February 6, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on February 6, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon; Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Rochelle Kincaid, Eastgate Ministries, Melbourne, Florida.

Commissioner Pritchard led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

DISCUSSION, RE: WITHDRAWN AND TABLED ITEMS

Chairperson Colon stated there has been a request to table Item II.A.2, Carmen Realino, to April 10, 2003 Board meeting at 5:30 p.m..

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item II.A.2, Carmen Realino’s request for change from GU to EU-2 on 7? acres located on the north side of Morningside Drive, east of N. Banana River Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP limiting development to two residential homesites, to April 10, 2003 Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon noted there has been a request to table Item II.A.3, Swiss Lakes Development Corporation, to March 6, 2003 Board meeting at 5:30 p.m.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item II.A.3, Swiss Lakes Development Corporation’s administrative rezoning for removal of CUP Z-5666 for borrow pit in Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Parcels 3 and 19, to March 6, 2003 Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon stated there has been a request to table Item II.A.4, Old Catholic Church in America, to March 6, 2003 Board meeting at 5:30 p.m.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item II.A.4, Old Catholic Church in America’s request for CUP for church in SR zone, removing existing CUP for Residential Social Service Facility on 1.57 acres located on the southwest corner of Florida Avenue and Dairy Road, to March 6, 2003 Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon advised Items II.B.1, Glenn D. Boyer, and II.B.13, John S. and Connie S. Falzone, have been withdrawn by the applicants.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated there is a request to table Item II.B.12, Azan Temple Holding Corporation, Inc.; such request was made several weeks ago; a request for table of a zoning item must occur at the zoning meeting; however, the Board previously considered the request would be coming forward and reserved time on March 4, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. to hear the item. She noted the Board needs to determine whether or not it wishes to table the item to March 4, 2003.

Commissioner Carlson suggested those individuals wishing to speak tonight on the item versus speaking on the tabled date be heard after the Board finishes the other tabled items on the agenda.

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board made at its meeting of May 6, October 7, and November 4, 2002, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0205401) Dianne M. Cullen and Desiree M. Webber’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (02S.5) that proposed to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial; and a change from GU to BU-2 on 1.97 acres located on the south side of Freeman Lane, east of Waelti Drive, which was approved Community Commercial by the Local Planning Agency (LPA) and BU-2 by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Rick Torpy, representing the applicants, stated the item has been tabled several times; at the last meeting, the idea was to try to come to some agreement with the neighbors; such neighbors were represented by Attorney Chris Coleman; and a binding development agreement (BDA) was circulated to Attorney Coleman on January 21, 2003. He noted he has not received comment or dialogue from Attorney Coleman, so he is not sure what the neighbors’ position is; if the zoning is granted to allow the applicants to move forward and continue their project for rescuing the dogs, the BDA is going to provide that within two years, the total population, which is currently less than 75 dogs, will be reduced to 25 dogs; and it is to allow the older dogs not able to be adopted out, to pass on through time. Attorney Torpy delineated a map of the property to the Board; stated the closest residential structure to the property in question is 200 to 300 feet; and explained the County’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM). He stated everything surrounding the proposed property is one type of commercial or another; there was a sand mining plant further north years ago that the Waelti’s operated; the area has always been heavy commercial and industrial use historically; and there is also BU and BU-1 zonings, Government Management Lands (GML), and community commercial. He noted there is no residential zoning; the requested zoning is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan; there is one residential structure that has been built in the area; but with the exception of that home, there is nothing that would make the request inconsistent. Attorney Torpy advised of the conditions included in the BDA, as follows: (1) County shall not be required or obligated in any way to construct, maintain, or participate in the construction or maintenance of the improvements. It is the intent that the parties, owners, its grantees, successors, or assigns in interest or some other association and/or assigns satisfactory to County shall be responsible for the maintenance of any improvements; (2) Owner shall provide a well-maintained fence of height and setback as regulated under the directives of Brevard County Zoning Department, in addition to a buffer of native vegetation. In the event of loss of vegetation, including but not limited to trees, due to damage, disease or natural disaster, such vegetation is to be replaced with native vegetation, which is conducive with Florida wildlife; (3) The property may be used for the purpose of caring for homeless animals with the intent of adoption of said animals, as well as offering rehabilitation and sanctuary for animals in need of long-term care; (4) The property may, at no point, be used for the breeding of any animals and may not be used for the holding, transfer, or sale of animals to retail stores, farmers markets, laboratories, or any other institution, which uses animals for monetary gain, experimentation, or exploitation; (5) The property may be used for medical treatment/procedures and the care of animals as provided under the allowed uses per Brevard County Zoning Department; (6) Owner shall limit ingress and egress to Freeman Lane, an unpaved dirt road; (7) Owner shall comply with all regulations and Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida. This agreement constitutes Owner’s agreement to meet additional standards or restrictions in developing the property; (8) Owner, upon execution of this agreement, shall pay to the County the cost of recording this agreement in Brevard County, Florida; (9) This Agreement shall be binding and shall inure to the benefit of the successors or assigns of the parties and shall run with the subject property unless or until rezoned and be binding upon any person, firm, or corporation who may become the successor in interest directly or indirectly to the subject property; (10) Dogs, off leash, will be kept behind the front building line; and (11) The number of dogs will decrease to 25 within two years.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Zoning Official has reviewed the new BDA; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding affirmatively. Commissioner Carlson stated the two main items are conditions 10 and 11; with Mr. Enos responding they are the two new provisions and the other conditions were in the previous BDA. Commissioner Carlson requested staff review the letter from Code Enforcement for the Board.

Animal Services and Enforcement Director Craig Engelson stated he talked to the Code Enforcement officer that handled part of the investigation; the officer indicated the dogs appeared healthy during the inspection; such officer found conditions inside the house less than desirable; but the dogs and three cats were healthy. He noted there was one complaint since the last meeting, but such complaint was unfounded.

Tim Jenkins, representing Suntree Petite Academy, stated his preschool is located on Waelti Drive, which is the corner property within approximately 400 feet from the subject property; such preschool has been in operation since 1986 and licensed in Brevard County for approximately 75 students; and expressed concern with welfare of the children. He noted he has seen stray dogs in the neighborhood and immediately had to rush the children inside; safety of the children is an issue; he has told the parents about the dogs and they have signed a petition; and such petition was faxed to the Commissioners.

Attorney Chris Coleman stated at the last meeting, the applicants made representations, due to Code Enforcement violations, they were going to reduce the number of dogs and submit a BDA; they were to comply with the County’s other regulations regarding a kennel; the item has been tabled various times to give the applicants sufficient time; and expressed concern that the applicants may not have any intent to comply. He noted the BDA mentions nothing that was discussed at the last meeting about reducing the number of dogs within a certain period of time; Commissioner Higgs gave him a copy of the BDA when he met with her; one of the concerns was that the area is diverse; the neighbors do not believe that is the case; and Freeman Lane only has two structures on it. He stated both structures are single-family homes; one home is the applicants, who is not using it as a single-family home, but attempting to use it for a dog facility; the second home is the Wheelers; and the other properties are residential. Attorney Coleman stated the Stevens purchased their property; the applicants indicated they were taking care of the dogs on an emergency basis; the Stevens bought the property for their retirement home; and they have a contract with their builder, which has been on hold due to the item being tabled for so long. He noted Mr. Johnson’s property is residential; Freeman Lane has no businesses; it is a residential cul-de-sac type neighborhood; there are commercial uses backing up to some of the lots; but Freeman Lane itself is residential. He stated to allow someone to come in after-the-fact is not appropriate; the requested change does not meet the criteria; the applicants do not have the resources, ability, or lot size to comply with the requirements; and to allow the request diminishes property values in the surrounding area. Attorney Coleman noted the Wheelers hear the dogs barking constantly; 70 plus dogs is a lot; the Wheelers are embarrassed to have people over to their house; and they cannot enjoy the outside as the dogs barking is nonstop. He stated there is also odor and noise from the dogs; the neighbors understand it is a difficult decision; no one wants to be in the position of sending the dogs away; and to allow the proposed request is not taking into account the property rights of the surrounding neighbors, and the applicants who moved in as single-family residents into the residential cul-de-sac.

Commissioner Higgs stated at the time she spoke with Attorney Coleman she did not have a new BDA; the new BDA was faxed to the Commissioners today at approximately 11:00 a.m.; and the BDA she gave Attorney Coleman was the one she had in her possession at that time. Attorney Coleman stated Commissioner Scarborough instructed the applicants to get a meaningful BDA to the neighbors in sufficient time to allow input.

Martha Stephens stated in December 1999, she and her husband purchased their property and used their life savings; it was a quiet cul-de-sac residential street; there were two homes on the street at that time owned by the Wheelers and Eloise Waelti; and she and her husband bought their property to build their dream home and have a place for their family to visit. She noted a few months after they purchased their property, the applicants purchased the home across the street; they did not represent anything about a kennel and indicated they would take in a few dogs on an emergency basis; but not to get 75 to 125 dogs. She stated she did not have a problem with a few dogs, but she has a problem now; the area is residential; and a dog kennel has no business in the area. Ms. Stephens stated there is odor from the dogs; there are large cages out front on the property in question; when people were cleaning up the applicants’ property, they were walking the dogs on her property; and there is total disrespect for the neighbors in the area. She requested the Board give she and her husband the opportunity to save their dream and build their home; stated she loves dogs and hates to see any dog destroyed; but this should have never started to begin with.

Laura Wheeler stated she is a property owner on Freeman Lane; there are currently two single-family residences and two people who want to build; there is no commercial accessing Freeman Lane; and it is similar to the Riverwalk area. She noted a nice community can exist within a commercial area; it is country living in a city area; she and her husband built their home in 1984; and they have lived there for 19 years. She stated 16 years were peaceful; it was represented to the neighbors when Ms. Webber moved in that there would only be five or six dogs for a rescue operation; she has had to complain numerous times over the 75 to 125 dogs due to the continuous barking; it can be heard inside of her home at all hours of the day and night; and expressed concern with the smell, defecation, noise, safety of the children, and devaluation of her property value. She noted she is embarrassed by the situation and cannot have people over to her house; there is continual traffic coming onto Freeman Lane with people delivering dogs and food; and as a long-standing resident of Brevard County for the past 19 years, she requests the Board deny the application and protect her existing property rights.

Attorney Torpy provided copies of a letter dated January 21, 2003 to the Board; stated the BDA was sent to Attorney Coleman on January 21, 2003 by fax transmission; so the BDA was not sent yesterday. He noted County staff contacted him and indicated they did not have the most recent copy of the BDA; it was faxed to Mr. Enos when he requested it today; he is assuming that is what resulted in the BDA then being faxed to the Commissioners; and for some reason, it did not get circulated until today. He stated the BDA was in Attorney Coleman’s hands at least three weeks ago; he did not receive any telephone calls from Attorney Coleman concerning the BDA; Mrs. Wheeler indicated that every day she hears barking dogs; however, Code Enforcement indicated it only had one unfounded complaint since the last time the item was discussed. He noted he would complain to Code Enforcement each time he was having a problem with the dogs and being disturbed; however, it has not happened; the area is commercially zoned; he is sorry the neighbors bought property there; and the residents indicating they are trying to create a nice residential community are not credible comments in a commercially zoned District. Attorney Torpy stated the District is in a transition; it is why the Board had the wisdom to designate the area under the Future Land Use Map as commercial in its planning phases; it knew what the area was going to become and transition from rural and some industrial, to ultimately become a commercial area; and it is the appropriate place for this kind of zoning. He noted the Board has no complaints of the dogs doing anything wild, vicious, or attacking children; the attempt to characterize the use as that kind of concern is not credible; this is zoning, consistency, and compatibility; Chairperson Colon has expressed concern that the applicants may not be able to maintain the facility if the rezoning is granted; however, it is not a zoning issue but an enforcement one. Attorney Torpy stated the County has a Code of Ordinances to enforce if people do not abide by such Code, County and State laws, and BDA’s; to deny zoning because the Board is afraid the applicants will not be able to comply with requirements of the Code is not legal or an appropriate issue; some neighbors are trying to change the designation of the area from commercial to residential; and it is not the applicants trying to change the zoning to commercial as it is already commercial. He requested the Board approve the rezoning request as it is an appropriate use; stated it is a great cause to try to help the dogs; the applicants have agreed in writing to reduce the number of dogs to 25; and the compromise is a good one.

Chairperson Colon inquired how the rezoning request came about. Attorney Torpy responded the applicants had intended to create a shelter; the dogs generally cannot get adopted due to age, health, or types; they are destined to be euthanized; and the intent was to take the dogs, provide them an alternative place, take care of the dogs, try to adopt them out, and take care of them until they died of natural causes. He stated the applicants did not realize the need and immediate demand that would be created; it grew out of control at its height of 125 dogs; there are now approximately 70 plus dogs; and they have agreed not to take any more dogs and not let the number of dogs go above 75. He noted over the next couple of years the number of dogs, through natural causes or adoption, would be 25, which is a more reasonable amount; the applicants are trying to work with some of the existing residential uses in the commercially-zoned District; and today the use is clearly inconsistent with what the current zoning is.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is her understanding that no communication has occurred since the last meeting. Attorney Coleman responded that is correct, other than the BDA he received on January 21, 2003, which was different than was represented to him by Commissioner Higgs. Commissioner Carlson noted Attorney Coleman has not had an opportunity to talk to the applicants or residents about the number of dogs to be reduced. Attorney Coleman responded he has talked to his clients. Commissioner Carlson inquired are Attorney Coleman’s clients inclined to want whatever is required under zoning as to the number of animals in the house; with Attorney Coleman responding yes, which is four animals. Commissioner Carlson inquired are Attorney Coleman’s clients willing to move off of that number; with Attorney Coleman responding his clients would not have a problem with five or six dogs, but 25 dogs is a far cry from five or six dogs.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has struggled with the item, as there are quality of life issues with the residents in the neighborhood; even though Attorney Torpy would say it is a neighborhood in transition, it seems to be transitioning to residential and not to what it is in the Future Land Use Map; as the Board represents all the people in the community, it has to listen to both sides; and she is inclined to look for a compromise. She noted the Board has given both sides as much time as it should to come to some sort of compromise; there seems to be no compromise that can be made by them; so it is left up to the Board; and she would agree to the BDA with a few changes. She stated 25 dogs is too many; she is more inclined to go with 15 dogs maximum; and the amount of dogs would be reduced by year and not wait until two years.

Commissioner Higgs inquired when was the Future Land Use Map altered that designated the area a Mixed Use Commercial District.

Planner Todd Corwin responded actual placement of the Mixed Use District on the property was done as part of the original Comprehensive Plan in 1988; and the Mixed Use District was converted to the Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial designations in 2000 and 2001. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there has been a rezoning of the properties to bring them into consistency with the Comprehensive Plan in the area; with Mr. Corwin responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired are there any plans to do that in this area. Mr. Corwin responded the area was included as part of the U.S. 1 Industrial Corridor study; and once the study is complete and the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and zoning amendments are processed, the administrative rezonings would go forward to bring the area into compliance with the Plan per the Future Land Use Element. Commissioner Higgs inquired were public notices given to the property owners prior to the 1988 Comprehensive Plan Amendments or just notices that the Comprehensive Plan was being developed. Mr. Corwin responded individual notifications were a later event; and in 1988, there were newspaper advertisements only.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have a problem with Commissioner Carlson’s idea; the County still has its Animal Control Ordinance, which will apply; and inquired does dogs barking fall under the parameters of the Noise Ordinance; with Mr. Engelson responded that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired has the Health Department been asked to be involved in this; with Mr. Engelson responding Environmental Health was involved. Commissioner Scarborough stated it may be prudent if there is a BDA to incorporate periodic checks as to any violation of health care standards with that number of dogs defecating.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue has been a difficult one; he has been inundated with e-mails that have been supportive of what Ms. Webber and Ms. Cullen have been doing; and the idea of euthanizing every dog that reaches a certain age is disgusting. He noted he has a petition signed by people opposed to the rezoning request; he is trying to weigh the emotional side of the issue with the realistic side; people bought into a mixed use neighborhood, mostly business; but they did not expect to have 75 dogs living across the street. He stated his Chief Aide went to the property and claimed she did not hear any dogs barking; she indicated the dogs were friendly; she did not go inside the house; and he has a report that the inside of the house was awful. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is a Health Department issue; the idea of moving into a neighborhood and having 75 plus dogs across the street would drive him out of the house; it is not an appropriate use of the land; and having that many dogs is not an appropriate use. He noted he is not convinced that 15 dogs is the appropriate number; the current zoning is for four dogs; the rescue that is being done is a wonderful act of kindness, but it is in the wrong neighborhood; and the number of dogs should be held to less than 15. He expressed concern that the applicants have a heart for this, but the issue could become a continuous Code Enforcement problem; stated the Board could be creating a monster issue that is going to tie up County staff for years to come trying to maintain a sense of decorum in a neighborhood that was not designed for this type of facility; and he wishes there was a five or ten-acre plot somewhere that the applicants could move the operation to and keep everyone happy. Commissioner Pritchard stated euthanizing the dogs is something he would rather not think about.

Commissioner Higgs stated the question is not one of dogs or euthanizing them; almost everybody likes dogs; the question is one of land use; and it is the decision the Board makes today. She noted the land use is there; it is a commercial land use; the question is zoning; and the request is to further it in terms of a zoning that is appropriate for a kennel. She stated the question is whether or not the Board is going to approve a change from a GU zoning to a BU-2 zoning, which is an intense commercial zoning, and does it wish to look at a change in the land use map that would allow the more intense zoning. She stated it should not be confused with the questions before the Board of what are the appropriate land uses in the area.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 1 to Community Commercial as recommended by the LPA and BU-2 as recommended by the P&Z Board, with a BDP as submitted, including periodic health care inspections, number of dogs be 15 maximum, reducing number of dogs by 30 per year over a two-year period, the zoning be used only for the usage, and if property changes owners, it could be brought back to the Board; and adopt Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Fifth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2002, 02S.5, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E), entitled The Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these Amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.

Commissioner Carlson inquired can the Board do that; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding it is the ownership that is the problem and it has to run with the land. Commissioner Carlson inquired can staff bring it back to the Board to discuss zoning; stated if the property were to be rezoned, the Board would see it; but if it runs with the land it can only be used for that purpose.

Commissioner Scarborough seconded the motion.

Attorney Bentley stated the applicants need to agree to the changes in the BDP. Attorney Torpy stated the applicants appreciate the motion; instead of 25 dogs within two years, the Board is changing it to a maximum of 15 dogs, reducing the number of dogs by 30 per year over a two-year period; and the applicants have no problem with the other conditions and will agree to those conditions.

Commissioner Higgs stated the property would no longer be a residence and would be zoned BU-2; and the applicants would have to go through a change of use and comply with the standards for a business. Attorney Torpy stated the applicants previously stipulated they would have to comply with all business regulations by Brevard County Zoning Code. Commissioner Higgs noted use of the term “residence” is not proper. Commissioner Carlson stated the time frame to apply is critical. Attorney Torpy noted the moment the zoning is approved, the applicants would need to follow the County Code to apply for the permits and licenses required for the use; and if it is approved tonight, he will instruct his clients to begin the process tomorrow.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff would also like a time frame by which the process must be completed, including all the improvements required and site plan approval. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is a reasonable time frame. Ms. Busacca responded three months is generous on getting the site plan approved and another three months to get the improvements made. Attorney Torpy noted his applicants would agree to the time frames. Commissioner Carlson stated the process Ms. Busacca is talking about would be completed in six months; and the other BDP issues will start today and not wait until the end of six months. Attorney Torpy noted he understands that starts this evening.

Chairperson Colon inquired what happens if in six months the applicants have not complied; with Ms. Busacca responding it would be a Code violation and the County would begin the Code Enforcement process.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion as amended to include periodic health care inspections, a site plan completed within three months, improvements completed within six months, and the number of dogs to be a maximum of 15, by reducing the number of dogs to 45 by February 6, 2004, and to 15 dogs by February 6, 2005. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay. (See pages for Zoning Resolution, BDA, and Ordinance No. 03-06.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
JANUARY 6, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board made at its meeting on January 6, 2003, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0301101) Glenn D. Boyer. Withdrawn by applicant.

Item 2. (Z0301102) William C. and Kim Canavan’s request for change from RRMH-1 to AGR on 4.88 acres located on the south side of Aurantia Road, west of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how much traffic do the applicants anticipate coming to the property. Ms. Canavan responded she and her husband have two preservation-breeding mares; there is only 1% of them in the United States of America; and there will not be any traffic there as it will only be she and her husband.

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

Item 12. (Z0210404) Azan Temple Holding Corporation, Inc.’s requests for change from AU to RU-2-12 on 27.84 acres located on the east side of I-95, abutting the northern terminus of Turtle Mound Road, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Robert Shebar stated he lives on Big Pine Road in Windover Farms, which runs parallel to Post Road; his house is approximately eight houses east of the main entrance of Post Road into Windover Farms; and advised of his opposition to the application even though the proposed use is at the northwest corner of Turtle Mound Road. He noted Post Road is a two-laned road that runs due west and intersects Turtle Mound Road, which proceeds north toward the property in question; the Road is narrow and the area is residential; there is already congestion in such area; and with a use that proposes 334 units, there would be several hundred people and vehicles. He stated people will try to leave the units by transiting through Windover Farms; there are other roads that can access Turtle Mound Road and get out of Windover Farms through the main entrance by going down Sparrow Hawk Lane and Windover Way; and expressed concern that the request will change the quality of life in the development. Mr. Shebar stated Windover Farms is one-half acre and more of single-family homes; it is a well known wildlife preserve; it is a place where people bought homes because they wanted space, and peace and quiet; and they did not want to be infringed upon by an entirely different incompatible use of land in their backyards. He noted everybody in the subdivision is going to be impacted by the addition of this type of use; and requested the Board deny the proposed application as it is incompatible and proposes to change the character of the area dramatically. He stated it is not a suitable place to develop commercial use; and it is the starting point of something that may continue to erode the quality of the area.

Earnest Gaskin concurred with Mr. Shebar’s comments; stated there is a lot of wildlife in the community; such wildlife will deplete with increased traffic in the area; and requested the Board deny the requested proposal. He noted there was a similar proposal last year, which was denied by the Board; and he does not know why the Corporation is trying it again.

Sharon Savastio, President of Windover Farms of Melbourne Homeowners Association, stated the community is composed of predominant working families; a lot of families came in after the meeting began tonight; to continue the item to March 4, 2003 at 1:00 p.m. is going to preclude a lot of people’s opportunity to address the item; and requested the item not be continued to March 4, 2003 and the Board deal with the issue tonight. She requested the item be continued to an evening meeting if it has to be continued so that her community can attend.

Chairperson Colon stated B. B. Nelson requested a time certain for the item and did not request a daytime meeting; and inquired if the item can be heard on April 29, 2003 at a time certain.

B. B. Nelson, representing Azan Temple Holding Corporation, Inc., responded April 29, 2003 will work fine; the Corporation is trying to do something for the children and the hospitals; it does not have any conflict with the residents; and the main entrance to the property will be from Pineda Causeway Extension if and when the facility is built. He noted the Corporation does not mind meeting with the residents; he sold the Windover property to EKS to develop it; the Corporation is not trying to create a conflict with the residents; and he lives on Turtle Mound Road approximately one mile south of the proposed property and one-half mile south of the Windover Farms entrance.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 12 to the April 29, 2003 Board of County Commissioners’ meeting at a time certain. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 6:38 p.m. and reconvened at 6:47 p.m.

Item 3. (Z0301103) Michael and Donna A. Deluzio’s request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1.07 acres located on the southeast corner of Missile Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (Z0301201) Alberto L. and Biviana B. Roman’s request for CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption in BU-1 zone on 1 acre located on the west side of Sykes Creek Parkway, north of S.R. 520, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Robert Beals, representing the applicants, stated the request was recommended for approval unanimously by the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA) and the P&Z Board; and the site plan was approved by the Board several months ago for renovations and improvements.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated she was at a presentation where Prevent of Brevard discussed a youth needs assessment and a survey that was done by the State of Florida; the zoning would provide a CUP for alcoholic beverages; on page 10 of the package she provided to the Board, it compares the 30-day rates of alcohol use in Brevard County to those of the State of Florida; and it is important when discussing CUP’s that the Board reviews the data concerning teenagers and use of alcohol. She noted comparing the 30-day rates of alcohol use in Brevard County to the State of Florida, 29% of young people between the ages of 10 and 14 reported using alcohol within the last 30 days; in the State of Florida, that statistic is 21.9%; in 15 to 17-year olds, 51% in Brevard County reported using alcohol in the last 30 days; and the statistic is 44% in the State of Florida. She stated page 17 shows liquor licenses issued for 100,000 people in Brevard County is 390 per capita ratio; Dade County is 252; Lee County is 3.26; and Brevard County takes CUP’s routinely, but it is interesting to look at its licenses per 100,000 people. Commissioner Higgs noted on page 5, the statistic in regard to the gallons of beer distributed per person in Brevard County and the State shows the County is at 24.67 gallons of beer per person; the State of Florida is 5.75; and page 66 shows DUI arrests per capita in Brevard, Lee, and Dade Counties and the State of Florida. She stated Brevard County had 530.7 arrests per capita for DUI; the State is looking at 374.89; while it may be wonderful that Brevard County has more arrests, it would not be having as many arrests if there were not as many people involved in DUI; and the County takes the CUP’s for granted. She noted she will support the request as it is within the Code; but the Board needs to think about the sobering statistics.

Commissioner Carlson inquired did the study take into account the measures in terms of ordinances, similarities, and differences between the counties on per capita ratio.

Commissioner Higgs responded she does not have any clarifying issues concerning ordinances, so she cannot go beyond what the statistics are; and perhaps Prevent of Brevard would have that information. Commissioner Carlson suggested the Board obtain the data and collection of information that the study was compiled from. Commissioner Higgs noted she will try to get clarifying data and send it to the Board.

Chairperson Colon stated the same information also concerns drug consumption with children; the numbers are serious; 99% of the time she has not supported CUP’s; and she is glad the data is available so the community is able to see there is a serious problem.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay.

Item 5. (Z0301202) Ovid E. (M.D.) and Sharon L. Vitas’ request for change from AU to EU with a BDP on 1.34 acres located on the west side of S. Tropical Trail, south of Cone Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP as submitted.

Mark Brady, representing the applicants, stated the request is to rezone the property from AU to EU with a BDP; and he is present to answer any questions.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the P&Z Board with a BDP as submitted. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z0301203) Yves Clerc, as Trustee’s request for change from RU-1-11 and RU-2-15 to all RU-2-15 with a CUP for Residential/Recreational Marina on 9.48? acres located on the west side of N. Banana River Drive, north of S.R. 520, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board as RU-2-15 with a BDP, limiting density to 68 units, and denial of CUP for Residential/Recreational Marina.

Cheryl Campbell, representing Campbell & Campbell Associates, Inc., requested the Board’s approval to rezone a three and one-half acre portion of a nine and one-half acre parcel of land from RU-1-11 to RU-2-15 with a CUP to provide the community with a pier for observation and 17 boat slips; and stated it would encourage a place for gathering, observation, and recreational opportunities. She stated the parcel lies between RU-1-11 single-family residential to the north and BU-1 commercial zoning to the south; the proposed development is the highest and best use of the land for the good of the community; and the density is being reduced. She noted the applicant is proposing a more appealing and compatible use with a buffer between the two adjacent uses; it is uncommon to have a rezoning that is decreasing density; however, it is what the applicant is pursuing in order to create a cohesive community plan within the parcel, and a marketable and more desirable product for the potential buyers and neighboring community. Ms. Campbell stated it was necessary to seek a rezoning for the smaller portion of the site in order to design a two-unit attached villa; it is not allowed under the current Ordinance for single-family residential, but is allowed for the remainder of the site; it is zoned multi-family; and each villa will feature a two-story home with 1,600 to 2,000 square feet of living area. She noted each unit will also have a two-car garage, and a courtyard with a pool; the villas will sell from $160,000 to $180,000; the character of the villas are single-family residential by design, giving the appearance of one single-family home; the community will be condominium in ownership; and one owner of the common grounds will be responsible for all maintenance. She stated each individual owner will own their own unit; it features an entry wall with lush landscaping and uplighting, a combined 40-foot linear park with pedestrian-level lighting, walkway, and landscape; and the community area is proposed with a gazebo, observation paths through the preserved area, if allowed, and a residential community pier with 17 privately-owned boat slips for recreational enjoyment. Ms. Campbell stated the applicant is seeking to create a cohesive neighborhood plan within the parcel since it has split zoning, the majority of it being multi-family; without the Board’s support and approval, the applicant will be forced to develop three story multi-family buildings; one concept is to build four three-story buildings, each containing 25 units with 200 parking spaces to accommodate the development; and currently under its present zoning, this is the development that is allowed without any public hearings. She noted since October, 2002 there have been pre-application meetings with the County and St. Johns River Water Management District; there was full support of the project, with only visibility concerns over the reverse curve that lies along the access to the site on North Banana River Drive; it was mentioned by Land Development staff that traffic signs may be a solution; and the applicant has been before the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA) on two occasions. Ms. Campbell stated the first meeting was tabled for the applicant to offer a buffer plan to the residents to the north and to allow the MIRA Board to notify the adjacent neighborhoods; at the second meeting, the applicant addressed the neighboring communities’ concerns as much as possible and offered to install a six-foot high masonry wall or landscaped buffer based on their preference; the applicant received unanimous vote recommending approval of both the rezoning and conditional use requests; and the applicant has been before the P&Z Board and received unanimous recommendation for approval of the rezoning portion of the request and not the conditional use portion. She noted the applicant also met with the Vice Chairman of East Merritt Island Homeowners Association; a presentation will be given of the project to all persons interested at the Association’s meeting on February 12, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.; the concerns brought forward by area residents are natural habitat, preservation, and mitigation, if necessary, drainage issues of the adjacent single-family neighborhood to the north, the two-story units proposed on the development, how it may impact privacy of the residents to the north, power poles running within the property of the subdivision to the north, the reverse curve, and lack of visibility at the access point onto North Banana River Drive. Ms. Campbell stated the applicant has explained and addressed the concerns and has offered to provide a buffer between the properties and relocate trees where possible; offsite mitigation has been done for the wildlife during site planning phase of the Wal-mart project; the villas have been designed so that the second story is located to the front of the building with only one window in the rear; and the family outdoor gathering area is located in between the proposed buildings rather than in the rear yard that would face the subdivision to the north. She noted the average daily trips allowed for North Banana River Drive are 16,000; it is currently operating at 55% capacity; and with the proposed development of decreased density, the capacity will be 58% which is below the acceptable level of service. She stated on March 7, 2002 the Board approved a similar rezoning request with a CUP for a residential/recreational marina on Merritt Island in a Class II water body; and the approval can be referenced in County Records as Z-10696.

Attorney Chris Coleman stated there were concerns about environmental issues as the property was associated with the Wal-mart site plan; there was offsite mitigation as it was part of the larger parcel; and the only other concern of the residents was drainage of their properties. He noted there presently is drainage onto the applicant’s property; the residents are concerned that the drainage not go back onto their properties; and it will all be addressed during the site plan process.

Matthew Soyka, representing Soyka Engineering, stated the options for placing a driveway is limited due to the frontage along North Banana River Drive; up to 100 units could be built with the existing zoning with a mix of single-family and multi-family units; the 100 units would generate, during peak hours, approximately 65 to 70 trips; and there was a project proposed in 1994, which would have generated approximately 47 trips during peak hours. He noted the proposed project would generate approximately 35 trips during peak hours; and the usage is the lowest for the site.

Deborah Coombs stated her property is adjacent to Mr. Clerc’s property; a petition was signed by 115 residents in opposition to the applicant’s request; a lot of the residents’ concerns about the environment were addressed; and endangered species live on the proposed property. She noted few, if any, existing canopy will be saved on the property, according to the developer’s plan; there are concerns with the marina, seagrasses, manatees, and dredging for the marina; the water is extremely shallow; and inquired about the size limit of boats for residents. She stated everybody is concerned with flooding; the back areas of the homes are low; there are also concerns with Florida Power and Light (FP&L) easements behind the homes; and inquired will new power lines be installed. Ms. Coombs expressed concern with the “S” curve; stated there are six roads that go into it; the curve is dangerous; and she does not know how the applicant plans on addressing the issue. She noted the “S” curve has not been addressed to satisfy the residents; Banana River Drive is backed up with traffic; there is a fire station a few blocks down the road; and inquired about emergency vehicles.

Norman Galloway advised of his opposition to the proposed request; and expressed concern with the traffic. He stated Phyllis Drive has one entrance and one exit only; the “S” curve is dangerous; 17 boat slips will take away the view on his property and disturb the shoreline between Phyllis Drive and S.R. 520; and the shoreline adds beauty and value to the properties. He stated the P&Z Board denied the CUP for a residential/recreational marina; and inquired are the boat slips being considered or have they been denied.

Zoning Official Rick Enos responded the applicant has not withdrawn the application for the marina; and even though there is a recommendation from the P&Z Board to deny the marina, the Board is still considering it tonight.

Tom Tiedemann stated he lives adjacent to the property in question; and expressed concern with the drainage problem. He noted the end of his backyard is approximately 18 inches lower than the level of his house; he has lived in his house since 1965; water has drained on the property year-round since he has lived there; and about three or four months a year there is standing water on the property. He expressed concern that the applicant will raise the proposed property level higher than his property; stated he does not see any opportunity for the water to drain out; and he does not see a reasonable plan for it. He stated the housing density is high; there will be additional traffic with the proposed project; North Banana River Drive has a congested “S” curve; every square inch of the property will be developed; and the road is 22 feet wide, so there is no room for parking on either side of the road. Mr. Tiedemann stated there is no room for a driveway to park cars; cars will be in the road and there will be congestion; and he does not see how that many houses can be put in this small area. He noted the free area is 16 feet; it gives each family eight feet of yard; and it is not enough room for a pool, but maybe a hot tub. He noted he does not believe the property is going to be saleable; and inquired about wildlife mitigation.

Chairperson Colon inquired if a meeting will be held with the residents on February 12, 2003; with Ms. Campbell responding affirmatively. Chairperson Colon noted it may be premature to accomplish the item tonight, and perhaps it needs to be tabled to the March 6, 2003 meeting to see if something can be worked out with the residents.

Ms. Campbell stated there have been two MIRA meetings; approximately 30 residents were in attendance at the second meeting; all issues were discussed; and everybody seemed to be in favor of the development. She noted at the P&Z Board meeting several residents expressed the same issues that were covered; the applicant has offered solutions to the problems and does not know what other solutions there could be; and most of the issues are something that have to be managed during the site development process.

Attorney Coleman stated the applicant was not able to get a consensus on whether the adjacent property owners wanted a wall or vegetative buffer; at the MIRA meeting both items were discussed; the applicant is prepared to do whichever one the neighbors want; and the meeting would be helpful to find out whether a wall or vegetative buffer is preferred, but it is not necessary for today’s consideration. He noted there is no solution to the concerns expressed by the residents; such residents believe North Banana River Drive was not designed properly; it is not in consideration for the Board; and it is whether or not concurrency is met and if there is excessive use on the existing roadway with the proposed plan. He stated the number of trips would decrease as the density is being decreased; the suspected wildlife there has to be met in concurrency; it was met in the Wal-mart project as Wal-mart purchased the property from Mr. Clerc; and it was all done within that scope. Attorney Coleman noted offsite mitigation of the environment and wildlife have been handled as well; the drainage issues are 40-year old drainage problems from the residents’ subdivision; the applicant cannot drain his property onto the residents’ property; and it will all be met in site planning with proper drainage. He stated there have been proposed plans of self-containing all the water runoff from the property; and the applicant does not have to worry about the School Board concurrency problem as the density is being lowered and not adversely impacting schools.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has been briefed on the item and met with the applicant; he has received e-mails and has the comments from the MIRA meeting; many of the issues brought up by the residents on Phyllis Drive have not been addressed because they are part of site plan development; and the issue tonight is whether or not to accept or reject the request of the applicant to go to a lesser density and accept a CUP for residential/recreational marina. He noted one of the items that has come up is about dredging a marina, which is not going to happen; the only dredging would be maintenance dredging; the County is looking at a 17-slip marina for canoes and kayaks; the slips would not be needed; and perhaps the applicant would be more interested in an observation pier with a gazebo on the end to enhance the area. Commissioner Pritchard stated the water is less than one-foot deep; the permitting part would not be acceptable; and the issue tonight is whether or not to accept the P&Z Board’s recommendation of the lesser zoning to RU-2-15. He noted the “S” curve is dangerous; the problem is not driving around the curve; it is when people try to make left or right turns to go into subdivisions or the trailer park across the way; and it will be addressed in its entirety as part of site plan review. He stated the stumbling block and most awkward part of the development is the safe access and egress, and not creating a burden on other neighbors in the neighborhood driving up and down North Banana River Drive; the issue tonight is not whether or not the property is going to be developed as it is going to be developed at some point in some fashion; the applicant is proposing less units than he would be entitled to without coming before the Board; and the other issues will be addressed as part of site plan development.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 6 as RU-2-15 with a BDP, limiting density to 68 units, and deny the CUP for a residential/recreational marina as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated the residents have brought up concerns that are environmental in nature; there is information from staff included in the Board’s package; and requested staff review the data. She noted even though there is a decrease in density with the rezoning from 101 units to 68 units, there is no guarantee that 68 units will be able to be placed on the property.

Sherry Williams, Environmental Permitting, stated Commissioner Carlson is correct; the applicant would have to meet all current regulations during site plan review, including the Aquifer Recharge Protection, Wetlands Protection, and Surface Water Protection Ordinances.

Commissioner Carlson stated the impervious surface limitation of 45% will be imposed; there will be a 50-foot shoreline protection buffer also imposed; it is a better usage as it is lowering the density; but she is not sure what can be done about the traffic issues.

Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion.

Commissioner Scarborough stated with Seasons in the Sun off of S.R. 46, the County was concerned about traffic and required the developer to do improvements that normally would not have to be there; there were acceleration lanes and turn lanes included; the County recognized unique locational problems; and he would feel more comfortable getting specifics on what types of things could lessen the hazard and include them in the BDP. He noted the prudent thing to do is have the developer assume the responsibilities rather than doing things after-the-fact; therefore, he is not able to support the motion.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is a good idea as the developer should be responsible for improving the portion of North Banana River Drive; and inquired is there a way to move forward with the zoning application, pending an approved traffic plan that would address the issues the Board would want to see to provide safe access and egress. He noted Banana River Drive needs help; the “S” curve is not safe; and something needs to be done to make it safer.

Mr. Enos noted the County is asking the applicant to agree in a BDP now to something he does not know what it is yet; if staff knows what those items are now and can spell them out, they can ask the developer if he is willing to do them; but he is not sure they know what items may be recommended at this point.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired how much authority does Dick Thompson have under the Code to require improvements onsite or offsite.

Traffic Engineering Director Dick Thompson responded it is his understanding staff is limited to what would be directly connected to the onsite improvements at this point; however, it does impact the surrounding area; and he is not familiar as to how far staff can go with requiring the developer to correct existing problems.

Commissioner Higgs stated the density requested does not seem to need RU-2-15; and inquired is there a lesser zoning category that could accommodate the 68 units. Mr. Enos responded the density as proposed is less than eight units to the acre; and the Board could approve RU-2-8 zoning classification, which would accommodate the 68 units the applicant is requesting. Commissioner Higgs inquired would RU-2-8 have a 35-foot height limitation; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is interested in reducing density; and the Board could consider a zoning that would allow what the applicant is asking for, but not RU-2-15 when it is not necessary in this case. She stated the developer and his representatives came to her office and explained the project to her; and submitted written information of the discussion for the record.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the developer did not create the problems, so the Board cannot ask the developer to solve the problems; but it needs to recognize the developer is accessing a bad traffic situation; and it is going to become profoundly worse if the issue is not addressed now. He noted he has had issues such as this in the past in his District; and it has worked successfully. Commissioner Pritchard stated his primary issue has always been the access and egress on the “S” curve; Mr. Thompson indicated staff cannot do it at this point; what Commissioner Scarborough has said sounds reasonable and responsible; he does not have a problem with it; and he wants to makes sure the access and egress is made safe.

Commissioner Carlson withdrew the second to the motion, and Commissioner Pritchard withdrew the motion.

Attorney Coleman stated he disagrees that the developer is significantly impacting the situation; without approval of decreased density, the applicant can have 110 units without any indication of fixing a problem that was not of his making; the developer looked at acquiring one of the lots in the subdivision to the north to try to make access better; it was unacceptable; and a traffic light is not appropriate according to Department of Transportation (DOT) standards.

Commissioner Scarborough noted maybe nothing can be done; but he would like the issues discussed and considered to see if there is anything that can be done; he is not prepared to make that decision; and it is an important decision for the people who travel the particular road. He stated the Board wants to appreciate the applicant’s position, but by the same token, it wants to appreciate the change that will occur.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board has done this before, and it may be a win-win situation as safety issues are a great concern.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue Item 6 to the March 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners’ meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0301301) Atlantic Ridge Corporation and RNR Properties, Ltd.’s request for change from AU and RR-1 to all AU on 141.64? acres located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway, 0.59 mile north of 3rd Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated the request decreases the units from 141 to six units; and the P&Z Board recommended approval of AU.

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

Item 8. (Z0301302) St. Johns River Water Management District’s request for CUP for land alteration in GU and AU zones on 180? acres located on the west side of Fleming Grant Road, north of Wilder Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mike Cullum, representing St. Johns River Water Management District, requested approval of a CUP for the Sebastian River Inlet sediment disposal site; stated such site will be for a proposed dredging project; showed a video presentation to the Board and audience of the proposed site; and gave a summary of the project. He noted there are over two million cubic yards of sediment and muck deposited in the Sebastian River; during storms, the muck is transported to the Lagoon; the re-suspended muck shades the seagrasses and limits their production; and the loss of seagrass impacts the health of the Lagoon and reduces a number of things, including recreational opportunities on said Lagoon. He stated muck will be removed from the River; turbid discharge will be reduced; seagrasses will be enhanced; and deeper natural storage areas in the River will be established to capture sediments in the future. He noted a number of other projects are being conducted in the upstream portions to cut back and eliminate turbid discharges from various tributaries; and in case some of the material makes it down into the River, the plan is to capture sediments in the future. Mr. Cullum stated dredging down to natural river bottom will restore natural systems; the project will start at the U.S. 1 bridge and move west in 250,000-cubic yard segments; such project is a large one; and over two million cubic yards is a large amount of material. He noted setbacks from docks will be provided for their protection; a hydraulic dredge will be used; the material will be pumped to the Dredge Management Containment Area (DMCA) through a pipe located on District property; and the return water will be brought back to C-54. He stated the DMCA is designed to retain all 2.25 million cubic yards of dredge material. He noted there are two alternatives in terms of dredging areas; the southern alternative has been selected; there are recent indications from surveys that seagrass impacts have been reduced down to .1-acre, which will result to about 5,000 cubic yards of dredging necessary to conduct the proposed Project; such Project is designed to improve navigation safety west of the Inlet and reduce propeller dredging of seagrasses; and it is sponsored by the Sebastian Inlet Commission. Mr. Cullum stated an extensive selection process for the disposal site was conducted; the Project acreage requirement was reviewed; there is experience with handling dredge material in a temporary situation and moving such material to the Turkey Creek area; it has been determined to be prohibitively expensive; so one site will be built for all the material in perpetuity. He noted there are no wetlands on the site; 19 sites were reviewed; the District concluded the proposed site was the most promising one; and it has the actual pipeline location, which goes from C-54 to the DMCA and returns. He noted the setbacks have been expanded on all sides to at least 250 feet; the east side is bordered by the Sottile Canal; the District owns the property to the south; the north and west sides are 250 feet; and the east side is 250 feet. He stated the District is planning to remove the material from inside of the levee down to two feet; it may have to go as far as four feet; the water table is three to eight feet in the area; and the District is using the material inside the levees to construct such levees in their entirety.

Mr. Cullum stated the District received State and federal permits for the site; it has applied for State and federal permits for the River and Inlet dredging; such permits are under review by the agencies; and the District Board has determined that the project is in the public interest. He noted the Board of Adjustment approved the AU zoning variance; and the District received a favorable recommendation from the P&Z Board for the CUP.

Chairperson Colon inquired about the odor issue. Mr. Cullum responded Mr. Augusto complained of odor and indicated he went by the BV-52 site; the District has a Turkey Creek dredging site and is using a Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) site to store the material temporarily; and the material will be moved out of the pond storage area. He noted he has to agree with Mr. Augusto about such odor; in the times he went to the discharge location where the discharge is piped out back to the Lagoon, there was a bad smell; however, it was not emanating from the spoil disposal area, but from the Lagoon; and it was decaying vegetation in the near shore or littoral shelf of the Lagoon. He stated he has been inside the site approximately 20 times and has never noticed any odor on the site coming from the spoil material; such material is off of the bottom and between one and 28% muck materials; and the rest is sand and shells. Mr. Cullum stated the method of disposal from the site is on lands where people voluntarily requests the District to deposit the material; about half of the sites are residential and the owners are asking the material be used as soil amendments; if there was any odor, those individuals would have a problem; and there have been no comments from adjacent land owners. He noted there is a residential community approximately 200 yards to the south of the site; there have been no comments about odor; and he personally has not smelled any kind of odor emanating from the site; however, there are odors coming out of the River. He stated if one is a boater and spends time on the River, there are times when the natural vegetation dies off and the near shore area is where the smell is not real good; and that is what Mr. Augusto was smelling.

David Augusto stated he has lived in Brevard County for 20 years on the Indian River; he drove daily from the Eau Gallie Causeway to the Sebastian River on U.S. 1 during the time the District was working the Turkey Creek Project; he was well aware of when the breeze was bringing the odor from the River versus when the breeze was bringing the odor from the dredge site; and inquired if the muck smells so bad in the River, why does it not smell bad when the material is transferred across the street to the dredge site. He noted there was a gasoline spill in the area the District is planning on doing the dredge fill; inquired about the status of that issue; stated he knows the difference between river odor and decaying muck; and when muck is disturbed, there is a tremendous difference in the odor.

Ralph Brown, representing St. Johns River Water Management District, stated the property purchased by the District was an old citrus grove; there was a pump located within the grove; there was a diesel spill at the location, which the District has cleaned up and taken care of all regulatory requirements for such clean up; and it was completed approximately four months ago.

Mr. Cullum stated the District conducted a phase one environmental audit on the site that would identify any of those types of spills.

Mr. Brown stated he is the Product Manager for Turkey Creek dredging site; he has never smelled an odor from the site, but has smelled an odor from the Indian River; and it is vegetation that has blown up onto the west bank of the Indian River that Mr. Augusto is smelling.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are a couple of sites in operation that she has visited; she has not personally observed any smells; she has not received any complaints; and the project is an important one. She noted the area has sufficient buffers; and the site is not pristine, but an agricultural site that has been used for a long time.

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

Item 9. (Z0301303) Estate of Harry J. Gould’s requests for Small Scale Plan Amendment (03S.1) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map from Residential 4 to Community Commercial, and a change from TR-1 and BU-1 to all BU-1 on 1.27? acres located on the west side of U.S. 1, south of Snug Harbor Way, which was recommended for approval by the LPA as Community Commercial and BU-1 by the P&Z Board.

Bruce Cooper, representing the applicant, stated the request is to rezone and change the land use on a small portion of a parcel of property located adjacent to Snug Harbor from TR-1 to BU-1; the majority of the property currently exists with a BU-1 classification; and the property was rezoned in 1980 with dual zoning classifications with TR-1 to the north of the site, which houses the two structures currently being used for commercial enterprise. He stated in 1980 there was a CUP for mobile home sales for Snug Harbor; the existing site improvements on the property now, which are parking lots, were done sometime prior to 1983; it was done at the time when the CUP was approved for the mobile home sales; and the building on the property in TR-1 is currently being used for the development office, has an occupational license, and is being used for commercial purposes, even though it is zoned residential. Mr. Cooper noted the request is for Dr. Alfred Theis; he is a local dentist in Sebastian; he is a part-time dentist and does not want to pursue a full-scale dental office; and he understands the Board has to look at the full impact of any rezoning request. He stated Dr. Theis’ intention is not to develop the property at this point, but provide his practice within the existing building; and to convert a portion of it for a residence for him and his wife. He noted the parcel of land is not part of Snug Harbor, although it is connected to the utilities for sewer and water; so that issue should not be of concern. He stated Dr. Theis was not aware there were concerns from the residents until the day of the P&Z Board meeting; so there was not time to meet with the residents. Mr. Cooper stated the P&Z Board made a favorable recommendation for the request, and encouraged the applicant to meet with the property owners, which was done; the residents may look at a favorable recommendation to a lesser classification, such as BU-1-A; the applicant has not totally ruled that out; and he would like to hear any other concerns from the residents before bringing forth any further recommendations.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is her understanding the entire parcel is in the rezoning request; with Mr. Cooper responding it is not his understanding in talking to staff. Mr. Cooper noted the current parcel that has the BU-1 classification should not have any impacts to the request if there is down zoning; if the applicant was to consider a BDA, he would only want to consider it for the parcel of land that is TR-1; and it is his understanding that is what is being proposed.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated the entire parcel, which includes the TR-1 and BU-1 portions, was advertised; and staff is researching it at this time to verify same.

Mr. Cooper stated the intent is to have the whole parcel BU-1; if it is going to be a consideration to down zone, the applicant is not willing to have the whole parcel looked at as a down zone, but only the portion of TR-1; and he would like to hear feedback from the public and come back with a recommendation.

Mike Cunningham, Vice President of Micco Homeowners Association, stated the primary objection to the application is based on compatibility and comparability; Micco has the oldest community in Brevard County as to the age of its residents; Snug Harbor is a community within Micco whose residents fall well within this category; and it is a mobile home, single residence subdivision occupied in the majority by year-round residents. He noted the lifestyle is low key and the social and recreational facilities are in place, close by, and to the liking of the majority; and when comparing the subdivision with the other eleven subdivisions that make up the community of Micco, there are definitive parallels in not only the quality of life, but the vitality of life for persons in their senior years. He stated to abruptly change the pattern enjoyed by the community by insertion or additions through commercial enterprises does no one any good and can only alienate the group of citizens of long-standing toward anyone intent on changing their desire for style of life; and the purpose of the application would say the citizens’ lifestyle and desires mean nothing as long as the applicant’s wants are met. Mr. Cunningham stated compatibility is the ability of existing together in harmony such as to agree and to be consistent; the citizens do not agree the proposed application to be the case in a quiet community when it is the desire of the applicant to completely circumvent the definition by inserting a commercial enterprise that could well disturb the ambience and environment of a quiet and stable community; the intent of the application is to solidify and/or expand on an existing BU-1 area; and one of the problems of compatibility is the particular parcel is surrounded by two other zoning classifications--TR-1 and AU. He noted a residential community does not need to be inundated with commercial enterprises, which will bring large volumes of traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, into its midst; traffic patterns, as they exists today, are extremely insufficient to handle the level of service that may be anticipated for the community; the residents have done extensive work on the issue, including photographic evidence, which may justify denial of the application; before deciding an issue, the entire issue must be addressed; and perhaps the re-designation of the AU parcel into a compatible TR-1 for the benefit of the entire neighborhood would be in order. Mr. Cunningham stated at that time, examination of the application could be more effectively approached; requested the Board deny the application and table it for the next Board zoning meeting; stated both sides could objectively state their views; and the issue could be more effectively resolved. He noted the staff report indicates 153 additional trips per day with the proposed application; and he believes the number is low.

Pat Reid, Snug Harbor Village, submitted pictures of the proposed area to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated the residents met with the applicant a few weeks ago; the consensus of the meeting was that the residents would support BU-1-A with a neighborhood commercial land use; and the residents were under the impression that the BU-1-A and neighborhood commercial would include the entire parcel. He expressed concern about the rezoning, including the use of a residential street to access commercial property; stated according to the transportation analysis, the maximum average daily trips generated per day would be 513; the trips are based on U.S. 1; and there is no mention of the number of trips using Snug Harbor Way. He noted other concerns include errors in the findings of fact presented at the P&Z Board meeting on January 6, 2003; some of the land use surrounding the area was vague; the adjoining piece that is presently classified BU-1 is under one-half acre; and the adjacent lands and another parcel of 1.55 acres to the south are zoned AU. Mr. Reid stated another parcel to the southwest is TR-1; the information he has comes from the P&Z staff comments; the request is not compatible with the surrounding area; and the property should be rezoned to its original classification of AU, which is compatible to the surrounding area.

Mr. Cooper stated it was not the applicant’s intention to consider a down zoning for the entire parcel; it would need to be reevaluated; if it is the Board’s desire, the applicant is willing to bring the item back at a future meeting to present alternatives, including a BDA concerning the BU-1 zoning classification; and it could also provide limitations to access from the residential area. He noted there could be consideration of the BU-1-A classification and whether it is for the entire site or the proposed parcel; the applicant would not be receptive to any of those issues tonight as he has not had time to evaluate it properly; Dr. Theis has the property under contract and has a substantial amount of money involved if he is to purchase the property; and Dr. Theis needs to have the full impact evaluated before he can make an intelligent decision.

Commissioner Higgs inquired does the CUP for the sale of mobile homes show up in the records on the TR-1 parcel; with Mr. Enos responding no, it is on the BU-1 parcel. Commissioner Higgs stated there is nothing in the record concerning the commercial use of the TR-1 parcel in terms of rezoning, and it is assumed to be a residential home; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. Mr. Cooper stated it is his understanding the property is being assessed as a commercial piece of property; improvements were done since 1980; it appears a request was received for a CUP for the BU-1; and the individuals used the residence and converted it for offices. He noted there is currently an occupational license in the building; it is being used a couple of days a week for development of other properties and not mobile home sales; and the applicant is still waiting to hear whether it has current grandfather non-conforming status through a change of use from the Zoning Department. Commissioner Higgs stated she talked to Dr. Theis and residents; and the staff report concerning the Comprehensive Plan and intrusion of commercial into residential areas include serious issues in regard to consideration of BU-1 as a change to the TR-1 parcel and land use element. She stated if there could be minimization of the impact of the commercial through some other mechanism, the applicant should have additional discussions with the residents and others; the existing BU-1 has serious problems with the Comprehensive Plan; but if there could be discussions that brought a greater consistency and compatibility of both parcels with the existing neighborhood, it would be fruitful. She stated she is willing to participate with Mr. Cooper or the residents to come up with a more compatible use on both parcels. Mr. Cooper stated 60 days would be appreciated.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item 9 to the April 10, 2003 Board of County Commissioners’ meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated the tabling is to consider discussions of what may be a better land use; and both parcels are being considered as it was the application.

Item 10. (Z0301304) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion on October 3, 2002, and pursuant to Future Land Use Policy 15.1, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by State of Florida IITF, that proposes to change the zoning from GML(P) to GML(H), retaining the existing CUP’s for a Marina (Z-8107) and for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (beer and wine only) (Z-3463) on 2.6 acres located west of Highway A1A, south of Long Point Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 10 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. (Z0301401) Allen and Denise Harrah’s request for change from GU to IU on 3.1 acres located on the east side of Harrell Road, south of Barnes Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated the request is compatible with the Future Land Use Map.

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

Item 12. (Z0211101) John S. and Connie S. Falzone. Withdrawn by applicant.

Item 13. (Z0211101) John S. and Connie S. Falzone’s request for change from AU to AGR on 8.39 acres located on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue, east of U.S. 1, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board and withdrawn by the applicant by letter received January 14, 2003.

The Board withdrew Item 13 from the agenda as requested by the applicant. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATION OF JANUARY 9, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendation of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board made at its meeting on January 9, 2003, as follows:

Item 1. (NMI30101) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners’ pursuant to Future Land Use Policy 15.2, authorized an administrative rezoning on property owned by Frederick D. Maffeo that proposes to change the zoning from IU to PIP on 1.83 acres located on the east side of N. Courtenay Parkway, north of S.R. 528, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated the administrative rezoning is being initiated by staff based on a site plan proposal, which is consistent with the PIP zoning classification; the current IU zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and staff initiated the PIP zoning classification to bring the zoning into consistency.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Zoning Resolution.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF JANUARY 6, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the administrative rezoning recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board made at its meeting on January 6, 2003, as follows:

Item 1. Section 09, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 764, owned by David C. and Irene C. Hallquist, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4513 for Barn and Horses.

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

Item 2. Section 32, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 500 (BU-1 portion only), owned by Darold and Patricia Hite, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6307 for Recreational Vehicles at Fish Camp.

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

Item 3. Section 01, Township 30, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lot 250; Section 05, Township 30, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lots 1 and 2; Section 09, Township 30, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lots 1 and 2; Sub. 50, Lot 1.1; Section 10, Township 30, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lot 511; Section 11, Township 30, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lots 1 and 2; Section 12, Township 30, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lot 250; and Section 07, Township 30, Range 37, Parcel 500, owned by Willowbrook Farms, St. Johns River Water Management District, and Willowbrook Coal Co., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6405 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Homes (40).

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. Section 07, Township 30, Range 37, Parcel 1 (AU portion only); and Section 08, Township 30, Range 37, Sub. HF, Lot 250 (AU portion only), owned by Rolling Meadow Ranch, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6173 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. Section 17, Township 20G, Range 35, Sub. AL, Block 14, Lot 4, owned by Southern Bell Tel & Tel, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5431 for Telephone Switching Center.

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

Item 6. Section 30, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 272, owned by Southern Bell Tel & Tel, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6264 for Telephone Switching Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. Section 34, Township 22, Range 35, Parcel 502, owned by Florida Power & Light Co., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6260 for Electric Substation, and staff withdrawing removal of Conditional Use Permit on RU-2-10 portion.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 7 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. Section 01, Township 24, Range 35, all of Subdivisions 04 and 05 and Parcels 1 and 3, owned by TKCB, Inc., Sun Lakes Estates, LC, Canaveral Investors, Inc., Richard A. and Laura A. Guziak, Patricia Ann Hankins and Ann C. Richardson, Juanita T. Secondini, Eleanor Brown McClaskey, Horace R. and Patricia M. Schaller, Jerry L. Stretton, Robert E. and Teri L. Bennin, George L. and Gladys A. Hawke, Kenneth R. Poulin, Daniel F. and Pauline A. Quinn, Douglas P. Watkins, Richard W. and Dolores Korolovich, James J. and Marika Gumbel, Albert R. and Marion Marrotta, Stephen W. Murphy, Chris R. Mahnke, Peggy L. Hopkins, Michelle McBride, Robin L. Smith, Michael J. Tropea, Jr. and Tracey A. Trottier, Ronald and Lois A. Colomb, Dennis Corderman, Claude R. Friend, Sr., Sharon Genova, Larry Ross and Shirley Roselyn Pittman, Trustees; Norman S. Mills and Anna E. Rehm, Lewis John Wallace, III; Nancy G. Wright, Constance Rodriguez, Terri L. Mauney, Travis L. Stobbe, Arthur C. Phillips, Marjorie M. Hillman, John D. and Carolyn A. Vargas, Kristina L. Strickland, Charles W. Cooper, Robert L. and Karen A. Bachman, Daniel L. Goodwin, Jai A. Mohler and Tammy M. Vick, Atlantis Investments, Inc., James E. (III) and Cheryl Lumpkin, Jason R. Boyd, Jack D. Hendren, Trustee; Robert Lee and Freda Mae Border, Robert C. and Janice S. Dyer, Robert W. and Barbara E. Smith, Dean M. and M. Marrotta, Deborah J. Hopkins, William G. (Jr.) and Joyce G. Nichols, Lou Ann Hawes, Canaveral Investors, Inc., Celia A. Brandt, Willene C. Killian, Life Estate; Ann C. Misico, Karen I. Glover, George C. Queen, Webster L. Dilliard, James C. and Alyssa D. Hall, William R. Gilbert, Rosa Lee Bohrer, Robert A. Comber, Marion A. Scott, Allison A. Craig, Amanda Sue Schneider, Stephanie W. Ivey, Joseph M. and Jason Black, Eugene J. Storley, Richard L. Massey, Salvatore J. Amendola, Robert B. and Roberta Jo Byers, John R. and Vonnie M. Melvin, Diana Lynn Leach, Donald E. and Rhonda A. Boisey, Carol G. Rose, Elizabeth E. Healy, Florence Haberland and James B. West, John R. Scott, Douglas E. Bearden and Debbie D. Durden, Joyce A. Gumpper, Bernard J. Pilarczyk, Advantage 99, Robin L. and Sharon G. Camp, Jeff W. and Sharon D. Pack, Bertha M. Leslie, Alfred D. Grannan, Theresa L Legge, Robert Lee and Karin E. Smith, Paul Siminiak, Allene W. Regar, Warren L. Duble, Louis P. and Tena E. Fafard, Horace and Jennifer Searles, Bryant K. Yocom, Nile E. and Irene E. Barnes, Debbie L. Golden, Donald Gene Peterson and Carol Brown-Peterson, Cheryle C. Henry, Life Estate; Mary H. Fender, Anthony S. Taibi, Bert W. Getz, Bernard Pilarczyk, Sara J. Folsom, Thomas and Denise Billings, Jay D. Christian, and William J. Short, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6136 for Sewer Plant on all and retaining Z-7095 for Cluster Development of Modular Coaches on Parcels 1 and 3.

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

Item 9. Section 04, Township 24, Range 35, Sub. 50, Block 6, Lot 1, owned by Southern Bell Tel & Tel, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6234 for Telephone Switching Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 9 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Section 34, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 11, owned by Charles T. and Judith M. Emery, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5293 for Boarding of Horses.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 10 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. Section 1, Township 25, Range 35, Parcels 250 thru 254, 500 and 500.A; Section 2, Township 25, Range 35, Parcels 1, 1A, 4 and 4.A; Section 11, Township 25, Range 35, Parcel 1; and Section 12, Township 25, Range 35, Parcels 1 and 250, owned by Robert A. Tucker and Gilbert A. Tucker, Jr.; Brevard County c/o Property Control, Druanne L. Vickers, and St. Johns River Water Management District, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6338 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home on all, except Parcel 253, and removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8418 for two (2) Towers & Antennae on Parcels 253, 500, and 500.A, and retaining Z-7325 for Private Club on Parcel 253.

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

Item 12. Section 25, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 529, owned by S.L. and Martha S. Olsson, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4326 for Boarding of Horses.

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

Item 13. Section 36, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 258, owned by David B. and Bonnie S. Smith, Register Trustees, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4014 for Flea Market.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 13 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. Section 31, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 503, 506, and 507, owned by Linda Lovejoy and Susan Booth, Floyd D. and Patricia M. Ellsworth, and Curtis R. and Sharon E. Davis, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6137 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home.

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

Item 15. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 503 and Sub. 52, Lot 1.01, owned by Indian River Apartments, Inc.; and Emily C. Brinson, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6215 for Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 15 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 501, 503, 518.1, 520, 520.1 thru 532.8, 554, and 555, owned by Richard H. Stottler, Jr. and Thomas E. Wasdin, Trustees; Susan M. Knollinger, Zachary D. and Jamie G. Spurlock, Michael B. and Mary T. Feddeck, Randall S. and Barbara Ann Harris, Douglas A. and Julia Beth Olds, Sheila J. Lee, Diane K. Gwiazda, Evelyn V. Cato, Life Estate; Robyn A. Benway, Maribel and Luisa A. Ruiz, Pamela D. Lund, Bobby E. and Jennifer L. Greene, Cam and Mary Lou Medley, Richard A. Cody and Bertha M. Antinarelli, Alan C. Seraphine, Walter Francis Jordan, Trustee; Richard J. and Jane F. Nole, Jean Broadhead and Harry J. Rabe, Shirley Ann Angus, Life Estate; Ariane B. Griffin and William J. Green, III; Julia R. Winn, Trustee; Julie M. Lanthorne, Henry C. Patrylow, Estate; Keith L. Degler, Robert L. and Judy Corbett, Claire K. Kirkland, Jeffrey L. and Sarah Hardle Gibson, Joyce Marie Stuver, Sharon A. and Monte Wilson, Harold and Pamela J. Gray, Jean E. Harper, Trustee; Melanie L. Hellen, Patricia S. Harding, Ronald C. O'Connor, Jr., Robert J. Moran, Raymond V. and Jean R. Dukesherer, Co-Trustees; Anthony W. Derbyshire and Wayne E. Derbyshire, Guy D. and Michelle D. McCombs, Siobhan N. Bibby, Jaime L. Earley, Richard A. and Mary A. Ragozzine, Jonathan Lee and Natasha Dady, Sanford Finklestein, Rose Marie M. Taylor, James P. Murphy, Billy Macwasham, Richard R. Corsillo, John R. and Patricia A. Steffes, Henry H. and E. Jean Sinclair, Mary Motyka, Trustee; Lorene Woods, Carol A. Manders, Alice C. Rosano and Rita Glassmire, James D. and Yoawamarn T. Parrott, Michael D. Cameron, Trustee; Lara M. Elgee, Margaret Jarvis, Saundra A. Clendenen, Trustee; Crystal M. Sumrall, Joan R. and Terence I. Jackson, David A. Baranek, Mark Luedtke, James W. and Shirley A. Harrington, Richard G. and Martha H. Hall, Angela G. Reynolds, Carol A. Wilson and Dana Hartman, Gareth A. and F. Carmen Matthews, Arthur Benson, Robert N. and Robin L. Rokobauer, Lia L. Allawas, Robert L. and Frances P. Anderson, Caesar J. Faraci and Richard J. Faraci, Elizabeth C. Schmidt, Maureen A. Stilwell, Mary Falzone, Janice S. Wilkerson, Karen Kindl, Reta Kerr, Marion Ramey, Mary M. Sullivan, Douglas E. and Sheryl Green, Joe F. and Patricia Martin, Catherine Colona Frey, Cocoa Village Group, LLC; Cynthia Jean Bolar, June A. Kittredge, Trustee; Roberta M. and John A. Robinson, Jenny R. Harper, Frankie P. Story, Frances Grisar, Ada Alvarez, Harbor Woods of Brevard, Inc.; Brevard County c/o Scott Ellis, Tina Hargrove, and Brevard County c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6245 for Sewer Facilities on all and removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6147 for Antenna on Parcels 520 and 554, and removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8577 for Commercial Entertainment and Amusement Enterprise on Parcels 518.1 and 520.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 16 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. Section 31, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 50, Lot 42.01, owned by Southern Bell Tel & Tel, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5483 for Telephone Switching Center.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 17 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 18. Section 08, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. DQ, Lots 14, and 14.06 thru 14.09, owned by Jennifer F. and David G. Kirkpatrick, Frederick John (III) and Maureen H. Bailey, David G. and Sandra B. Kirkpatrick, and Lois A. Dougert, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6345 for Guesthouse Without Kitchen Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 18 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 19. Section 08, Township 28, Range 37, Parcel 504, owned by Dudley E. Garner, Jr. and Sue C. Garner, Trustees, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6404 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 19 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 20. Section 20, Township 28, Range 38, Parcel 9, owned by MB Four Limited Partnership, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4571 for Commercial Entertainment Enterprise (Miniature Golf Course).

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 20 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 21. Section 20, Township 28, Range 38, all of Sub. 51, ex. 9.01; all of Sub. 52; all of Sub. 79, ex. Tracts A.1 & E; Sub. GD, Block A, Lots 1, 1A.24 thru 1A.47, and Section 21, Township 28, Range 38, Sub. GD, Block A, Lots 1A.01 thru 1A.23, owned by Lake Washington Oaks Development, Inc.; Muriel A. Sarafin, Eddie L. and Johnnie M. Price, Ronald T. Neary, Robert J. and Eleanor R. Williams, Cynthia Sweet, Laurie and William Watkins, Alan C. and Patricia A. Bray, Joseph M. and Teresa M. Moschella, Christine and Fijak and Theodore S. Fijak, Kenneth M. Collins, Steven P. and Kathleen C. Freel, Brenda J. Kebsch-Kirby, Clifford W. and Marilyn L. Valentine, Barbara Coraggio, Steven W. and Kelly L. Steffey, Robert S. Becher and Trudy Ann Tancredi, James F. and Carol Anne Martin, Thomas E. M. and Audrey M. Wheat, Nicholas and Margaret M. D'Avanzo, Life Estate; Martin L. and Elizabeth A. Michie, Cameo Investment, Inc.; Eugene F. Klausman, Catherine A. Hughes, The La Costa Village Homeowners of Melbourne Beach, Inc.; Lake Washington Oaks Development, Inc.; Foster Burdette, Frank G. Haines, Life Estate; Elsie Gordon, Eric Haney, Paula F. Hughes, Elmer W. and Masako Martin, Walter and Irene Stoy, Keith R. Ashley and Bonnie A. Ashley, Trustees; Karen Joyce Rowlette, Trustee; Mary Kay McNulty, Trustee; Harri-Ann Irwin, Trustee; Richard L. and Carole Lempp, Neil D. Forbes, Trustee; Shelly S. and John R. Vehec, William E. and Carol A. Shaw, Paul and Kathy L. Scalet, Dominic A. and Brenda F. Pagliaro, Geoffrey and Maria Rossiter, Henry E. and Beverly A. Kearns, Carl and Susanne Kunert, Life Estate; Linda A. Kearns and Stephen P. Lach, Don F. Riordan, Jr.; Mary Eileen Daly, Trustee; Andre P. Martineau, Michael T. Dinnegan and Regina H. Dinnegan, Co-Trustees; Sheila Poole, Trustee; Colleen L. Catino, Patricia G. Miller, KMH Limited Liability Company, Earl F. and Barbara Gill, Colleen Ann Catino, Trustee; James Fayette Sizemore and Joan Kraus Sizemore, Trustees; David C. Bookman, Carl J. and Myrna S. Lord, Edward W. and Margaret S. Page, Majorca South Homeowners Association, Inc.; The La Costa Village Homeowners Association of Melbourne Beach, Inc.; Robert L. and Reine Jessee, Virginia M. Reuell and William W. Reuell, Delores M. Qualk, Michael Schoonover and Denis Waldron, Jeremiah A. Landowski and Patricia Landowski, A Rev. Trust; Wayne and Kathleen Dyer, James K. and Mary Elaine Schaub, Amy F. Behm, Brenda J. Roberts, Michele Forest, Frank T. and Linda D. Lynch, Robert A. and Mary K. Mulligan, Scott A. and Rachelle Blohm, Patricia M. Phillips, Gerald and Harriet Ellman, Florence S. and Robert E. Heins, Life Estate; Joan and Peter Lee, Hanny Zakhari, George D. and Mary Lou Schoonmaker, John E. Killeen and Robert Warren, Alfredo Fanelli, Patricia M. Davenport, Donald S. Donohue, Helmut Sperr and Jutta Sperr-Schlichtinger, MD; Betty Lou Smith, James G. Moore, Robert F. and Bonita J. Strogonoff, Christopher A. Gillard, Mary Ellen Crisham, Sigmund A. and Virginia Sue Biener, Leon B. and Dorothy M. Dubey, Edward P. and Peggy C. Stafford, Frances Cummings and Thomas Cummings, Rory O'Rourke Flynn and Patrick Thomas Flynn, Keith E. and De Ann A. Baker, John M. and Jacqueline A. Higgins, Michael and Joan M. Sabia, Martin and Anne Klaben, Pamela Terry-Racz, Vema Marie Smith, Ralph J. Rowell, Jr., Trustee; Frank J. and Edith M. Sisk, Michael Guacci, Mary Jo Decker and David A. Brookes, Susan Josel, Rory O. and Karen L. Flynn, and Veronica Ozabal, Life Estate, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6292 for Sewage Package Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 21 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 22. Section 15, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 300 and 328, owned by Southern Bell Tel & Tel and Geraldine R. Grimes, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6191 for Telephone Switching Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 22 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 23. Section 10, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 791 thru 792, All of Sub. 77, Sub. 78, Tracts A thru I, Block A, Lots 1 thru 6, Block B, Lots 1 thru 6, Block C, Lots 1 thru 4, Block D, Lots 1 thru 12, Block E, Lots 1 thru 10; Sub. 79, Tracts C.1 thru C.3, and Tracts D, D.1, E, E.1, F, G, H, I, J, Lots 34 and 35, Block F, Lots 1 thru 27, Block G, Lots 1 thru 13, Block H, Lots 1 thru 7; and Section 11, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 506, 509, 510, and 511, owned by Jacqueline Costello and Ernest R. Washburn*,V. Eileen Smallman, Trust*; Andrew Zardecki and Odette Dallaire*, Ramon N. Williamson*, J&S Lawrence of Melbourne LLC*, Richard J. and Paula M. Dawson*, Jane MacDonald Lemmon*, Edward B. Boyer and Bettie L. Boyer, Trustees*; Edward Walter (Jr.) and Rene B. Koenig*, Robert M. and Deborah J. Sola*, Walter M. (Jr.) and Clarie K. Munroe*, Robert K. and Nadia Hereford*, Brian D. and Barbara P. Cullen*, Wayne R. and Hazel H. Dyer*, Richard F. and Teresa M. Brophy*, G. David Clark*, Paul and Catherine Gibson*, Paul James Guerne, Jr. and Randi Erika Peterson*, Robert Edward Verge*, Edna J. Lavandier, Life Estate*; Paul F. and Constance M. Murgo*, H. Patrick Ryan and Paul M. McElroy*, Terry C. Weibley and Lois R. Weibley*, Joan P. Vilasi and Joseph A. Vilasi, Sr. Life Estate*; Robert L. and Jean H. Jones*, Thomas F. Cavanaugh and Sharon L. Cavanaugh, Trustees*; Christopher and Nancy Poffenbaugh*, William J. and Carol L. Dugan*, Tom D. and Louise M. Waldron, Life Estate; Alexander and Diane D. Adamcewicz, John and Susan Aramini, Lyle A. and Emilie A. Widmayer, Dennis A. and Christine J. Cacioppo, Mario and Judith Vanacore, Michael C. and Mary Boehm, Joseph B. and Carol A. Ganly, Brian Lynch, Robert V. and Joanne S. Hopkins, John P. and Iris M. Culhane, Joseph T. and Marcelle E. Lebida, Albert L. and Phyllis A. Charbonneau, Douglas F. and Jean I. Barrett, Anthony J. and Patricia A. Spadafora, Dee Aust, Trustee; Carmen A. and Ruth E. Iannello, Thomas H. and Gail C. Powers, Harlow N. Higinbotham, Trustee; Arthur and Norma J. Henry, Henry A. and Lise Schroeder, James A. (III) and Glenda Diane Thomas, Richard P. and Linda McGovern, Trustees; Ernest Edward Dell, III; Mary P. Becker and Kenneth H. Fritsch, Daniel F. and Rosemary A. Barton, Lorraine Blank, Steven R. and Patricia M. Smith, Richard G. and Patricia A. Taylor, Odd F. and Hanne M. Johannessen, Mark C. and Sandra R. Mayo, Louis Ira and Laura K. Steinberg, Donald J. and Lynn A. Anzinger, South Shores Riverside Homeowners Association, Inc.; South Shores Riverside Homeowners Association, Inc.**; South Shores Utility Association, Inc.**; David F. and Sharon R. Becker**, Beverly M. Fink**, John B. and Ann T. Whelan**, Mark A. and Virginia B. Barausky**, William and Kathleen Jeslinek**, Kenneth R. (Sr.) and Ann A. Harding**, Frederick Joseph and Barbara Marie Fauvell**, John M. Lingenfelter**, Dolly G. Williams, Trustee**; Alfred R. and Lynda J. Calvetti**, Marvin M. and Serene A. Miller**, Robert M. and Barbara W. Lockwood, Trustees**; Harry and Norma Lafferty**, Mary Ann C. Dawson**, Terry B. and Ellen M. George**, Lloyd G. and Bonnie L. Merriam**, Jon F. Hassler and Gretchen F. Kresl**, Denise Shirley Johnston, Trustee**; Dean R. and Florence B. Rainey**, Walter J. and Joan H. Sochacki**, Nicholas C. Anari, Sr.**; Edward N. and Laura E. Stone**, Carlos A. Vila**, Mark C. and Sandra R. Mayo**, Nolen R. and Judy C. Whitaker**, Gary and Esther Roverud**, Arthur L. and Gloria A. Royer**, William R. Robitaille, Trustee**; James J. and Margaret V. Morrison**, Oren A. and Ophelia M. Baker**, John B. (III) and Marianne L. Braddock**, Carol Diepeveen**, James Clifton Courtney and Mary Clifton Courtney, Co Trustees**; Donald E. Price**, John P. (Jr.) and Marilyn J. White**, Michael C. Taylor**, Norman E. Smith and Margaret C. Gallant**, Barry and Kris J. Black**, South Shores Riverside Homeowners Association, Inc. (Tracts F, H, I***); Loretta A. Gallagher, Lisle E. and Edith R. Burnham, Remo and Eira H. Michelutti**, Marjorie A. McCarthy, Yvonne K. and Todd M. Williams, Jack E. and Luz N. Goldin, William P. (III) and Barbara J. McGovern, John A. and Kathleen M. Baima, Robert G. and Agnes Joan Ridner, Trust; James P. and Arlene R. Saunders, James A. Adams and Wendy D. Adams, LTD, Inc.; Joseph L. and Mary Ellen Gillespie, John G. Falzetta, Trustee; Helen L. Miller, Trustee, and Donna M. Probert, Trustee; Harry and Virginia Bao, Salvatore Verrastro, Ben and Martha C. Kissee, Marily J. Litchfield, Arthur and Phyllis Bollermann, Alfred and Joan Dionne, William D. and Mary C. Johnson, Judith Carpenito, Frank J. and Imelda L. Cassar, Jon A. Churnell, James H. Doran and Marnie A. Cooper, Scott M. Kaplan, David R. Vreeland and Mary R. Vreeland, Co-Trustees; Elizabeth Putaggio, Trust; Maeve F. Generett, Robert and Carol A. Langone, Thomas P. and Lucille A. Anello, Richard D. and Sandra R. Swenor, Ralph N. and Susan M. Santell, Joseph A. and Evelyn A. Aragona, Chester M. (Jr.) and Merry A.Kurz***, Carolyne Jean Campbell**, David B. and Nancy E. Vincent***, Thomas O. Chewning, Jr.***; Jack C. and Nancy G. Fieldman***, George A. and Dorothy M. Aufmuth***, Roger B. and Shirley M. Slosser***, Wayne A. and Elaine E. Hannula***, Malcolm D. Wilcox and Carol T. Wilcox, Co-Trustees; Raymond A. and Theresa K. Lacinski, Life Estate; Joseph and Phyllis Gioffre, Ronald A. and Diane K. Ewert, Life Estate; Lena Jenik***, John J. Tomancik and Alice M. Tomancik, Co-Trustees***; Robert F. and Elizabeth A. Willis***, J. George and Loretta J. Dakters, Richard B. Miskin, Family Trust; Andrew B. Blasi and Craig and Jane M. Kircher*, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z- 5506 for Water/Sewer Facilities on properties with *; removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6105 for Water and Sewer Treatment Facilities on all; removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6572b for Kitchen Facilities in 100% of units on properties with **; removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9801 for Recreational/Residential Marina on properties with ***; and retaining Z-9801 for Recreational/Residential Marina on Tract G.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 23 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 24. Section 10, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 80, Tracts A, G and L, Block A, Lots 1 thru 19, Block B, Lots 1 thru 10, owned by Floridron (Indian Landing) Limited, Inc.; State of Florida (DOT), Robert and Zoraida Cook, Carl Keith and Carol L. Eckart, William J. and Violet Conway, Edward Gerald and Joan M. Gardiner, Gary C. and Natashia A. Tabler, Vincent G. and Anna L. Ingenio, Arnold M. and Sharon A. Bushner, James A. and Karen A. Giuliano, Pasquale and Honora Bellucco, Irvin and Barbara P. Gelman, Carol A. Kueppers, Robert E. Marquand, Sr., Trust; Lester M. and Dorothy A. Stuzin, Howard and Kathryn Goldstein, Denis P. and Florita Whalen, Joan P. Rhodes, Jerry P. and Connie S. Hansen, Andrew A. and Mary R. J. Richards, David P. and Deborah A. Matchett, Jose Giuseppe and Stefania Colucciello, Marjorie A. McArthur and Steven R. McArthur, Robert J. and Sandra L. Froelich, Emil (Jr.) and Laura Balusek, and John A. Plofkin and Ruth G. Walsh, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6220 for Water Plant and Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 24 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 25. Section 14, Township 29, Range 38, Parcel 260, owned by Southern Bell Tel & Tel, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6145 for Telephone Switching Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 25 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 26. Section 18, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 3, 751, 752, and 753, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control; O. H. (Jr.) and Victoria W. Nations, Ty D. Buterbaugh, and Michael W. and Shelly C. Hoffman, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z- 6336 for Towers and Antennae and retaining Z-8912 for Alcoholic Beverages (On Premises Consumption) on Parcel 3.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 26 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 27. Section 34, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 517 and 518, owned by David J. and Deborah H. Raspa Beringer, and Andrew W. and Alison M. Goodrich, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6302 for Boat Sales and Service.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 27 as recommended for approval by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 28. Section 34, Township 29, Range 38, Parcel 530, owned by Kathryn L. Miller, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z- 6303 for Mini-Warehouses and Z-7254 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 28 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 29. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Parcels 509 and 519, owned by Micco Properties, LLC and San Sebastian Water, LLC, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6202 for Mini-Warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 29 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 30. Section 35, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 11, owned by Florida Power and Light Co., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-5054 for Metal Salvage Yard (Automobile Salvage) and Z-7013 for Metal Salvage and Junk Yard.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 30 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 31. Section 02, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. MM, Block 11, Lot 50, owned by Southern Bell Tel & Tel, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6134 for Telephone Switching Center.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 31 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 32. Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 501, owned by St. Paul’s Anglican Church, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6182 for Agricultural Pursuits (Church) and retaining Conditional Use Permit Z-8900 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 32 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 33. Section 23, Township 26, Range 37, Parcels 779 thru 783.S and Section 26, Township 26, Range 37, Parcels 4 thru 4.V, owned by William A. and Julia M. Klinglesmith, Estela P. Oliveira, Betty B. McGlothlin, Life Estate; Elizabeth A. Pagane, David J. Volk, Anita Foks Sahlen, Polly Searle, Raouf S. and Lilian E. Wassef Fares, Josephine S. Styers, Life Estate; Cecelia Abbott and Peter J. Lord, Life Estate; Benjamin E. (Sr.) and Barbara A. Harvey, Life Estate; Antonio Lopez, Trustee; Walter J. and Mary Lou Kilian, Virgil Rainey and Mary Jean Rainey, Suzette Noakes, James D. George, Edwin P. and Pamela P. Worth, Raymond W. Schleichkorn, Barbara A. Neal, Harold E. Myers and Martha C. Myers, Trustees; Robin Postal-Sandland and Barry Sandland, Norma L. Spector; Josephine Soave, Life Estate; James E. and Pauline C. Hicks, Henry J. and Laura C. Gregorio, Vincent A. Vaccaro and Lorraine M. Vaccaro, Trustees; Parcel 781.6 - Linda and Howard Grau, James C. and Susan M. Johnson, Joan G. Crawford, Marie Holbrook, Natalie R. Clyne, Brian S. Bell and John A. Bell, Roger A. Kesselbach and Carole A. Pignataro, A. Vincent and Diane E. Cerny, John K. and Jane M. Mordas, Hillar L. and Marie C. Britt, Barbara E. Nagaraj, William J. and Theresa N. Peppler, Paul E. Ponton Jr. and Marlene E. Ponton-Barrett, Roland and Anna C. Fiore, Laura I. Daily, Trustee; Douglas C. and Nancy J. Persse, Angela C. Rothrock, Ann V. Kramer, James A. Capwill, Tom G. Purnhagen and Donna L. Purnhagen, Co-Trustees; Kenneth W. Harte and Shirley A. Harte, Co-Trustees; William D. and Ruth S. Renner, Margita Mortimer, Trustee; Albert and Janet Berk, Leonard Pascal Roberts IV and Taylor Savage Roberts, George P. and Bergleod Oas Chandler, Arthur M. and Elizabeth P. Knehr, Armand Braun and Kermit Springstead, Daniel W. Winegardner, J. Charles (Jr.) and Sandra L. Sawyer, Joseph A. and Veronica B. Tuozzo, Janice and Donald Lamer, Robert M. and Kim M. Mahar, Henry G. Roberts and Ruth C. Roberts, Trustees; Morton B. and Helen J Orenstein, Life Estate; Robert S. and Sandra E. Johnson, Donald G. and Ruth M. Haefele, Roberta J. Gilbo, Brian P. Orenstein, Roy Glisson Jr. and Anna B. Glisson, Co-Trustees; Maria Russo, Ronald Joseph and Lydia R. Costlow, John R. and Joyce E. Neal, Life Estate; Lori Demo, Jeffrey A. and Lynn A. Palmatier, Marilyn J. Sher, Renee F. Tiller, James and Helen Befanis, Marguerite Makar, Evelyn C. Tidball, Trustee; Allen C. and Grace M. Caldwell, William R. Jones and Mary K. Jones, Trustees; Raymond Romanski, Freydoun and Ursel Nossrat, Paul D. and Lisa S. Issurdatt, Charles B. and Mary Jane Fortner, and Richard H. White, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6221 for Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 33 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 34. Section 26, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. 02, Lots 1 thru 22, Sub. 03, Lots 1 thru 22, Parcels 4.1 thru 4.8 and 8.1 thru 8.8, owned by Oceanview Properties, Inc.; Donald R. and Nancy Logsdon, Larry and Linda M. Trojan, Lance A. and Kristine C. Maki, Timothy L. Ball and Michael Frazee, George J. and Claudia A. Crane, Life Estate; Susanne C. Gott and Daniel G. Olivares, Howard A. and Jeanne M. Sieber, Nicholas Joseph, II; Michael J. Eubank and Jo Ann C. Eubank, Albert Morgan, Michael Friedberg and Joy Maggio, Donald L. and Nickolette C. Chaffee, Vito Galante and Pietrina Galante, Howard J. Dunn and Evelyn A. Dunn, Life Estate; Frank J. Malamisura and Joseph M. Polachek, Earl C. and Alyse Barry, Mary J. Springman, Margaret B. Engel, Trustee; Pifipa Investments, Inc.; James R. Serafin and Helen P. Serafin, Life Estate; Steve A. and Charlene R. Baber, George F. Koch and Patricia Griffin-Koch, Edwin and Judith L Struble, Ernest V. and Virginia M. Lofgren, Carlo Arini, Stanley and Angelina Lacorte, Frank M. and Carolyn A. Demarco, Un Suk Held, Patrick F. Healy, Trustee; Philip A. Deane and Lorraine S. Salois-Deane, Alwyn Wood, Daniel Macura and Joan Selby Macura, Trustees; Thalia M. Karakitsios, Eugene W. and Arlene Polanski, Gerald and Sharon K. Martin, Michael J. and Priscilla Gardiner, Francis E. and Donna M. Ward, Garrett Foy, Carolyn J. Poole, H.G. Goninan and Pamela Craig-Goninan, Dennis D. Hart, Larry D. and Cynthia J. Kientz, R. Thomas Roe, Ronald E. Davis, Fred M. and Wilma G. Vialpando, J.M. and Nikki L. Linder, John W. Bolge, Trustee; Robert B. and Janet K. Case, Herman Clifford and Susan Brigrt Freund, William F. Buren, Jr. and Ethel S. Buren, Charles E. (Jr.) and Betsy A. Bristow, James C. Gamble, Trustee; David W. Dyer, Trustee; Jack Perlmutter, James B. and Virginia J. Massoni, and Edward W. Scott, Jr., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6222 for Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 34 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 35. Section 11, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 530, owned by Brevard County, c/o Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6252 for Public Building (Fire Station).

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 35 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE FOR SIXTH SMALL SCALE PLAN AMENDMENT
OF 2001, 01S.6

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance setting forth the sixth small scale plan amendment of 2001, 01S.6.

Commissioner Higgs stated Attorney Gonzalez has applied for a vested rights on this issue; and the Board has seen the item a number of times.

Attorney Tino Gonzalez, representing the applicant Glen Houston, stated in 1986 the owner of the property, Francis Leggett, made an application before the Board to change the zoning of the property to accommodate one-half acre lots; it was approved in 1986; Ms. Leggett failed to record the Resolution and plot plan, which gave her eight .58-acre lots; and there have been eight trailers there since then. He noted the applicant has gone through a series of zoning requests based on discussions with staff; it came to the applicant’s attention that perhaps he should file a small scale plan amendment; he talked to Commissioner Higgs and staff about it; and then it was decided it may be better to file a subdivision application. He stated he spoke to Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn, who indicated the best thing to do was to file a vested rights application; and he prepared it, filed the application, and talked to County staff to determine what to do to accommodate Glen Houston, the present owner of the property, in his efforts to let the eight individuals stay on the lots. Attorney Gonzalez noted in 1988, one of the owners’ trailer became so dilapidated he wanted to replace it; he went to replace the unit before Mr. Houston owned the property; and Code Enforcement got involved and indicated in 1994 the Comprehensive Plan was amended, which changed the character of the property from two units per acre to one unit per acre. He noted the property is directly adjacent to the Barefoot Bay community where property next door has 23 units; the applicant has done everything diligently to pursue this; he has engineering drawings and surveys; and the subdivision plans were completed. He stated Plata Engineering has worked closely with staff and came up with a series of respectful conditions the applicant will agree to; the applicant will construct a paved apron off of Fleming Grant Road, repair a fence barrier between Barefoot Bay and the proposed property, plant a six-foot vegetative buffer on the south side of the property, and only double-wide mobile homes or modular homes may be used to replace the existing mobile homes. Attorney Gonzalez noted the applicant will agree to anything else he can do within reason and economically feasible. He stated when city water and sewer is available and comes to the property line, the applicant will hook up to it; Mr. Houston is trying to get around the requirements of a subdivision as he cannot afford to pave the road; and if there is a permanent structure built on the property, the applicant will agree to pave the road to County standards. He stated prior to Mr. Houston purchasing the property, it was a high crime area; he has cleaned up the area; and the people of Barefoot Bay like Mr. Houston as he is a responsible property owner.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the vested rights issue is not being heard by the Board tonight. Commissioner Higgs noted the best thing to do tonight is to allow Attorney Gonzalez to come before the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting to meet the public notice requirements on the vested rights; and staff can schedule the issue within 30 days. She inquired if the Board should table the zoning item to the next Board zoning meeting or wait until April 10, 2003 to hear the vested rights issue. Planner Todd Corwin responded the April 10, 2003 Board zoning meeting would be fine.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance for the Sixth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2001, 01S.6 to the April 10, 2003 Board zoning meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

FEE WAIVER REQUEST, RE: LAND ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION FEES FOR
SEBASTIAN RIVER DREDGING DREDGE MATERIAL CONTAINMENT AREA

Mike Cullum, representing St. Johns River Water Management District, requested a fee waiver on the land alteration permit in the amount of $35,904; stated the project is a large one; and if the Board would like to reduce the fee to accommodate the staff costs for a smaller project, it would be fine. He reiterated his request for waiver or reduction of the fee so the District can do more for the environment.

Chairperson Colon inquired did staff do an estimate of the costs. Sherry Williams, Environmental Permitting, responded based on review of the application, staff costs would be approximately $5,000; the Environmental Permitting Section is user fee based and does not use General Fund Revenue in its operations; staff cannot calculate inspection costs at this point as it does not know how much would be involved in a project this size; and it recognizes the application fee is substantial, but it does not normally review land alteration projects of this size. She noted there was a question about how much the County has paid to the District in stormwater permitting; the District stopped waiving permit application fees for government entities in 1993 and 1994; since that time, the Regional Stormwater Utility Department has paid approximately $117,000 in stormwater permit fees; and it does not include fees paid by any other County agencies.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the District will waive $35,000 for the County on the next permit fees for stormwater if the County waives the land alteration permit application fees for the District. Mr. Cullum responded he is not authorized to waive the fees; and suggested the Board waive the fees commensurate with a 30-acre size project, which would be more normal to this type of operation. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the fee based on. Ms. Williams responded the fee is $204.00 per acre; the cost was derived from actual staff time based on past experience; staff does not normally review projects of this size; and it takes more staff time to review the larger projects. She noted staff is anticipating more inspections associated with the project.

Commissioner Carlson inquired did the District evaluate all the costs associated with the project; with Mr. Cullum responding negatively. Mr. Cullum noted the District was taken by surprise in terms of the County’s costs.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired has any of the $117,000 been negotiated down from what the requested fee was; with Ms. Williams responding she does not know. Commissioner Pritchard stated he cannot support a fee waiver for the District when it has not supported one for the County. Mr. Cullum inquired how many projects was the $117,000; with Ms. Williams responding she does not know.

Ralph Brown, representing St. Johns River Water Management District, stated the District’s fees range from $100.00 to $3,000; it is a lot of projects; the District does a lot of permits with the County; and to his knowledge, Brevard County has never gone to the District’s Board and requested an exemption. Mr. Cullum noted the District will be using State money for the majority of the project.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board should accept the full fee as the County is entitled to it; it is what the County charges; it may be more than the District’s $3,000 limit, but the County should accept the full fee as requested by staff.

The Board took no action concerning request by St. Johns River Water Management District to waive the $35,904 land alteration permit application fee for the Sebastian River Dredging Dredge Material Containment Area.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)