perspective of the individuals who were on the Team. He noted the Team was a wide-ranging one of about 30 people; they were broken up into teams; they had to write their ideas down, group together, and discuss the issues; and the Team had to do a checkpoint to see how Brevard County’s concept of Smart Growth from the community representatives compared with the core definitions and theories associated with Smart Growth. He stated one thing that was explained to the Team is that Smart Growth in Brevard County will not necessarily include all the core elements that are encompassed in theory; the second point that was stressed is that Smart Growth in the County needs to reflect community values, but be based on fact; this is really important and is where the Board struggles with issues every day; and fact is truth known by actual observation or data and something that can be proven. Mr. Clouser stated some people like to base choices on myths, something without foundation and fact or beliefs, an opinion, or conviction that cannot be proved; as the County moves forward on this, the more it can tie into the facts of the situation, the better it is going to be; the process for developing Smart Growth and strategies must be an inclusive process where all groups are involved, invited to participate, and express their views; and the process has been a very open and inclusive process. He noted if people have not participated, it is because they have chosen not to participate; there has not been anybody who was blocked or locked out, or views that have been suppressed in any manner; those who do participate must have a willingness to compromise and reach consensus; and a critical point in the process is those who choose not to participate or those who choose not to compromise cannot be allowed to delay or stop the process. He stated he is working on a task force in Alachua County right now that has about 20 members on a different issue; the task force was appointed by County Administrator Randy Reid; those who are not getting their views expressed in the manner they want are starting to pull away from the committee process because they want to go in after the fact and after the report has been presented and say this is not where Alachua County needs to go; and it needs to make sure that does not slow down the process. Mr. Clouser stated the Team identified seven goals: community identity, economics of land use, community involvement, environmental quality, housing, mixed land uses, and responsive government; from the core group of people who sat on the Land Use and Growth Project Team, these are the principles they identified with Smart Growth in the County; he compared it with theory; on the left hand side of the graph are 10 foundation principles associated with Smart Growth in literature or theory; and on the right hand side are the seven principles of the Team. He advised the 10 foundation principles that most people associate with Smart Growth are covered by the seven principles or goals identified in the County; for example, the compact building design is covered by the principle that deals with housing; the issue with predictable fair cost, effective development decision is covered by the goal in the County or the principle identified as responsive government; and there are some future points to consider and the Board needs to provide input. He noted the devil is into details; complex issues need to be made understandable for typical citizens; more depth related to strategies to accomplish principles and goals is needed in areas with concrete examples identified; a lot of time has been spent in this process with people wanting to wordsmith, such as shall, may, could, would, etc.; and those are things that mean different things to different people. Mr. Clouser stated people become concentrated in on those areas; community involvement will be the biggest challenge; there have been six community forums, four presentations, and several hundred residents engaged in the process; and there is going to be a need to get cities, schools, and community groups involved in more details in the quasi-governmental groups. He noted one of the most important issues is going to be communication; there are three types of people--those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened; the County needs to make sure those in that wonder what happened category do not overload the process; and about 20 years ago as the State was undertaking its growth management plans, he was working in a Florida county and it kept having meetings wanting to get community input on growth management. He stated there would be 60 or 70 people in attendance, which was very good; but when the plan was passed and the Oral Review and Comment Report came back, 600 people showed up for the meeting; such meeting was held at the football stadium at the high school; and people indicated they did not have a chance to participate and did not know what went on. Mr. Clouser noted the communication process has to be of utmost importance; and this is his overall summary as he has reviewed the process and worked with the Team three times in person and a couple of times by distance education.

Commissioner Colon stated there are two unique groups in the community; perception is everything; there are the environmentalists and property rights people; folks may tend to feel their voices are not going to be heard; and Mr. Clouser brought up a good point concerning trying to bring everything together. She noted there have been about three County/School Board/city summits; the County needs to sit down with the people it is affecting when it makes regulations, such as the building industry and environmental groups; some elected officials asked why such groups should be there; and it was like they should not be part of the process. She stated she does not think the County is doing a very good job at making sure everybody is part of the process; it has experienced many people in attendance at its meetings with certain regulations it was trying to put together; and it is not unique.

Mr. Clouser stated the County has to weigh what the process is; the first meeting he was involved in was trying to help the Team assess where it was and bring some ideas together of a group; the Team made sure everybody’s voice was heard; it asked each person in attendance to write down what he or she thought smart growth was; so no one dominated the conversation and everyone got their viewpoints expressed. He noted he participated in the first community forum; there were lots of different groups represented; the issue of property rights came up; and there were several political views that also came up. He stated all those things were listened to and put into consideration; as questions came in they were accumulated and incorporated into the goals; and at the end of the presentation, he will tell the Board what things the Team needs from it as a governing Board in the County. Mr. Clouser stated Jim Fletcher is the County’s Extension Director and is a University of Florida employee as well; he served as Chairman of the Project Team; he has had the pleasure of working with Mr. Fletcher for about 20 years in two different counties in Florida; and he appreciates Mr. Fletcher asking him to be involved in the process.

Smart Growth Presentation

Jim Fletcher, representing University of Florida, Brevard County Extension, stated the first document is Getting to Smart Growth in Brevard; it is 40 pages that the group put together; they are proud of such document; and the group is diverse and worked together in the process. He noted to bring people who have concerns about environment, development, and agriculture together, one can imagine what it was like to get the group in one room and come out with one document; those people spent over one year putting the document together; there was open dialogue to do that; and they may not have agreed on every concept, but they came to consensus and bought off on the document. He stated the Appendix document includes comments from the forums; the other two documents are Policies for Smart Growth; and such documents are used to educate the Team on what Smart Growth was so it could develop a plan for Brevard County.

Overview of Seven Smart Growth Goals

Mr. Fletcher stated there are seven principles or goals; the Team wanted to make sure it developed goals that pertained to Brevard County and not to a national standard, which is why there are seven goals instead of ten that are on the national standard; people care about their community; and there are growth concerns. He noted the Board is faced with it on a regular basis; the cities and municipalities are also faced with it, including zoning issues, redevelopment issues, etc.; and people drive everywhere instead of walk. He stated he is the Team Leader for the Land Use and Growth Project Team and took the role about two years ago; the Team had three goals it operated under for the Brevard Tomorrow Plan; the Team met together and decided how it could address the goals; and it realized such goals were massive and it needed to take them one at a time. He noted the Team decided to deal with the goal of educating and reaching consensus on growth and conservation issues in the County; there are also subset goals; the first one deals with Smart Growth principles; and the Team thought it was important that everyone was on the same page. Mr. Fletcher stated when growth issues were discussed, everybody knew what they were talking about; people had different perceptions when talking about Smart Growth; the Team wanted to get together and come up with one unifying plan together; and it had to educate itself on that and develop the document. He noted once the document was developed, the next process was going out into the community to inform and educate everyone; the first step of the process was holding public forums to gather input and look at the document to see if drastic changes were needed; the process has been completed; the group had to figure out what Smart Growth was; and it had to have a definition. He stated such definition came from the national perspective, which makes it possible for communities to grow in ways to support economic development and jobs, create strong neighborhoods with a wide range of housing, commercial transportation options, and achieve a healthy community that provides families with a clean environment; he calls it the holy grail; and if the County had that it would probably have no problems, but it is a goal to work toward. He noted the group agreed and adopted that as the definition for Smart Growth in Brevard County; individuals in the group came with an agenda and had to work through the different agendas; they had to educate themselves and understand the guiding principle of what Smart Growth is; and it is about well-planned growth that improves the quality of life and not against growth. Mr. Fletcher stated the County cannot stop growth; it is going to happen one way or another; it can manage how it wants to grows; and the seven guiding principles or goals the Team came up with for the County include community identity, which encourages the types of growth and physical environments that create a sense of civic pride and reflect the interests of all the residents. He noted if people are interested about their community, then they are going to be more apt to participate; the definition of community is a group of people that have a common interest in what is going on in their area; that community could be a city, a neighborhood, a rural area, or a beachside town; and the Getting to Smart Growth document is not set to have to adopt the whole thing. He stated the document is something that communities can review, and pick and choose what part of the growth principle fits into the community; community involvement is the second principle; and the goal is to promote the education and motivation of the community to address specific needs and concerns through early, frequent, and continuous involvement. Mr. Fletcher stated a lot of times it is difficult to get people educated to understand the issues; and the Team is trying to get the community motivated and involved early on in the process. He noted the third principle is economics of land use; the goal is to promote growth, maintenance, and renewal of diverse communities that are self-sustaining and support a quality of life that respects all the attributes of communities in Brevard County; the fourth principle is environmental quality; and the goal is to preserve and conserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas. He stated what is key here is making sure everyone understands the difference between preserve and conserve; those are two distinct issues and how a plan is formulated to move forward; and the group had to educate itself on what the differences were, why it was important to preserve something, and why it might be important to conserve something. He noted the fifth principle is housing, which is a critical issue; the County has gone through three hurricanes; land costs have skyrocketed; so affordable housing is critical to look at. He stated the goal is to improve quality of life by providing a broad range of housing for all demographic groups that is consistent with Smart Growth goals; the sixth principle is Mixed Land Uses; truly there is not a mixed land use type of environment in the County; and some may be approaching that type of status, such as Cocoa Village and maybe Melbourne. He noted the goal is to create an atmosphere that allows people to work, live, and play in pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods that are distinctive in character, vibrant, sustainable, and an integral part of the Brevard community; the seventh principle is responsive government; and the goal is to promote Smart Growth policies, county and city governments need to have systematic, coordinated development procedures that give priority to developments that have adhered to Smart Growth principles. He stated the Board is going to hear about each principle more in depth; once the Team got the document together, it went out to educate people on the process; there were a little over 200 people show up at the forums; and he would have liked to have seen a lot more people show up at the forums. Mr. Fletcher noted the Team did a concerted effort by advertising through the newspaper and radio; it put flyers out in the communities as it wanted people’s input; and 224 people participated. He stated the Team held six forums, ranging anywhere from Titusville to Palm Bay to the beachside; it tried to cover the community as a whole; it did four presentations reaching out to different areas, including the HBCA, Titusville 2020, the Leadership Brevard group, and a church group; and the Team is still in the process and trying to move forward. He noted as of last Friday, the Team finally has an adopted document, so it is starting the process of educating and doing more public forums; the Appendix includes comments from each forum; and the Team listened to the comments, but did not want to make changes until after it was finished with all of the public forums. He stated included in the Appendix are the documents from the six public forums; a survey was also conducted; 80% of the respondents indicated they would agree or strongly agree to support those Smart Growth principles as they were presented; and that is an achievement.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired is it 80% of the 224 people or 80% of the surveys. Mr. Fletcher responded about 80 people turned in surveys following the public forums; and the 224 participants also included the four presentations, which probably amounted to 80 people or so. Commissioner Pritchard stated out of 80 surveys, 64 people were in support. Mr. Fletcher stated 66 people supported the Smart Growth principles; and there were a couple of neutrals and a couple of people who indicated they would not support such principles.

Commissioner Colon inquired about other sections of Brevard Tomorrow, including Smart Growth. Mr. Fletcher responded there are five areas within Brevard Tomorrow, including Governance, Civic Infrastructure, Economy, Educational Workforce, and Land Use and Growth. Commissioner Colon stated youth is not included in any of the components; Smart Growth also takes into effect the fact that the County has the highest consumption of drugs and alcohol in youth within the State of Florida; and inquired what component does that fall under with Brevard Tomorrow or is it more focused on another group, such as Together in Partnership (TIP). Mr. Fletcher stated within the framework of the document some of those issues are dealt with when looking at communities, including safety issues; and some of that presentation will be before the Board shortly. Commissioner Colon stated yesterday she and Commissioner Pritchard attended an East Central Florida Regional Planning Council meeting; there was a huge DRI project coming before the Council, which included about 3,000 homes; the project members were there to basically have the Council rubberstamp the presentation; and it was pretty discouraging. She noted one issue discussed was where was the commercial area and the people were going to have to work somewhere; that is what she is talking about with smart growth; and inquired is that the kind of presentation she is going to see. Mr. Fletcher responded yes, and Smart Growth incorporates a lot of that where people can live, work, and play in an environment. Commissioner Colon stated there were 30 elected officials from seven different counties; she asked officials why they were supporting the issue and voting in favor of something that they know is not smart growth; and she was curious about it because so far she has not seen it in the presentation. Mr. Fletcher stated Brevard Tomorrow is trying to go through an overview and then provide the detail to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County had business people who would take their C&D material and dump it in the orange groves; it would cite the grove owner, but the owner was not really responsible; it was a mess; and the County worked on a C&D site. It had a citizens committee and met at the library; it had an A & E firm with all the criteria; a whole year was spent on the issue; and there were discussions on site specific. He noted a meeting was held at Temple Baptist Church; there was not enough room for sit down; all he could say was, “This was a bad idea and sorry everybody’s time was wasted”; and the issue was closed down. He stated as soon as the County gets into the details, it is treacherous ground.

Mr. Fletcher stated the details are what the Land Use and Growth Project Team is dealing with now. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is good to discuss and get parameters to get people to the table.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the definitions of preserve and conserve. Mr. Fletcher responded the definitions are included in the back of the document; preserve means to keep something in static state and not change it; it does not matter whether it is for the good or the bad; and conserve means to manage the property to the best of its ability. He stated, for example, in agriculture, a lot of river land was taken up by the St. Johns River Water Management District; its original focus was to preserve the land; the goal initially looked good, but what the District found out is that it ended up with overgrowth, fire hazards, and weeds it could not manage; and the District has re-contracted out with agriculture producers and cattlemen to start managing the areas with grazing cattle and conserving it. He noted managing the areas is something that is good, but there is a management component to it; and preserving means to leave it alone and never touch it.

Chair Higgs stated she cannot imagine anybody who is a preservationist would agree with that definition; to preserve means to preserve the quality and essence of it, which means that it does have to be managed; it is inherent in preservation of those things that are essential and why one is going after preserving the land that someone manages; and she cannot get even close to that definition. Mr. Fletcher stated he does not disagree with Chair Higgs, but when two groups are brought together, the definition of what preserve means is someone will not touch the property. Chair Higgs stated she does not think anybody agrees with that. Commissioner Carlson stated there are some people out there who would disagree; that is where the group has been going because there are disagreements; and that is why the County is talking about it today. Chair Higgs stated if someone preserves something and lets the overgrowth take over, then it is no longer preserved.

Mario Busacca, representing NASA/KSC, stated in looking at the management philosophy of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) versus the Park Service, the FWS is a management organization and actively manages its lands; the Park Service traditionally has been a preservation organization; it manages its lands by doing nothing; and Yellowstone National Park is a classic example. He noted such Park for 60 years was left completely alone; no management activity was taken at all; that was its philosophy; the Park does not burn or do any timbering because the natural environment will manage itself; and the preservation component is its management strategy. He stated all the Team is saying in the document is there are organizations and places that would say that is the strategy, they want to preserve; in some cases the Team is saying the County may want to take a particular piece of property and preserve it; there are other situations where it actually wants to manage the lands; and that has been the traditional way of looking at it. He noted the Park Service is starting to change that, but there are still pockets where preservation is the standard; it happens in Alaska a lot; and there is no management in much of Alaska’s wilderness.

Chair Higgs stated that does not mean that is the right definition of preservation. Mr. Busacca stated it is Brevard Tomorrow’s definition that is used for preservation; and it is saying if someone does not want to preserve something, then it would be conserving it. Chair Higgs stated she totally disagrees with Brevard Tomorrow’s definition of preservation then. Mr. Busacca stated it pulled the definition out of what has been traditionally used for the last 100 years; it is not saying that someone wants to always preserve; most of the management organizations are going towards conservation; but there are still preservation pockets.

Commissioner Pritchard stated for over 50 years people listened to Smokey the Bear, “only you can prevent forest fires”; because people did such a good job preventing forest fires, it created a huge undergrowth so that when there was a forest fire, everything was lost; and before if there would have been managed fires or nature would have been allowed with its fire to clean out the undergrowth, there would not have been the forest conflagrations. He noted people finally came to realize that Smokey the Bear was not right; and it was a program that everyone bought into.

Mr. Fletcher stated both parties understood what Commissioner Pritchard is saying, it was the definition; when they came to the idea that both parties understood conservation and that is what they were for, that is how they were able to move the definition forward; and it is critical.

Commissioner Colon stated it is quite critical; people have more in common than they think; it is where education comes in; and it is a perfect example of why this is important.

Mr. Fletcher stated Laurilee Thompson will be talking about community identity.

Laurilee Thompson, representing Dixie Crossroads Restaurant, stated the goal for community identity is to encourage the types of growth and physical environments that create a sense of civic pride and reflect the interests of all residents; Smart Growth for Brevard seeks to cultivate communities that people are proud to call home; they will be distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place and a clear identity that leaves no doubt where they are; and there are six strategies to the community identity. She noted the strategies are there for different governments to pick and choose from; they can choose to modify the strategies or only use one or two of them; the first strategy is to encourage preservation or adaptive reuse of historic, architecturally significant, or blighted buildings; and abandoned or blighted buildings drive down property values, create an atmosphere of economic decline, and invite crime. She stated reusing the buildings maintains the cities’ character and boosts civic pride; certain old buildings also provide a visible link to the past; clusters of revitalized buildings can be the backbone for special districts that may advance tourism or other economic development activities; and the second strategy is to create active and safe open spaces, providing opportunities for community interaction. Ms. Thompson noted open spaces like pocket parks, courtyards, gardens, playgrounds, plazas, and squares contribute to a sense of community; open space can be designed and managed in a manner that encourages a sense of shared ownership and responsibility; an active community, with people using streets and open space, promotes security by the simple fact that activity is happening; and the third strategy is to define communities and neighborhoods with visual cues that reinforce their unique sense of place. She stated visual cues help visitors and residents distinguish one area from another; the cues act as focal points that work to attract pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers to commercial or entertainment activities; visual cues can range from subtle to strong; and subtle cues are things like light posts and street signs, flower beds, trees and shrubbery, benches, awnings, or unique paving of streets and sidewalks. She noted strong cues include distinctive building facades, unique signage, clock towers, town squares, murals, fountains, and monuments; many residential neighborhoods choose to be identified as front porch communities, where people gather outside their homes to interact with their neighbors; the fourth strategy is to enact clear community design guidelines so that streets, buildings, and public spaces work together to create a sense of place; and in order to do this, there needs to be education and involvement with the community. Ms. Thompson stated it can be done through workshops and community visioning exercises where stakeholders are introduced to the benefits of good design; planners, architects, historic preservationists, and developers can present design principles that will enhance, protect, and maintain community character; the fifth strategy is to plant trees and other native vegetation throughout communities and encourage the preservation of existing trees during new construction; and trees are a significant part of a community, contributing strongly to its sense of place. She noted people often identify with their own neighborhoods by their tree-lined streets; a visitor’s first impression of a community is greatly influenced by trees and other landscaping; trees are an important economic asset to a community, building a positive image that is a key factor in attracting residents, businesses, and visitors; and communities can adopt and enforce policies and regulations that will protect the scenic, environmental, and economic benefits of trees. She stated the last strategy is to minimize visual blight through appropriate location and camouflage of telecommunication towers and through improved control of billboards; the visual character of a community is essential to quality of life and long-term economic viability; the explosive growth of wireless communication and intense competition among providers has resulted in companies quickly erecting towers without proper regard to their impact on local areas; and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits communities from banning towers; however, local communities can decide where towers should go and take steps to protect their scenic character. Ms. Thompson noted communities can implement strategies for control of the height, placement, and visual impact of cell towers; sign control is also an integral part of maintaining quality; uncontrolled billboards can disrupt a community’s distinct visual character; and communities can implement strategies for outright bans, removal through amortization, or exchanges of billboards. She stated logo signs and tourist-oriented directional signs are alternatives that can direct people to destinations and services without marring the area’s visual quality.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the problems the County faces with the first strategy is that much of the Building Code is directed toward today’s standards; in an existing area, whether it is a redevelopment area, Cocoa Village, or downtown Titusville, it is stuck with a Code that requires drainage and parking if any type of redevelopment is going to be done in the area; these areas are historically significant and should retain the façade they have without creating an obstacle toward redevelopment of the buildings, whether they are blighted or not; and it is what adds to the character of a neighborhood. He noted the issue the County has is trying to adapt current Building Codes to make them more user friendly so it can adopt the first strategy on redeveloping blighted or architecturally-significant historic buildings; it is a dilemma the Board faces; he is wondering if Ms. Thompson’s group can focus on the first strategy, provide alternatives toward the existing Codes, including how the County can get around them, without having an in-house battle with staff in dealing with the book it has as a guideline and follows; and perhaps the group can come back with suggestions on how the County can attain the goal of implementing strategy 1 without the obstacle of the current Building Code.

Ms. Thompson stated it is something the Code people are going to have to work with; they have
to understand there are exceptions; and it is something that is going to have to be worked around.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he understands; the strategy is great; the implementation part of it is what he would like to see attached in particular to strategy 1; strategy 5 is to plant trees throughout communities; and he likes trees and advocates doing the best to keep them, but the hurricanes have shown people that some trees have gotten beyond their height and girth limitations, and have blown over. He noted the Code says people should try to build around beautiful trees, but so many of them have blown over because of their size; he did not realize that the oaks have such a shallow root system; and he thought they had a tap root and were anchored to the ground. He stated some magnificent oak trees were lost in his neighborhood; they must have been 50-plus years old; they were beautiful trees, but are gone now; and he has a bit of a dilemma saying the County needs to encourage the preservation of existing trees because of their size, then they blow over, and there has been gerrymandering onto the property trying to build something. Commissioner Pritchard noted it might be better to encourage the planting and landscaping of a site and not put as much emphasis on the existing tree only because come the next storm the tree may blow over; and if someone has designed a facility on a site because of this and along comes an act of God, then the tree is there no longer.

Ms. Thompson stated she agrees with Commissioner Pritchard; the hurricanes opened up a lot of people’s eyes; there has been a lot of discussion on the issue in the Titusville 2020 meetings also; and developers a lot of times have to take out the trees. She noted in some cases developers need to plant trees back; the hurricanes change perception; when preserving trees they may not be right next to the house or street with the power lines next to them; and the whole perception of preserving trees shifted because of the hurricanes. She stated it does not mean people cannot work to do it, but they are going to have to do it in a different way than they did before the hurricanes.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it opened his eyes to the damage; being a South Florida guy, the oaks tended to survive, but the ficus and banyan trees would blow over regularly; he was surprised to see the amount of damage the County had to the oaks and red maples; and it is a dilemma it faces. He inquired how can it create a canopy that is going to be appropriate and attractive without planting it under power lines, or next to buildings, sidewalks, or fences; stated when it reaches a size where the root system has undermined the structure and it falls over, there goes the fence, sidewalk, or corner of the house; and when the tree gets tall, there are power lines through it. He noted there is a limit to what the County should require because of what the next effect is as the tree matures. Ms. Thompson stated she agrees with Commissioner Pritchard 100%.

Commissioner Colon thanked everyone who was part of the process and discussion regarding underground power lines; stated there is sensitivity from everyone in the community as they have seen what has happened with the hurricanes; people who are very knowledgeable of trees can try to help the County and advise which kind of trees made it through the hurricanes; and she had a 100-year old oak tree in front of her home that came down and damaged her roof.

Commissioner Colon noted discussion of underground power lines and where such lines are being put is extremely important; and perhaps the County will not be as strict as it once wanted to be, such as where all the trees were going to go, how many trees, etc.

Ms. Thompson stated she only gave the Board a brief summary; underground utilities are addressed in the document; and there is more in-depth discussion on implementation of the different strategies. Commissioner Colon expressed concern that it needs to be done quickly; stated the County is still going with the guidelines from before of “x” amount of trees, etc.; and inquired what if it is going to damage buildings. Ms. Thompson noted the hurricanes brought an awareness as to the need to get some things accomplished; thanked the Board for letting her speak to the issue; stated she is one of the few people who have been involved from the beginning; and Commissioner Carlson has been involved also. She advised they have been working on the issue for four years now; and introduced Teresa Monroe, who will talk to the Board about community involvement.

Teresa Monroe stated she is a community volunteer and member of the Land Use and Growth Project Team; stated when the Team held forums these past six or seven months, it heard from the community that they want to be asked their opinions about how their segment of the larger community should grow; and they also want to be told what is going on, how something can potentially affect them, why and how it is being done, and to be educated on the principles of smart growth and the terms. She noted many of those terms are new to people; the community wants to be kept informed from start to finish; it fits very nicely with the goal the Team had set up for community involvement, to promote the education and motivation of the community to address specific needs and concerns through early, frequent, and continuous involvement; and the first strategy is to encourage a comprehensive planning process by gathering community input and conducting community visioning exercises to determine how and where neighborhoods will grow. Ms. Monroe stated involvement at the beginning is very important; growth can create great places to live, work, and play if it responds to the community’s own sense of how and where the community wants to grow; the community must reflect its unique demographic makeup and the values it uses to frame the planning process; and it can only be insured if the cross-section of residents and their development priorities are well known. She noted the use of visioning tools can improve understanding because a standard, agreed-upon process of the way planning decisions affect citizens is used; the traditional development process allows for some of this input through periodic public hearings on planning or zoning; while these are useful, there are many other opportunities that can get out the values and concerns of all the citizen stakeholders and development that can help shape their community; and one way to resolve difficult development decisions is to engage a community in brief, intense four to seven-day design sessions that address specific urban problems or broader community visions. She stated citizen advisory committees often attract individuals knowledgeable about specific types of projects; neighborhood councils represent an institutionalized mechanism for direct public involvement in comprehensive planning and civic issues; early engagement by developers and builders can help insure community plans are economically feasible and attractive enough to insure active private sector participation; and in many cases involving the public is contentious and messy because of the diverse ideas and priorities among the stakeholders. Ms. Monroe stated community collaboration creates a sound basis for creative, speedier resolution of development conflicts that can help make development decisions more timely, cost effective, and predictable; the second strategy is to use creative methods to educate and inform all stakeholders about the development and decision-making process; the education process can be time consuming, frustrating, and expensive, but it is absolutely vital; and to insure full access, key informational and proposed development decisions should be translated into the language and context of the area residents and speak to their specific community needs. She noted common methods for reaching broad audiences might include placing meeting notices in local papers, directing mail to individuals and groups, and leaving copies of documents in public offices and libraries; evening and weekend neighborhood meetings to present information or updates are also a good thing to do; in addition to standard methods of communication through various news media outlets, a variety of organizational and community websites can be used; and opportunities exist to present to citizen and public service groups publications and company employee newsletters online and print. Ms. Monroe stated there can be use of municipal and County communications methods, including billing inserts, websites, and other outreach methods, such as SCGTV and participation in community events and festivals; if local officials and neighborhood activists have little experience or previous exposure to smart growth, graphics and architectural renderings can give a rough picture of what a project looks like, but perhaps a better way to demonstrate smart growth’s potential is to walk through a completed smart growth project; and it is proven to be effective in letting local officials see how density, design, and transportation all work together in cities that have implemented smart growth. She noted this approach helps stakeholders understand the real world implications of smart growth and can debunk common myths and misunderstandings about traffic, parking, and public services; and citizens can play a role in the process of reviewing development decisions through their own advisory councils and neighborhood councils. She stated another creative method could be to engage children through education and outreach; one way might be to work with the School Board to encourage teachers to expand their environmental education curriculum to include local land issues and plans; children can learn the vocabulary and tools to understand how development impacts the natural world and what they can do to influence the development process; and they can teach their parents about new issues, innovations, and solutions. Ms. Monroe stated the third strategy is to seek technical assistance when developing a public participation process; the Team has found such strategy to be very useful; and the development approval process can result in a heated exchange between developers and representatives of adjacent neighborhoods. She noted while it may seem costly, it is often much more efficient and effective to engage information experts early when seeking to involve the public; in addition to the private consulting sector, there are many public organizations and colleges and universities that can provide technical assistance, including federal, state, and local government organizations as well as non-profit groups and clubs; and a common thread among the smart growth organizations that provide consulting services is the ability to connect core areas of expertise, such as farmland protection or schools with related disciplines, to develop comprehensive plans for communities and regions. She stated the fourth strategy is to work with the media to disseminate planning and development information on a regular basis; often the public does not understand how its everyday activities influence growth management issues or how planning or smart growth could relieve some of the problems and improve the quality of life; partnerships with the local media can open the door to regular publication of land use meetings and activities with follow-up coverage of community response and actions; and the greatest impact will be made when these issues are covered in a regular column or through a series of recurring feature stories that take the time to unravel the complex web of individual public and private decisions, and the cumulative changes and the quality of life that can result from smart growth. Ms. Monroe noted planning is a complex process that typically results in one large document, spelling out all the history, future trends, design details, and requirements; as useful and necessary as these documents are, they tend to be ineffective when a quick reference or succinct planning statement is needed; media outlets are skilled at delivering community-related information to a diverse audience; and visualizing complex concepts via local media can be a boon to increase community involvement. She stated the fifth strategy is to cultivate relationships with schools, universities, and colleges as resources for intellectual capital and research assistance; the strategy reiterates the use of expert assistance mentioned under strategy 3 specific to the wealth of knowledge available via the academic community; recognizing the shared benefits of working together, many universities, colleges, and schools may be willing to assist local governments in addressing smart growth issues; and the Team found that to be true. She noted the insight provided by professors and instructors acting as academic experts can enrich local government planning processes with original ideas and different perspectives; the academic community can facilitate outreach sessions with developers, local government officials, lenders, public health experts, and citizen leaders to identify barriers to Smart Growth and solutions to overcome them; the real world process of local government decision-making is an opportunity for applied student learning and participation through community-based projects; and students can conduct surveys, statistical analyses, and economic impact studies, as well as assist in media production. Ms. Monroe stated for example, students from the University of Central Florida’s Public Administration Department conducted an incorporation study for the community of Port St. John; as stated quickly this morning, the means of engaging the Brevard community and stakeholders are myriad in a range from early stakeholder input and community plans through visioning processes to ongoing feedback and evaluation of the plans implementation as the projects are constructed; and the basic message received from the forums is to engage the community early and often, and provide the information and tools they need to incorporate Smart Growth in a way that preserves the uniqueness of their particular city or neighborhood, while giving them the opportunity to demonstrate their participation in achieving larger Brevard community land use goals.

Commissioner Colon stated she is not new to community involvement; she has been holding town meetings for almost 10 years; if the citizens felt she had a biased opinion before she went in, her perception and credibility would be gone; and the County needs to be extremely sensitive to that in the community because the other groups will not open up and will feel the Board has taken sides. She noted it does not have to be controversial; after holding meetings for almost 10 years she believes she knows what she is talking about; and people have more in common than they think.

Ms. Monroe stated she can understand how Commissioner Colon can feel that way because Brevard Tomorrow battled that perception on a continuous basis; a lot of it was because there were misunderstandings and misperception; when Brevard Tomorrow did its first forum in Viera it televised it to try to reach more people; and there were about 40 people in the audience present at the forum. She noted individuals were on the other side of everything Brevard Tomorrow was presenting; they were more property rights type of people, but as they were listening to the presentation they realized they were not hearing what they thought they were going to hear; they came to the podium and spoke against and were confused or concerned about what Brevard Tomorrow was presenting as far as smart growth; but by the end of the session Brevard Tomorrow had turned them. She stated later in the week one person who was concerned and was not sure about Brevard Tomorrow appeared on a live radio talk show program praising the organization about what it was doing; it was pleased about that; Brevard Tomorrow is not here presenting only its five or six opinions; and it has been a long process of trying to bring in as many people as it can. She noted it is continuous and Brevard Tomorrow has to keep trying because it is frustrating.

Commissioner Scarborough stated at the last zoning meeting the Board decided to undertake two small area plans; it is recognizing the need to bring the community together to look at these things; however, the dynamics of a zoning meeting are extremely frustrating as there may be 100 people who have five minutes each to speak, and they get scared and say they are opposed to the project. He noted the public hearing process and the way it is structured under the law is quasi-judicial; and all the parameters that are thrown into it lead to a difficult process to taking possibly a very good project and identifying certain key elements in it that would make it acceptable to staff and the community, as opposed to packing the room downstairs and having many people come to the podium and say no. He stated it is a legal question; for a while the Commissioners could not visit with people, but now they legally can and have to disclose it; but the concept of the quasi-judicial under the law leads to an adversarial process that is not conducive to the result that is being addressed. He noted the Board can give some directions, but it does not make it happen; it is somebody who wants to move to Brevard County or would like to live in a particular area; someone can take a piece of property and find the financing and people to invest in the project; and it is a market-driven process in a capitalistic system, which is perfectly okay. He stated throwing planning with government involved in it in a quasi-judicial process does not lead to the nice results that he shares the vision of; many times in binding development agreements things that would not have worked are totally acceptable, including a different setback or entrance; and all of a sudden people say that is fine. Commissioner Scarborough noted those types of abilities to bring people together are critical in making any sense out of a process because it is not in the small area plan, but at the zoning meeting where there is the greatest objection; and he does not know if other people have the same observation.

Ms. Monroe stated in the discussions and when going through the strategies, Brevard Tomorrow asks what kind of guidance it can give from its research for some of these barriers; some of them are legal or legislative barriers to doing some of the things it wants to do; the Committee will not be able to solve them all, but it has done research and knows that other areas and communities have incorporated and gotten changes that have eliminated or at least reduced some of the barriers; and it is a big education process, not only for public officials, but for community citizens to find out this is what they want but this is keeping them from getting what they want, and how can the barrier be removed or changed. She noted it is time consuming and flies in the face of getting some things done quickly; and she does not have an answer specifically, but somebody somewhere has probably done what the County wants Brevard Tomorrow to do.

Commissioner Carlson stated when reading through the Smart Growth information, the one overriding adjective heard is flexibility and how to make government more flexible in its zoning rules so it can accommodate the multi-use Smart Growth principles; if flexibility on the government side and education on the community side can be brought together, it can be done in a nutshell; those are the two most difficult things; and the community has a lot of things they are doing in their lives and do not have time to be completely educated, so when they come to the zoning meeting they are coming very defensively. She noted it is difficult to get over that unless the communication is kept going; that is what Brevard Tomorrow has been talking about in terms of community involvement; there are many ways to bring in the community; and she has tried several different ways as a Commissioner, and the other Board members have also.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County could have the best overall small area plan in the world; if a developer comes in and there is one place where his entrance is or one place where something is set back, it is the burning issue, which is why everybody is opposed to it; until it is on the table, all the Board hears is no; and it is that specific detail and problem to be solved, and then all of a sudden everybody says they are in favor of it. He noted somehow the zoning process is the one the County is getting snagged on; it is doing a good job in getting the small area plan; perhaps there is a way to back a developer off when there is a problem rather than tabling the item at the zoning meeting; and it creates tension and everyone can feel it at every zoning meeting.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the City of Titusville is requiring the developer to meet with the community; there is certain criteria under which he or she must do that for large projects before he or she can come to the Council; she does not know how it is working as the City has only been doing it for a few months; and it is an option for the Board to consider.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if there is a project with no problem and everybody is happy with it, that is one thing; but people can tell if there is a problem at a zoning meeting; there were all kinds of problems with the Lucas item in his District; and the applicant met with the community, and by the time it was finished he was getting emails from the community to approve the item. He noted this is the way to do it, do not take it to the Board first, but solve the problems first.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it would eliminate a lot of the combativeness at the zoning meetings; the way it is structured is not working as well as it could; the City of Titusville might be on the right course; and what the Board ends up with inevitably is the community and developer come to the meeting and leave with instructions to discuss the issues. He noted there are people in the community that think County government or municipal government should operate like a homeowner association and be that restrictive; that is where the County makes a mistake and should not micromanage; it should have an overall policy and a view of what the big picture is; it should not get into where the gate is located and what color to paint the house; and government should not operate like a homeowner association.

The meeting recessed at 10:30 a.m. and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.

Mr. Busacca stated he has been on the Land Use and Growth Committee and with Brevard Tomorrow since their inception; the Smart Growth document was put together by a number of people with widely ranging issues and agendas, who have come to a consensus; it was put together to educate the community, which was the primary goal of the Brevard Tomorrow strategy; and next year Brevard Tomorrow’s primary focus will be to educate and involve the community. He noted there are seven principles; each principle has a specific goal; there are a number of strategies under the goals; and such strategies are to be adopted as chosen by the specific community. He stated the community identifies itself; Brevard Tomorrow is not saying a particular municipality is a community; it could be as large as the entire County and as small as a small development; and the community would use the strategies it chooses to implement what it wants to look like and what it wants to be in the future. He noted the strategies are not codes or implementation plans; the text under each of the strategies in the document provide some, but not exhaustive examples of the kinds of things that could be used to implement the strategies; and it is a guidance document to be used. Mr. Busacca stated the term “County” or “Brevard County” is used in the document; it does not mean the Board, but the entire County, including all the municipalities; Brevard Tomorrow wants them to be involved in the process as well and they have been; and it will be meeting with the municipalities also. He noted within Brevard Tomorrow there is another work group called economy that is dealing with the issue of jobs and how to induce economic growth in the County; economics of land use is about the economics related to the decisions of growth; it is assumed that when finished, organizations such as the Board will be using the guiding principles and strategies in making decisions about development; and economics of land use has to do with the economics of those specific decisions. Mr. Busacca stated the goal under the principle of economics of land use is to promote growth, maintenance, and renewal of diverse communities that are self-sustaining and support a quality of life that respects all the attributes of communities in Brevard County; the first strategy is to incorporate or include all the up-front development costs at the time of development; the Committee is suggesting when decisions are made for a particular development approval that there are a whole series of up-front costs; and inquired do all of the agencies that make those decisions know what all of those costs are. He noted all of those costs should be known when making that decision; how they will be paid for will also be part of that decision-making process; strategy two is to pay for the long-term costs that are needed to maintain the infrastructure required for the development; and the Committee is suggesting it should be part of the initial decision-making process. He stated the third strategy is to encourage a mix of uses that provide or generate long-term revenue sources needed to maintain the communities; there are multiple segments, including residential, commercial, industrial, etc.; it is that mix of uses that will generate the revenues that will make it self-sustaining; when individual decisions are made, the bigger picture of the community should be looked at and how it supports or does not support the ultimate economic viability of the overall community; and it should be part of the decision process to approve that particular developmental decision. Mr. Busacca stated the fourth strategy is to encourage a mix of job types that support the diverse mix of residents within the community to ensure that all levels of skills are employed; the economy group is working diligently on this; diversity is an important thing in ultimate long-term sustainability; and if the County only focused on one type of job level, it would have a whole segment of the community left out. He noted when a development decision is being made the overall decision should reflect how it affects the job set, is the County encouraging that diversity of job set to make sure everybody has employment, and can that kind of information be included in the decision-making process. He stated strategy 5 is to integrate various components, such as residential, commercial, and recreational to maximize their economic interactions; it includes looking at the mix of the kinds of things that would go in a particular community and how they interact economically; and one example would be if an entity was going to approve a marina, what are the kinds of economic components that would interact with it. He stated a lot of this had to do with transportation; if the economic components that are going to interact are close together, it is going to reduce the overall plans for the infrastructure for transportation; strategy 6 is to evaluate and where appropriate, create special improvement districts for focused investment; and if there is an area that the community wants developed in a particular way, this is one strategy to use. He stated it can be used as a special improvement district, which requires that group of people to say they are responsible for that development, including the economics and viability of it, and they are willing to pay for it. Mr. Busacca stated strategy seven is to implement a program for identification and disposition of vacant or abandoned buildings; there are a number of places in the County or in any particular community that might have an area that has had an economic downturn, with abandoned buildings and blight, which are not good for the community; and the Committee is suggesting those communities identify the areas they would consider to be abandoned and blighted, and try to figure out the disposition.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the problems he has noticed is that there are neighborhoods that are not generating enough tax to sustain their own neighborhood; they are recipient neighborhoods; it takes other neighborhoods and commercial in order to provide enough dollars to support the infrastructure in the neighborhoods that are not at a level where they are maintaining their own neighborhood; and frequently it is the people in the neighborhood that are recipient neighborhoods who seem to complain the most about other growth in the County. He noted it is a dilemma because the County tries to explain that it has to have certain growth in order to maintain a quality of life, but a certain neighborhood is not paying for that level of quality of life; some do not seem to understand and it is a humanistic issue; the County recently had folks in one neighborhood with seven units to an acre trying to tell others how they should live their lives; and they indicated the County needed to reduce growth, but they had seven units to an acre in their neighborhood. He stated he brought up the tax bills in the neighborhood; one generates $80.00 a year, which does not pay for an employee in the County for one day’s work; yet it seems as if those are the folks who are making the most complaints and indicating the County should have almost a no-growth philosophy; and he is not too sure how to get to those individuals without insulting them and making them realize there is no such thing as a free ride. Commissioner Pritchard stated people have to contribute toward their own existence; when someone is contributing $80.00 a year in County taxes, they are not contributing toward their own existence; and inquired does Mr. Busacca have any suggestion on how to get that message out where people would actually listen.

Mr. Busacca responded he would go back to the community involvement principle; whoever needs to deal with this needs to pull together the group, do some education process, and get them involved in discussions; it is a time consuming and energy intensive process; but only through that interaction will it be accomplished. He stated the issue of doing it in a formal setting is not conducive to doing that; time needs to be spent in the community on a one-on-one basis; it may not be the Board that does it in a formal way; and it may be staff or a community organization like Brevard Tomorrow that may help do it depending on what the particular issue is. Mr. Busacca noted the issue is going back into the community and getting some education and getting dialogue.

Commissioner Pritchard stated a lot of it seems to be the battle between the have and the have nots; the people who have oceanfront property that has been severely damaged by the storms generate a tremendous amount of the County’s tax base; he has heard it is as much as 80% of the county tax base in some counties; and he does not know what it is here, but is trying to find out how much the beachfront community generates, especially those along the ocean’s ridge. He noted the folks that do not own that property say the rich people can pay for themselves; those “rich” people, and not all are, are willing to pay for restoration of the dune system; but they are battling either the State, FEMA, or County requirements that say they cannot do something because of this, that, or the other; and the people who seem to come out in the newspaper and in public are the ones who are living seven units to the acre and are not paying for themselves. He stated the people living on the beach are the contributors; he has used Cecil Fielder as a good example of that; his house in Suntree at one time was generating $42,000 a year in taxes; he probably received $3.00 a year in services in terms of police, fire, etc.; and the people talking against him are contributing $80.00 a year.

Chair Higgs inquired is Commissioner Pritchard suggesting that people do not have a right to speak their voice. Commissioner Pritchard responded people have a right to speak their voice, but people need to realize just what type of voice they are speaking because the community itself is supporting the ones through the growth and expansion of tax bases to provide a level of quality of life to them that they are not generating themselves. Chair Higgs stated everybody has a right to speak and say what they want, regardless of their economic circumstances. Commissioner Pritchard stated they need to realize that their economic circumstance is pulling from the community; and they should not be talking out against economic circumstances that are enhancing the community. Chair Higgs noted anyone can talk out about anything. Commissioner Carlson stated it is freedom of speech. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not object to freedom of speech; and Chair Higgs is taking this to an area that is not what he is talking about. Chair Higgs stated Commissioner Pritchard is saying that people do not have the right to speak. Commissioner Pritchard noted people have the right to speak; he is saying the people who are speaking out against economic development are not contributing toward their own quality of life; the right to speak is one issue; but speaking out against someone who is trying to restore or develop a property because they do not want to see growth goes against how the County is able to provide a service that they demand yet are not in a position to pay for. Chair Higgs stated last week there was a cross section of folks at the meeting; the people who live in the community spoke one way; those who owned property but did not live there spoke another way in regard to the proposal before the Board; and everybody has a right to speak. She noted there were speakers from outside Brevard County who spoke; they do not even vote in the County, but they have a chance to speak; there is a system of government that allows them to speak, as well as everybody else; she finds it troubling that everyone’s voice is not respected in the process; and she thought that is what community involvement was all about, allowing everybody to speak.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Chair Higgs is taking this into a classic example of Democrat and Republican philosophies; the County is not a democracy; it is a representative Republic; and the framers did not want a democracy because it does not need a king. He noted what Chair Higgs is talking about is philosophically different from where he was going with this discussion; he is simply saying the County cannot have a group in the community say to another group in the community they do not want to see enhanced growth or this or that; a comment made by the folks in the seven unit to an acre community was that they wanted to see pasture; but if they want to see pasture, they can buy an acre of property. He stated the people who own the property wanted to have one unit to an acre, which they thought was reasonable; his point is the folks, through their level of economic circumstance, are relying on others to fund the benefit they are enjoying; he does not have a problem with that in that they are enjoying a benefit they are unable to afford; but it has to be paid for by someone; and they should not be denying someone the ability to pay for the benefit they are enjoying. Commissioner Carlson stated therein lies the reason for education. Commissioner Pritchard stated the problem there is in going back to the numbers Mr. Fletcher presented, there were 224 participants out of 500,000 in the community; 80% of 80 people agreed to support Smart Growth, so 64 people out of 500,000 in the County support Smart Growth; the reason for that is because it has not become personal; and as soon as it becomes personal then there is the zoning meeting and the people show up. He noted unfortunately the community is busy earning a living and they do not have time to come to the meetings; he was part of the 100-member group and was able to attend the meetings, but so many people are either unable to attend or do not care until it becomes personal; and then they care, generally on the negative side and do not want to see something happen.

Mr. Busacca stated the Committee uses those numbers to indicate what it has done so far; what it has done in that concept of education is to get to this document; that again is not the primary focus of this goal within Brevard County; and the primary focus is to educate and inform. He noted that is what the Committee is going to do this year; it plans to go out to a lot more people; that is the primary activity it is going to accomplish next year; and the numbers do not reflect the fact that the Committee is done with education. He stated it was merely to help the Committee determine whether or not it had any kind of consensus out there; and the whole point of the strategy relating to community involvement is to figure out ways to do that.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is not implying that the Committee has not attempted to do that, he is just saying what the response has been; many times there will be a homeowners meeting, and even though there are 100 members in the community, only ten members show up to the meeting and one member does all the work; it is difficult; and people have lives and are involved with other things. He noted what Mr. Busacca is saying makes a lot of sense; it is a shame that more people have not become involved so that they know; they will become involved when they feel threatened and it becomes personal; it will not be a positive involvement, it will be a negative involvement; and Brevard Tomorrow will be fighting another uphill battle.

Commissioner Colon stated at the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) meeting yesterday, Polk and Osceola Counties indicated they needed to approve a DRI even though it was 3,000 homes; if not, it would be separated and cause a big mess; but they already have a big mess because none of these intricate various components here are part of it; and the residential with the commercial and recreational components were not part of it. Commissioner Colon noted it is not stopping growth, and inquired is it Smart Growth. She stated perhaps some Committee meetings could be held on a Saturday morning; her town meetings are very well attended, including the beachside and Palm Bay with 80 or 85 people at each meeting; and the people know they have a voice. She stated she was not there to tell them what she wanted, she was there to hear what they had to say; she made sure the meetings were at a time where people who were working could attend; the meetings were usually at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday morning; and strategies 3, 4, and 5 are all critical. Commissioner Colon stated yesterday the vote that took place at the ECFRPC meeting was like, “let’s not stop the developers”; and inquired when should they be stopped and when does someone say they are about to create a problem for I-4. She noted everybody was asking where are the jobs going to be; the response was they were by I-4 so it solves the problem; the homes were $250,000 to $450,000; and there was concern that if the tourism industry would flop, the areas would be rentals. She stated she likes what she is hearing from the Committee, but it needs to be careful; if it wants feedback from the community, it needs to be explained to the community that Brevard Tomorrow is there to hear from the community; she is also concerned because she comes from a municipality; municipalities and the unincorporated area are totally unique from one another, except for Merritt Island; and there is more of a city-type in Merritt Island. She noted people who move to the unincorporated areas want to stay unincorporated; they moved out there because they want to be able to live on five acres; they do not want anybody next to them; and 2004 is not the same scenario as 10 or 15 years ago. Commissioner Colon stated in past years the cities defined their comprehensive plans and the County did also; in 2004 it cannot be done anymore; things need to be integrated; and it is to a point now where the message needs to get to the community to see how they receive it, and they may not want it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated people live in a capitalistic society; the reason why things change with land is because people want to use the land for a different purpose; there are certain intermediate areas, the person who purchases the land, the bank that lends the money, and the builder; and there are economic forces that come into play because there is a market out there, such as baby boomers from the northeast moving here. He noted there are things happening; it is not just here but the whole region; within that context all the County can do is set forth a dialogue; and the dialogue is going to break down to individual zoning actions because the developer is going to look at a particular piece of property and how to make the most money from it at one point in time. He stated it does not mean that is the only way the developer can make money; he can make money multiple ways; and the County needs to have some guidelines or it is going to be in a lost world. Commissioner Scarborough stated not to talk about it is irresponsible; it is better to talk and try to find the answers than to try to ignore finding the answers; as the County moves along it will find there are new questions and different ways; it will make mistakes; and inquired what is wrong with talking and encouraging the Committee. He noted the Committee has given its time and tried to help the County; and the Board appreciates it and thanks the Committee.

Bino Campanini, representing Stottler Stagg & Associates, stated he is a member of the Land Use and Growth Project Team and member of the Board of Directors of Leadership Brevard; the goal for environmental quality is to preserve and conserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas; when people are asked why they have come to Brevard County, ultimately they respond it is the natural resources and quality of life they enjoy here; and the County has the ocean, rivers, and great natural habitats. He noted these natural resources also provide vital commodities such as potable water and clean air; they also enhance the quality of life through recreational activities, such as boating, hiking on nature trails, etc.; the County also has a great resource in its farmlands; and they provide economic and environmental benefits, including vital travel corridors for species and wildlife. He stated there are critical areas that are important to the County’s environmental wellbeing; it wants to manage and maintain them responsibly so they have a long-term future and value; the first strategy is to encourage development/redevelopment within existing urban areas, where infrastructure is available, by providing incentives; and the basic idea is to try and reduce impacts to natural areas, while insuring that existing developments do not become blighted through neglect. He noted the Committee is not saying there should not be development in undeveloped areas; it may be appropriate and a way the County needs to go; there is cost associated with new infrastructure; and natural resources are often modified and sometimes exterminated. Mr. Campanini stated there are ancillary costs, including roads, schools, etc.; one of the strategies is to try and encourage, through incentives, developers to look at and maybe use existing infrastructure or underutilized infrastructure that would be cost and resource effective; possible incentives may be tax breaks, zoning changes, or other financial or administrative inducements to try and have people look at these areas so they can be redeveloped; and it has been done in Cocoa Village and downtown Melbourne. He noted the second strategy is to create a harmonious, interconnected system of Greenways, Blueways, and trails that encourages protection and conservation of natural habitat and open spaces; there are existing programs that provide funding and direction for maintaining natural systems, such as the Greenway and Blueway Programs; maybe there is a way to encourage trail systems within the private sector and private developments to enhance the systems rather than cut them off; the County may want to look at offering incentives to insure these resources remain available; and it is important to not just mandate people to do this, but have some kind of incentive for a private owner to maintain these systems for everyone’s benefit. Mr. Campanini stated the third strategy is to find ways to acquire property when a community has environmental concerns; this addresses the idea that there may be sensitive lands in the community that the community as a whole values; the landowner of these lands, due to special requirements, special systems, or wildlife on the lands, may have his hands tied and may not be able to develop the property the way he wants to; and the use may be curtailed. He noted it may be appropriate in these instances for the County to acquire the lands for the public and maintain them in the long-term, while compensating the landowner for them; strategy four goes hand-in-hand with strategy three, which is to expand use of innovative financing tools to facilitate open space acquisition and conservation; one way is to purchase the lands; and it can be achieved through various tools, such as special assessments, loan guarantees, bonds, and taxes. He stated another approach may be to assist landowners to maintain or manage their own sensitive lands, and encourage the landowner to maintain the land and give him some incentives; and various tools could include tax credits, low-cost loans, and other financial assistance so the land stays on the tax roll and the owner of the lands has an incentive to keep them that way. He advised the fifth strategy is to design and implement zoning tools that preserve open space, and conserve natural resources throughout the region; maintaining open space on public lands provides resources to the community as a whole, but this may not always be possible or desirable; privately-owned lands can also provide open space amenities; and often there are no incentives for this. He stated often there are disincentives and things that make it difficult to do this; zoning tools may include minimum open space requirements for developments; it may allow for additional densities within a development that would otherwise not be allowed, while maintaining an overall lower density for the development as a whole; and zoning overlays involve the use of an open space standard that may be applied in many different zoning categories, thereby encouraging open space while not impacting the ability to use existing density requirements within developments. Mr. Campanini noted another tool might be density sharing where one development is allowed greater density than the zoning would normally allow for a trade of open space with another nearby development; strategy six is to coordinate and link local, State, and federal planning on land conservation and development, and critical environmental issues; all the municipalities are required to develop comprehensive plans, but there is no standardized process regarding decisions about development and conservation throughout the County; and maybe there is some way to get a standardized process so that one decision in one municipality does not affect another jurisdiction next to it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated when he talks about density he talks about people and the amount of people that can be put on one acre or a parcel; if a ten-acre parcel was zoned for ten one-acre home sites, but the developer decided to go for another plan or some way to implement the set figure of ten and do one street with the houses stacked five on a side, and leave all the green space around it, he could perhaps reduce the cost of the infrastructure by having 70-foot lots; he would have one sewer line and the feeds off of it; and there would be less infrastructure design management implementation. He inquired does his philosophy of density meet the Committee’s philosophy of density. Mr. Campanini responded the goal of the zoning tools and what the Committee was trying to achieve was a balance; when someone comes in to develop, it costs money and there are risks involved; developers take a risk when they decide to develop property; and the Committee was trying to get a balance where the developer can still make the reward on his risk, but also provide something to the community that it wants. He stated the Committee wants to make sure the developers get those units where they can make their return on investment, but also get a development that fits in with the community’s needs.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the things Mr. Campanini mentioned was if a developer was to go to the single street concept within the ten acres, that the County could provide an incentive of allowing more density, but he would not want to do that; he would want to keep it ten units for the parcel if that is what it is zoned for, including one-acre lots or 70-foot home sites with a lot of green around it; he also would not want to encumber the developers by requiring them to “manage” the remaining acreage that is now green; and inquired does it fall in the Committee’s philosophy.

Mr. Campanini responded that particular issue did not come up, but the County would want to give the developer some kind of incentive to manage the property because one of the things it does not want to have is all of the open space going to the dogs so to speak. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is already to the dogs and undeveloped, whatever it is it is; it could be orange grove for example, and maybe they just want to keep it as some sort of orange grove, but not a working grove; and it may be forested. Mr. Campanini noted the details need to be worked out; the issue was more of the big picture and how to get to a balance where developers and people on the other side can find a middle ground; the tools were pulled from elsewhere that have been used in different communities; they may not be appropriate for this community; and such tools are examples to let the Board know there are ways to do this. Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the examples he uses frequently is comparing Brevard County to Broward County; Brevard has twice the land and one-third the population, so it is the population that is going to be the critical factor; if that means the County is going to be developing more areas of higher-priced homes, then that is the tradeoff it is going to have to make; and a one-acre parcel may sell for $80,000 or $100,000, but only one house is on it. He noted the house that goes on that one acre is going to be a 2,500 square-foot house; it is going to generate $4,000 a year in property tax; the balance works for the development community in terms of the market of the housing; and there are houses being built in neighborhoods of $1 million. He stated some property is also being sold for $1 million; and some spec houses are listed at $1 million.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he can see a $1 million and a $500,000 condominium, and the value of the property and how it is structured; within that there is incompatibility, so it is not just value, it is the nature of; there was a rezoning in Chair Higgs’ District where someone was going to cluster; and there was no indication it was going to be less value. He noted it was the type of lifestyle; with that purview, the County needs more tools than it currently has; if it just mandates it has the Bert Harris Act and property rights; and it is basically saying it cannot do certain things. He stated if the County goes to the rewarding with the clustering, it is creating incompatibility; he has been told that one of the tools that would be added to the bag is the ability to buy conservation easements, which he does not plan to recommend; with more tools, the County can probably be more creative in answering multiple issues and compatibility to neighbors; and this is probably going to be one of the biggest things the Board struggles with. He thanked the Committee for bringing the environmental quality issue to the community as it is not an easy one.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the people are not objecting to having development take place; they are objecting to the number of units; he is suggesting if there is a ten-acre parcel and the surrounding parcels are one unit per acre, then that would acknowledge that the ten-acre parcel could have ten units built on it; and he does not think the surrounding communities would object if there was the single street with ten houses on it, leaving the rest of it green. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is getting a little bit different reading, but he could be wrong. Commissioner Pritchard stated maybe it is something that could be brought up; people are concerned about the amount of traffic on their street; the remainder of the ten-acre parcel would still be there; and it would still be green and open. He noted he is not too sure the surrounding communities would object to the one street that may have the five houses on each side,.

Commissioner Scarborough stated at the zoning in the Valkaria area there was no indication that there would be a diminishment in the overall value per unit and it would just be on a smaller parcel; and there was no increase in the number of total units, but there was an outpouring of opposition.

Chair Higgs stated there was opposition, but once people understood what it meant, there was a minimum size and the detail was worked out. Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board denied the request. Chair Higgs stated the applicant came back with a minimum size and went ahead on the open space.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the applicant withdrew the application because he realized he could do what he needed to with the Open Space Ordinance; and the County gave the applicant his money back.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County has the Open Space Ordinance it has attempted to use and there are a lot of developers that have attempted to use it; the County still finds itself falling over some of the community issues; there was discussion about allowing clustering and who takes care of the open space around it; and earlier in the conversation there was also discussion about all the different tools that could be utilized, whether it is outright purchase, conservation easements, or a homeowners association, which might want to manage the property, but needs to be educated on how to manage the property. She noted there are a lot of tools in that; some communities may want to do it themselves, some would prefer not; communities such as Suntree have wetlands issues and want to know why SJRWMD does not fix their wetlands because they are overgrowing and creating hazards; and she told them maybe the District and Homeowners Association can work together to help them understand how to manage it if they want to manage it themselves, but there are strict guidelines and the District may not be willing to do that. She stated there needs to be some flexibility on the part of agencies to allow the appropriate preservation or conservation of some of these properties so they can live with the open spaces and understand they are an asset and amenity to the development versus the opposite.

Doug Sphar, community volunteer, stated he will be giving an overview of the housing principle; Smart Growth for Brevard recognizes the demographic diversity in the greater community; from young to old, low income to high income, the community requires a broad range of housing of various types to serve a variety of personal interests and income levels; and the Land Use and Growth Project Team has developed five strategies for furthering the housing goal. He noted the first strategy is to integrate SMART principles into housing programs, which are safe, mixed income, accessible, reasonably priced, and transit oriented; under the SMART initiative, developers are granted fee waivers and other economic incentives, along with expedited permitting, in return for including reasonably priced housing, infill, and redevelopment projects; mixed income and reasonably priced housing goals are achieved through a sliding scale of fee waivers that increase as the percentage of affordable housing increases; and no-step entry for mobility-impaired citizens is an example of an accessibility feature. He stated the project must be within walking distance of public transportation; one-quarter mile is typical; there must be features that encourage walking within the community; and building on transit, the mortgage lender Fannie Mae has the Smart Commute Initiative, which offers mortgage incentives to promote home ownership near public transit and for people who agree to limit the number of automobiles they have in their home. Mr. Sphar noted the second strategy is to encourage affordable housing through effective use of inclusionary zoning; Brevard’s Emergency Management Director recently stated that the hurricanes have caused a problem with affordable housing in Brevard; police, firefighters, and teachers are finding it increasingly hard to purchase housing within the communities they serve; and the objective of inclusionary zoning is to encourage affordable housing as a component of housing development over a certain size. He stated typically builders are given density bonuses and other incentives to include low-market rate housing in their developments; there are standards to insure that design and visual aesthetics of affordable housing are consonant with market rate housing in the development; there are also price control conditions that restrict speculation and flipping of affordable housing; and the third strategy is to encourage a mix of housing that generates the taxes to pay for the services it uses. He noted new housing demands additional infrastructure and services; the public infrastructure includes roads, water, sewer, and stormwater management; public services include schools, fire protection, and law enforcement; and ideally the housing in a community will pay for the infrastructure and services it demands. Mr. Sphar stated it is a complex issue that involves many factors and many of these factors vary with the prevailing economic conditions; the State of Florida has contracted the development of a Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) that communities can apply to help assess the true cost of development; several local communities are already using the model; and the model can help a community craft a strategy for directing growth and funding infrastructure and services. He noted some things they might look at are tax-base sharing, impact fees, and other things Mr. Busacca mentioned earlier; the fourth strategy is to encourage housing in the areas of employment and industry; the redevelopment of brownfields and grayfields provides opportunity for locating housing near areas of employment and industry; and these sites typically are already served by roads, water lines, and sewers. He stated these sites are also good candidates for SMART or mixed-use developments; the higher residential density of the developments encourages public transit to nearby jobs; and there are also governmental and private agency incentive programs for brownfield and grayfield redevelopment. He stated strategy five is to implement a program for identification and disposition of vacant or abandoned housing; vacant or abandoned houses create a blight that can pull down a community; property values decrease, tax revenue decreases, and the cost of municipal services increase; and there are a whole gamut of strategies that include legislative initiatives, targeted investment of federal and state resources, enhanced code enforcement, and expedited transfer of properties to redevelopment agencies.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board had a report by Hank Fishkind that said a house had to sell for about $190,000; not everyone can afford a $190,000 house; and inquired is the suggestion on strategy 5 that if someone has a $350,000 house and a $120,000 house, that the combination of the two would pay for the services that they use. Mr. Sphar responded yes, it would be on the average; the Fishkind model has also been criticized to the fact that it does not properly account for affordable housing; and adaptations are being reviewed to the model to more appropriately recognize affordable housing.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Fishkind model would be an average; if there has to be affordable housing, there has to be some on the other spectrum to support those that are affordable on the lower end of the spectrum.

Mr. Sphar stated the Committee’s full report says on the average.

Chair Higgs inquired was the County going to get that applied to individual zonings. Ms. Busacca responded staff presented a report, but she does not remember what happened; and she will check into it. Chair Higgs requested staff follow up on it; and stated she remembers the full report and thought the County was going to get it as an example applied to particular items.

Commissioner Pritchard stated many of the strategies are urban strategies; talking about mass transit as a way for people to get to work, the American public does not give up their cars unless they have to; people living in Chicago or New York willingly give up their cars because it is too difficult to park and too expensive to find a parking garage; and they tend to use mass transit. He noted in Brevard County people shy from carpooling unless they happen to work in Orlando; they may leave their car parked somewhere and three or four people get in a car and make the drive to Orlando; the majority of people here are not predisposed to public transportation; and while it is something the County needs to keep as part of the process, he is not too sure it is ever going to utilize mass transportation to a point that the American public is going to be giving up the freedom of having their own cars. He stated for example, tourists can get on the trolley; and inquired how many people took mass transportation to get to Viera today; and stated many times in order to get from Point A to Point B, it takes two days.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he gets most of his concerns about mass transit from the elderly who are traveling for totally different purposes than this mass entrance and exit from a work environment in a city center; it is doctors’ appointments and shopping because they cannot drive; and the dynamics of the County’s mass transit is completely different than the urban area. Commissioner Pritchard stated someone may live in Titusville and their doctor is in Melbourne; and inquired what kind of bus route does the County have from Titusville to Melbourne, and how does someone get from Titusville to the beachside without perhaps doing a transfer to another bus.

Gary Tighe, representing Stratagent, Inc., stated the goal for mixed land uses is to create an atmosphere that allows people to work, live, and play in pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods that are distinctive in character, vibrant, sustainable and an integral part of the Brevard community; before World War II most Americans lived in pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods in rural surroundings; in most of those neighborhoods people could walk where they wanted to walk; and they could get to their job in the course of the day. He noted they were distinctive in character, vibrant, and sustainable; when World War II came along all that changed; after the War, people came home from the European and Asian theatres of war, and started new homes; it began the baby boom, the population expanded, the economy exploded, and the United States had the largest industrial economy on the planet; and jobs moved to urban areas and people moved to suburban areas and commuted into their jobs. He stated roadways were developed to get people from their housing to their jobs; highways expanded into superhighways; pretty soon the air started to smell like gasoline; and it basically gave up the nice, quiet, self-sustained communities for decentralized and highly fragmented communities. Mr. Tighe noted a lot of zoning laws were instituted to maintain this trend; such trend has basically continued for the last 60 years; mixed land use today is still those pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, but such neighborhoods now have to fit into a larger community called Brevard County; and the challenge is how to get the integrated neighborhoods with retail establishments, homes, service organizations, places of worship, and places where people work established within the larger community so that people can have these four or five-block walks to get to their place of employment. He stated there are economic drivers; capitalism has spread throughout the world; it has had quite a large impact throughout the world and on the County; and one of the things that is going to drive the County is the increased consumption levels in China, India, and Russia. He noted what they are consuming more of is automobiles and Hefty bags; those are petrochemical products; spot price on petroleum now is $55.00 to $57.00 a barrel; and that means the price of gasoline is going to increase dramatically. He stated five years from now the County could easily see $3.00 and $4.00 a gallon for gasoline; there are folks who have a strong desire to preserve natural resources and the environment, which is a driver that will lead to doing mixed land use; there is an overburdened transportation structure; and he traveled on one of those this morning, which was I-95. Mr. Tighe noted there is an aging population, not only in Brevard County, but nationally; some of the aging population does not have two cars in every garage; some may use a motorized wheelchair, a walker, or a cane, and have to have walkable distances so they can shop and maintain their quality of life; the first strategy is to identify locations or land use relationships that would be conducive to mixed use development and redevelopment; and two of those, as mentioned earlier, are Cocoa Village Center and downtown Melbourne. He stated there is another one that is interesting, which is the Melbourne Marina; the Marina is in the center; on the east side of it are large condominiums and high rises; there are some restaurants also; and along the north roadway there are businesses, shops, and services. He noted within a couple of blocks of the Marina are two major office centers, so there are places where people can go to work; theoretically, one could live in the Marina area and never have to go very far to maintain a quality of life; and it is one example of a pedestrian safe neighborhood. He stated it is a neighborhood center built on a few blocks of land like the old days before World War II, but it has been placed in Brevard County and fits well into the overall infrastructure; the second strategy is to identify and modify development codes, which encourage the construction of a variety of housing types in close proximity to goods and services; most of the zoning has evolved over the last 60 years, and has basically not encouraged mixed land use; much to the contrary, it has moved away from that concept into more fragmented communities and more zoned communities where there is commercial, industrial, and residential structures; and there are ways around this. Mr. Tighe noted some things that have been mentioned by the Land Use and Growth Project Team have been to use overlay or proposed urban development, and other innovative zoning tools to create residential and retail service centers that compliment one another, and while doing this, employ a consistent design criteria to maintain continuity, scale, and a sense of place. He stated the third strategy is to support subdivision regulations that encourage inter-subdivision connectivity, both vehicular and pedestrian, and discourage the use of arterial roadways as a sole means for inter-subdivision travel; that would require real creativity on the part of planners because the County wants to try to develop pedestrian and vehicular street linkages between single use subdivisions and mixed use neighborhood centers; and it wants to have adjoining trails, paths, and walks within subdivisions to facilitate multi-modal transportation options. He stated it also wants to try to connect mixed use neighborhoods and centers with corridors of intense use, which would mean moving retail and service activities into connection corridors between adjoining neighborhoods; and it is creative use of zoning techniques. He stated the fourth strategy is to identify opportunities to plan for neighborhood schools; and the County has moved away from the smaller neighborhood schools into large mega schools that serve broad areas, which encourages vehicular transportation to get the children to school. He noted the Project Team’s idea is to consider school sites as needed when mixed use development is approved and to foster better communication with the School Board in the decision-making, including integrating school planning along with the community plan. He stated the fifth strategy is to identify grayfields as future mixed use development areas and provide incentives for redevelopment; and this could be under-performing malls, abandoned strip centers, open areas around city facilities like libraries, marinas, and parks, and other areas that might have an ideal opportunity to develop a mixed use development.

Commissioner Pritchard stated recently the School Board wanted to purchase property with a cost of $3 million, but due to scrub jays, it boosted the price to $9 million because of the mitigation it would have to provide; the School Board chose not to purchase the property and purchased property elsewhere; it is going to build a school there; and children are going to be bussed. He inquired how can one identify opportunities to plan for neighborhood schools when there is something as ineffectual as trying to manage a scrub jay population and having to pay excess cost for mitigation; stated it did not stop another developer from coming in and purchasing the property to build a shopping center; such developer had the money for it; but a neighborhood school was not able to become neighborhood and had to move across town.

Mr. Tighe stated the overall problem is there is not a lot of understanding among the general population about what is smart growth, what are some of the tradeoffs necessary for smart growth, and what are some of the things that are driving the County in that direction. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not think public projects like schools should be subject to restrictive uses because of environmental concerns, scrub jays or whatever else; if the School Board wants to build a school, it should purchase the land and build the school, and not have to mitigate $6 million because of whatever the environmental concern is for that property; and it should be a neighborhood school.

Commissioner Carlson stated she would agree; what Commissioner Pritchard is referring to is in her District and there was an issue; part of the problem is the County, city, and School Board working together on the planning theory that if they plan, they will not be having to address the kind of environmental issues Commissioner Pritchard is talking about, and save the schools a lot of money. She noted if the planning had occurred ahead of time, there would not have been the problem they were faced with back then; developers come in and mitigate “x” number of acres because they are going to destroy scrub jay habitat; the rules allow that to happen; and if there is a theory or conservation ethic, which has been demonstrated throughout the Getting to Smart Growth effort, in order to do that there needs to be planning. She stated so much has already been planned; it is difficult to go back and retrofit; and that is going to be the most difficult hurdle to get over.

Chair Higgs stated if the Board had adopted a habitat conservation plan in 1996, it would have overcome that hurdle for the schools and others as well; it has been paying for it ever since; and it would have shared the cost between the developers, landowners, the State, the feds, and the counties.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board cannot go back on what it could have done in 1996; what it has to do is look at today; if the County is looking at neighborhoods and inclusion of a school to make it a neighborhood school, then there needs to be a mechanism that takes the public project out of the mitigation phase; and it is more important to build a school in a neighborhood than to have the price of the school increase to a point where it cannot be afforded and it is moved across town, so now children are being bussed across town instead of walking to a neighborhood school.

Chair Higgs noted Commissioner Pritchard would endorse government not having the same standards for development that the private sector has. Commissioner Pritchard stated when government is using taxpayer money and tripling the cost of something because of a program, and it is bearing on the taxpayer, it should reconsider how much it wants to spend of taxpayer money to implement a project that is to the benefit of the taxpayer, like a school.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has some concern that the private sector would question whether the public sector should operate under a separate set of rules. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is public money that the public sector spends; when the private sector comes in and is willing to spend $6 million to mitigate, it is because their business plan allows them to recoup their money through what they are putting on that property; that is the argument that he would have; and on one side the County is using taxpayer money and in order for it to have implemented the same project, it would have taken the price of the school up another $6 million plus, which would have come out of the taxpayer’s pocketbook. He noted the capitalistic system works when there is a business plan that allows for the purchase of property and then the development of property to pay for it, but on the public side, there is not a business plan, but an ability to go back to the taxpayer and take from them for a service that the taxpayer is requiring; and he would rather keep taxes low and government out of as many pocketbooks of the taxpayers as it can.

Mr. Busacca stated responsive government is the last of the seven Smart Growth principles; the goal of responsive government is to promote Smart Growth policies; County and city governments need to have systematic, coordinated development procedures that give priority to developments that have adhered to Smart Growth principles; the Project Team is suggesting if decision-making bodies embrace this kind of philosophy of using Smart Growth principles, they should reward those organizations and developers that are using them; and the first strategy is to amend development regulations through the County to remove barriers that inhibit smart growth such as setbacks, parking requirements, height, and density. He noted various municipalities within the County all have their sets of standards; it is difficult sometimes for the developer to know exactly what to do depending on where he is going; if there was some standardization and all the municipalities could get together to review the standards, there could be an even playing field; and all those regulations need to be reviewed to see if there can be standardization.

Mr. Busacca stated strategy two is to create a higher level of certainty and speed the approval process for smart growth developments; and if there is a developer or organization that is proposing a development and has adhered to the smart growth principles, the County can say it likes that they have done that and it is going to help them move through the process more quickly than someone who has not provided the data in that long-term planning and community involvement. He stated strategy three is to ensure that community plans are economically feasible and attract active private sector participation; and this does not work unless the economics will work. He noted those people need to be rewarded that have looked at the economics; and if they are feasible both in the short term and long term, it will attract private sector investment. He stated strategy four is to encourage interagency cooperation to facilitate a one-stop-shop permitting process; and there are lots of permitting processes at the County, municipality, State, and federal levels. He stated they do not always talk together; this is a problem for the developers, as it is for the various regulatory agencies; there may be such agencies that have different goals for any particular area; and the Project Team is suggesting the permitting agencies get together to figure out how they can coordinate permitting processes and reward those organizations and developers that are using Smart Growth principles. Mr. Busacca noted if they have done all of those things, followed all of those rules, and pulled the data together, they should be moved through the permitting process more quickly; and it should be able to be done together. He stated strategy 5 is to give priority to smart growth projects and programs that foster Smart Growth in the allocation of federal housing and community development block grant funds; the strategy is very specific; the Project Team recognizes it is specifically a legislative initiative; the rules and regulations criteria that regulate how block grant funds are disbursed are specific and not in the control of the Board or any municipalities within the County; and it is either State or federal level that requires that. He inquired if Smart Growth principles are a good way to spend taxpayer dollars at whatever level, can the County go to those bodies and suggest to them that they include some criteria that allows them to focus or redirect some of those block grant funds to smart growth developments as opposed to not including that; and stated the Project Team recognizes the strategy is something that will be a long-term effort.

Questions and Answers

Mr. Clouser stated meetings are enlightening, educational, and enriching, but not entertaining; the Board is dealing with tough issues and tough questions; it is dealing with real things that affect people’s lives; and it is dealing with a lot of difficult issues today, and is going to eventually have to make some decisions. He noted it is not always a fun or quick process; he appreciates the Board’s involvement, as well as the Project Team; changes are slow to be made when it comes to public policy; and things do not occur overnight. He stated the County has seen a lot of changes; people still want to move to Florida, and after they move here the first thing they want to do is join a stop growth group; it is a difficult process; and the Project Team members that have been present represent hundreds of people and many different organizations. He noted it does not take input from 50,000 Brevard County residents to make a decision or develop a public policy; the Commissioners have been elected to do that in the County for the population of 500,000; there are 160 State legislators that do it for the millions of people in the State of Florida; and it is getting the right people to participate in the process and be inclusive. He stated the goal of the whole issue of Smart Growth is to make the tool bag bigger for the Board as it deals with land use issues in Brevard County in the future; it needs to be careful about generalizations; there are three issues that have to be addressed by the Board; and the Land Use and Growth Project Team needs Board input on the issues as they appear in the Smart Growth book, what changes it would recommend, and its knowledge and input on what is politically possible to do in Brevard County and what is not. Mr. Clouser noted it is going to be critical for the Board to encourage the inclusiveness and participation by other organizations and governmental entities in the County; when the Project Team has been talking about the issue of Brevard County, it is not talking about it in terms of the County versus municipalities versus unincorporated areas versus towns and cities, etc.; it is talking about the collective “we” of everybody who lives within the boundaries of the County; and in terms of getting some of those people who have not been participating at the table, the Board needs to help try to do that. He stated the third thing the Board needs to do for the Project Team is provide input on the timeline and follow-up to the process should it go forward, including has it done enough now; does it appreciate what the Team has done, but does not see it politically feasible to move forward; and can the Board say these changes need to be made and they can be brought back for acceptance, adopted, etc. He stated the Committee is in dire need of input from the Board in those three areas; the Board has the opportunity to discuss the issues today or it could make a decision to come back at another time certain fairly soon to give input to the Committee so it can proceed forward; the Board has asked a lot of questions as the Project Team members have gone along in the process; and if it has any future questions, now is the time to address them. Mr. Clouser thanked the Board for having the workshop today to discussion the issue.

Chair Higgs thanked the Committee for all of its time and bringing the recommendations to the Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has become extremely aggressive in going to the small area; when talking to the community it may talk about the regional community of 4 million people in east Central Florida; the Board has two members that sit on the ECFRPC; and Commissioner Carlson is Vice-Chair of the MPO Alliance, and he and Chair Higgs used to sit on the ECFRPC. He noted he is involved in MyRegion; there was a strip of land that Commissioner Carlson dealt with south of S.R. 528; concerning the divergent community when moving from the Lagoon inland, Commissioner Pritchard wanted a small area plan; and he has a massive problem north of Titusville that is extremely complex and Ms. Busacca is trying to put some ideas together. He stated there are a lot of people who are involved in the regional planning; he believes there are a lot of answers that will come from below and from above; Jeff Wood of the ECFRPC is taking 70 different zoning classifications and trying to make a common language to see what the entire area looks like; and the University of Pennsylvania, one of the better urban planning groups in the nation, will be brought in. He noted it has been done in Brazil and Spain; it is the first time in the United States for this major discussion totally gratuitously with the University’s chief planners through UCF; they are going to show what the regional area is going to look like; and it is vitally important to the Board and community that the Committee continue its work.

Mr. Clouser stated as he has worked with communities as they have worked on planning issues, he has observed a lot of communities getting into problems on the regionalization end and there is a tendency to move toward a one size fits all situation; one of the first ones he got involved in as growth management plans were being adopted in Florida in 1981 was Hamilton County; its planning document, with the same requirements, was due the same day as Reedy Creek Development District; and Disney World has hundreds of lawyers and millions of dollars to work on it. He noted Hamilton County has basically very limited staff; it has a population of probably 16,000 to 20,000 people; there are five commissioners who all work on a part-time job; and no matter what happened, it was impossible for Hamilton County to come up with a plan that could anywhere compare to Reedy Creek Development District, and it should not because there is not a one size fits all. He stated in some areas it may be the small local area; it may be regional in other areas; it may be communities in other areas; and the Board knows the community better than anyone else, so that type of input would be of value to the Committee.

Conclusion

Chair Higgs stated Mr. Clouser has asked the Board about three things; she will take them to the Board to see if it is ready to do anything with it; asking it to come up with changes today would be fairly difficult because it has just received the full document and briefing from the Committee; and it could schedule a subsequent opportunity for the Board to put it on an agenda to endorse if it is its desire.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to have time to digest and comment; he has made quite a few comments here, some of which he thinks can be implemented; others in getting back to urban transportation may be a little premature on trying to do much of that; and even Miami has suffered. He noted it put in metro rail years ago and it really does not work to the extent it would like to see it work; there is a lot of information that he would like to go over again and provide adequate comment; and the Board could schedule another workshop.

Commissioner Colon suggested the workshop be held in January 2005 as it needs to come back fairly soon.

Ms. Busacca stated the Board has a landscape workshop scheduled in January 2005. Commissioner Pritchard stated the proposed workshop can be scheduled two weeks apart from the landscaping workshop.

Commissioner Carlson stated the proposed workshop can be coordinated with the standard January 2005 meeting the Board always has for goal setting and strategic planning, so the two issues could be coordinated and dovetailed in; and she would like to see staff input on a review of what is here.

Commissioner Scarborough noted he is not going to go there; there are other issues besides growth; some people say the environment is not a growth issue, but as far as he is concerned it is; and there are many other strategic issues besides that, and Brevard Tomorrow is touching on them. He stated there are social issues that need to be given an opportunity to be addressed as well, such as the youth, elderly, etc.; those things sometimes tend to be ignored to some extent in a rapidly growing state and region; and he would like to see an opportunity for them to be discussed as strategies for the Board as well.

Commissioner Carlson stated in looking at the document, staff has done tremendous work internally with a lot of that issue.

Commissioner Scarborough noted he wants to make sure there is adequate opportunity to discuss other issues that the Board needs to as well.

Commissioner Carlson stated each Commissioner would review the Getting to Smart Growth document and bring back questions, concerns, or anything after they have digested it, and integrate it with its strategic thought process and goal setting process to see how Brevard County sits as far as its strategic plan goes and what this means from a Countywide perspective; what is critical is the issue with talking to municipalities; and the Board can do all the great policy making and everything in the County, but the cities need to come forward and say it makes sense. She stated everybody needs to be moving in the same direction, but not in a homogenous sense because everyone does not want to be homogenous, but individual and wanting to have identity in various parts of the County. She noted everyone certainly wants to promote positive and clean economic development; the only way to do that is to make some of those lines a little more seamless when it comes to zoning regulations and agency regulations, etc.; it worked in Silicon Valley when she visited ages ago; and she brought it back to the Board and said they have done it out there and managed to promote economic development. She stated that is why money stays out there, but it is a different lifestyle there; the County does not necessarily want their lifestyle, but it wants to be able to move in directions they did not move when it comes to the natural environment; and hopefully the County will have a much better quality of life once it works in all the issues.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to schedule a workshop in January 2005, approximately two weeks apart from the Landscaping Workshop, to focus on: (1) the land use and growth issues as they appear in the “Getting to Smart Growth Book”, what changes the Board would recommend, and its knowledge and input on what is and is not politically possible to do in Brevard County; (2) the inclusiveness and participation by other organizations and governmental entities in the County; and (3) the timeline and follow-up to the process should it move forward. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard suggested the Board do its homework prior to the workshop and provide information to staff to distribute to each Commissioner; stated he does not want to come to a workshop and start talking about where it is; and he would like to have it somewhat identified where it is. Commissioner Scarborough stated every zoning meeting Commissioner Pritchard has attended since he has been on the Board he has been thinking about the issues; and he knows Commissioner Pritchard has plenty of thoughts. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to have those thoughts distributed before the workshop.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve that each Commissioner will provide information on their amendments to the three areas to staff for distribution, including to the appropriate representative of Brevard Tomorrow, prior to the workshop. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chair Higgs stated the Board is going to review the changes and the issue of inclusiveness will be discussed at the workshop.

Commissioner Colon stated the inclusiveness and participation by other organizations and governmental entities in the County is critical; the Board needs to see how the workshop goes first; and then the County can look at encouraging others in partnerships.

Mr. Clouser stated the Project Team has made significant progress; and it is appreciative of the Board addressing the issues through the workshop this morning.

PUBLIC COMMENT - CAROLINE HATTAWAY, RE: DRAINAGE ISSUES

Caroline Hattaway stated she owns property in West Cocoa and pays over $1,600 in property taxes; she has some drainage issues and tried to follow the guidelines concerning them; and when a new home was built next to her, it was built higher than her home. She noted she talked to the Building Department and said she had a problem; it told her there was no problem and it would address it and make sure she did not have a drainage problem; but it decided it was okay and gave her neighbor a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). She stated with the home being that much higher with a 24-inch drop of water onto her property, there is a problem; and she talked to Ed Washburn and inspectors. She stated the resolution was to dig a ditch and allow the water to come onto her property; she said no because she has been there for 11 years and it is not something she should have to handle; she lives in a flood zone and did not have drainage issues before; and now she has up to 15 feet of water in her yard anytime it rains. She noted she has talked to Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca who indicated she would help her; a lot of phone calls were not returned after she was told she would be given information and follow-up as to what was done; a hearing was set for today and she came here for the hearing to discuss the problem; but when she arrived here she found out everything had been complied with. Ms. Hattaway stated there is a 200-foot hill of dirt on her property and her neighbor’s property; when it rains the water comes straight through to her property; there is no drainage to the back; and the water has been allowed to drain on her property.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to meet with Ms. Busacca and Ms. Hattaway to discuss the issue; and inquired if they can meet after today’s workshop. Ms. Hattaway noted she would be glad to do that.

Chair Higgs stated if the issue cannot be resolved, it can come back to the Board; and requested Ms. Busacca provide the Board with a report of the meeting between her, Commissioner Pritchard, and Ms. Hattaway.

Ms. Busacca advised she cannot meet with Commissioner Pritchard and Ms. Hattaway at this time as she has to meet with FEMA at 1:00 p.m.; but she can get staff to meet with Ms. Hattaway if the Board desires. Commissioner Pritchard stated he will talk to Ms. Hattaway.

Chair Higgs stated staff will get a subsequent report on the issue.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
NANCY HIGGS, CHAIR
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_______________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)