MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

December 5, 2002

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on December 5, 2002, 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 Reverend Calvin Gittner, Pineda Presbyterian Church.

Commissioner Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

DISCUSSION, RE: WITHDRAWN AND TABLED ITEMS

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated there are a number of items that have withdrawals or requests for tabling; withdrawn is Item II.A.1; and there are requests for tabling of Items II.A.7, II.B.3, and II.E.2.A to the February 6, 2003 Board meeting at 5:30 p.m.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to withdraw Item II.A. 1, Frederick C. Burgett, Trustee; and table Items II.A.7, Carmen Realino; II.B.3, John S. and Connie S. Falzone, and Item II.E.2.A, Parcel 3, to the February 6, 2003 Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Bentley stated staff received information from the School Board this afternoon on school capacity issues; there are four items on tonight’s agenda that involve school capacity; the information previously given to the Board on capacity is incorrect; therefore, the information in the County’s files is incorrect; and the County needs to get corrected numbers from the School Board before staff can give the Board accurate information to base its decisions on. She noted those items affected are Items II.A.2, II.A.5, II.B.5, and II.B.6.A and B; and the Board could table those items to the January 21, 2003 at 5:30 p.m.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Items II.A.2, George W. and Stella M. Lewis and Irving A. and Alice S. Bubek and Panorama Mobile Home Park, Inc.; II.A.5, William P. Turnbaugh, Trustee; II.B.5, Roy E. and Evelyn Lindback; II.B.6.A, Brevard County Board of County Commissioners; and II.B.6.B, Midwestern Construction, Inc. to the January 21, 2003 Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF JULY 8,
AUGUST 5, AND OCTOBER 7, 2002

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meetings of July 8, August 5, and October 7, 2002, as follows:

Item 3. (Z0207401) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on its own motion on April 16, 2002, authorized administrative rezoning on property owned by Irene Charamut, Trustee, pursuant to Future Land Use Policy 15.1, initiating consideration of a change from BU-1 and BU-2 to all BU-1 on 1.66 acres located on the west side of U.S. 1, south of Allen Hill Avenue, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the request is an administrative rezoning initiated by the Board of County Commissioners on property owned by Irene Charamut; there was a request by Ms. Sheehan some time ago asking the Board to consider administratively rezoning the property; and the Board directed staff to initiate such rezoning from BU-1 and BU-2 to all BU-1.

Commissioner Carlson stated a question was asked by Attorney Leonard Spielvogel in regard to whether or not the Board had the authority to administratively rezone property; and requested Attorney Bentley provide a response.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responded Attorney Spielvogel was concerned about the authority to administratively rezone and the necessity for cross examination; staff is of the opinion that the Board has the authority to administratively rezone and is not required to give strict cross examination as in a judicial proceeding; and this is merely quasi-judicial.

Attorney Kenneth Crooks stated he is present in place of Attorney Spielvogel who is out of town; the property owner is still in objection to the rezoning from BU-2 to BU-1 on the property; they do not agree with Attorney Bentley’s interpretation of several of the items included in her memorandum; it is for an authority above the Board to decide at some point; and somewhere down the road the issue will be raised and decided. He noted if Commissioner Pritchard is going to vote on the item he needs to be given the opportunity to review the tapes of the previous meetings, minutes, and documents submitted previously.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Pritchard has been given an adequate opportunity to review the information; stated there is not an urgency in the matter; after the rezoning the use remains the same; so there is no immediate necessity to proceed this evening; and if there is any desire on Commissioner Pritchard’s part to have the opportunity to review the record, he will be glad to table the item.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would appreciate having the item tabled; he has not reviewed the minutes or tapes; and he would like to discuss the issues further with staff and make a better informed decision on the item.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item 3 to the January 21, 2003 Board meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (Z0210302) Old Catholic Church in America’s request for CUP for church in SR zone, removing the existing CUP for residential social service facility on 1.57 acres located on the southwest corner of Florida Avenue and Dairy Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Richard Torpy, representing the applicant, stated the item was tabled from the Board’s meeting in November 2002 due to a request by Ms. Tsamoutales to have the opportunity to provide an expert to testify before the Board tonight; Father David Conway purchased the property with the understanding that it could be rezoned to BU-1 to put a church; he was advised by staff that there was an existing CUP and he needed to seek an amendment to the CUP for a church; and it is what Father Conway applied for. He advised Father Conway had applied for the BU-1 zoning, withdrew it, and reapplied for the CUP; the property is at the corner of Dairy Road and Florida Avenue; Dairy Road has been widened, rendering most of what used to be single-family residences as uninhabitable; and currently the property has a CUP for a residential social services facility. He noted there could be a drug rehabilitation facility or group home on the property; at one time there was some type of facility there; the P&Z Board recommended approval of the request; and there are no negative comments by staff. Attorney Torpy stated he wrote a letter, which was hand delivered or mailed by Father Conway, to 87 property owners in the surrounding area which was beyond the scope of the County’s requirement; the letter indicated what the applicant was going to do and that he was asking for a CUP for a church; and he invited the property owners to a meeting on November 21, 2002 to be held on the property. He noted the meeting occurred and 17 residents attended; he received one telephone call from a resident who could not attend the meeting; Commissioner Higgs also attended the meeting; and the meeting represented what the applicant was going to do, the purpose of the church, and the binding development agreement. He stated the proposed binding development agreement was distributed to the County; he has received no comments in opposition to the request, with the exception of the Tsamoutales family who are immediately to the west of the proposed property; the Tsamoutales family purchased their property after the CUP for the group home and before the CUP for the church was requested; and Mr. and Mrs. Tsamoutales have a single-family home on their property. Attorney Torpy stated he has added a few new items to the binding development agreement; staff’s review and recommendations for the rezoning are part of the record in support of the application; the maximum capacity of the site is 115 persons; and the maximum impervious surface shall not exceed 45%, which is consistent with Brevard County Code. He noted the applicant has agreed to construct a six-foot high concrete block wall finished on both sides to be consistent with the structure on the western boundary between the Tsamoutales’ property in order to provide buffering; Mr. and Mrs. Tsamoutales requested an eight-foot wall; however, it is not allowed by County Code; all ingress to the site will be from Florida Avenue or Dairy Road; and the only egress shall be to Dairy Road. He stated the hours of operation shall be no later than 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and 10:30 p.m. on weekends; the owner of the property commits that the facilities in question at no time, except in the event of a natural disaster, shall be used to provide a soup kitchen or transient residential accommodations; if a trash dumpster is required on the property, the applicant agrees to locate the dumpster as far away from residences as permitted by Code; and the applicant agrees to locate the six-foot concrete block wall on the Tsamoutales’ property and give it to them if the wall is allowed to be constructed at a grade that is higher than the applicant’s property to accomplish the Tsamoutales’ purpose. Attorney Torpy noted no school or daycare of any type, except Sunday School during regularly scheduled church services, shall be permitted on the subject property; the owner shall comply with all regulations and Ordinances of Brevard County; and the other two provisions are standard and required by County Code. He stated he and the applicant have met with the neighbors and sent letters to them; they have done everything they can and know they are still not in agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Tsamoutales; Ms. Tsamoutales desires the proposed property to be a single-family residence; however, it is not a single-family residence now and the property was zoned for a group home before. He noted several of the neighbors represented to him at the meeting that the proposed request is an improvement; the binding development agreement considers the neighborhood; and requested the Board approve the request.

Nick Tsamoutales stated he and his wife own the property that immediately abuts the property in question; the property does not have a CUP for a drug rehabilitation center; it is for a congregate living facility and has expired based on discussions he had with staff; there can be no drug rehabilitation center there; and the suggestion that the property can be used for some undesirable use is incorrect. He noted the request is being made on behalf of the owner of the property; he is not against churches; he was raised in the church and his children have been raised in the church; and his wife went through church school. He stated when he and his wife found the property they inquired about the status of the property in question; they learned it was a congregate living facility under a CUP; they determined, after much deliberation, that they could live with it; so they were aware of what was going on. Mr. Tsamoutales noted he and his wife applied for financing and got it; the appraisal was based on the knowledge of the appraiser that the proposed property was a CUP for a congregate living facility; zoning and use is not forever; and the Board is bound by rules that have to be met. He stated since the Board sits as a quasi-judicial body, it needs to consider the candor of the applicant; he was unable to attend the initial Board meeting, but his wife attended and requested the item be tabled; and the Board granted the request. He noted Father Conway told his wife that he was affiliated with the Church of the Netherlands and an Orthodox Catholic Church; he was told he had permission to build a church and did not have to go through any hearings; and he also told his wife that the small building on the property was going to be a church and construction was going to begin in November. Mr. Tsamoutales stated the applicant has 13 separate telephone numbers listed in the white pages for himself; there is also a listing for St. Peter’s Church at 1135 N. A1A, Indialantic, which is one of the old motels on the beach; the applicant told his wife it was not a church, but a counseling center; he checked the Public Records for St. Peter’s Church; and the only one is in Deerfield Beach, which has nothing to do with the A1A location.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to allow an additional three minutes for Mr. Tsamoutales to make his comments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Tsamoutales stated the owner of the property located on A1A is Muriel, Inc.; it purchased the property in 1999 for $650,000; in 2002, the property was sold for $1.2 million; and the Corporation was formed in 1995 by Philip and Rita Bambino in Ocean Ridge, Florida. He noted the applicant did not become involved in the Corporation until 1998; he checked the Public Records; there are two items that indicate there are two pieces of property; and one is owned by The Old Catholic Church of America, Inc. and the other is owned by The Old Catholic Church in America, Inc. He stated in looking at the letter that authorizes the applicant to speak on behalf of the owners and the corporate records he provided for the Board, the name on the letter giving permission for Father Conway to speak does not include the names of the members of the Board of Directors; the Board does not have a proper application before it; the owner of part of the property is Old Catholic Church of America, Inc. and the other part is the Old Catholic Church in America, Inc. Mr. Tsamoutales noted Item K is a letter from a realtor he asked to determine the impact on the value of his home and property; the realtor acknowledges that he reviewed the survey that was made to get the financing; such realtor indicates the proposed development would result in the devaluation of his residence in the range of $35,000 to $40,000; and under the County Code, one of the criteria that has to be met cannot be rebutted and is a fact. He read portions of the letter, as follows: “The land use in the immediate area is 100% single-family homes. The housing is almost exclusively owned or occupied. The area is 80% built out, has a stable growth rate, property values are increasing, and there is a strong demand for housing in the immediate vicinity. When homes are put on the market, they sell within a relatively short time, which is another indicator of desirability of the area. Property values typically rise in such areas over time, unless some outside stimulus imposes itself. The staff comments indicated that Melbourne, which has jurisdiction on the east side of Dairy Road, had no comments regarding the application.” Mr. Tsamoutales stated Mr. King was a former member of the Planning and Zoning Board; he is a reputable realtor; he has petitions signed by approximately 50 people; and provided the petitions to the Board, but not the Clerk. He reiterated the Board has to consider the credibility and candor of any applicant who comes before it; and requested the Board opposed the request.

Steven Kellner, President of Whisperwoods Homeowners Association, stated the subdivision is located to the east on the other side of Dairy Road from the property in question; none of the 85 homeowners in the subdivision received the letter from Father Conway where he invited the adjacent property owners to a meeting to discuss the use of the property; the homeowners are concerned about the parking issues that have been raised and egress onto Dairy Road; and the subdivision egresses almost opposite of where the proposed new egress will be added. He noted traffic is also a concern; inquired if the church does not succeed and the property is rezoned to the BU-1 status, what other businesses will come in; stated the Association’s Board of Directors expressed opposition to the rezoning of the property; and the Association was not aware of the rezoning. Mr. Kellner stated the Association received messages one day prior to the Board meeting, so it did not have time to prepare or do research; and the property should remain a single-family dwelling.

Commissioner Higgs noted the application is for a CUP for a church in single-family residential zoning, so it is not a change to BU-1 zoning; and a business could not come in without getting a different zoning.

Rochelle Lawandales stated Mr. Tsamoutales asked her to review the CUP request and site plan in order to provide an evaluation and opinion concerning consistency and compatibility; one of the County’s requirements is making several determinations in staff’s report and leaves the decision of compatibility to the Board; it should evaluate compatibility of the application within the context of Administrative Policies 3 through 5 of the Future Land Use Element as outlined in the staff report; and she previously provided copies of a document dated November 4, 2002 where she identified key issues that are clearly indicative of incompatibilities between the proposed plan and the Tsamoutales property. She noted a new piece of information that has a bearing on this matter and evaluations is the financial analysis, which relates to Item C of the County’s general review criteria for conditional use; Item B particularly relates to the character of adjacent and nearby properties with regard to use, function, operation, hours of operation, type and amount of traffic generated, building size, setbacks, and parking availability; and Item C is that the proposed use will not cause a substantial diminution in value of abutting residential properties. Ms. Lawandales stated those are clearly issues that have not been resolved to the satisfaction of Mr. and Mrs. Tsamoutales or anyone who would be living adjacent to the property in question; she is not against churches; however, there are critical issues that need to be addressed to make the two properties co-exist; and it is not done through the proposed binding development plan. She noted there are things that need to be further evaluated, such as no access off of Florida Avenue and no bingo; the size and amount of square footage of the buildings and parking on the site is a tremendous intensity; and provided pictures to the Board and Clerk. She stated the first picture clearly shows the openness of the property as it relates to the Tsamoutales’ house; it also shows the land evaluations of the proposed property, which are lower than the surrounding properties; there is an extensive buffer on the south side that is currently in existence; there is heavy vegetation along the fence line, a dirt driveway, more vegetation, and approximately 50 to 60 feet between the fence and the nearest house; and parking will be abutting the fence line on the property of the Tsamoutales’ home. Ms. Lawandales stated the second picture shows the openness along the western boundary; the lights from the parking area and traffic on the site are going to have a tremendous impact; and requested the Board consider the items raised and compatibility issues in its deliberations.

Sharolyn Tsamoutales stated at the neighborhood meeting she indicated she would like the use to stay residential; the petitions submitted are from the surrounding neighborhoods; she has not met one person who said they did not want to sign the petition; they are not all present tonight for given reasons, but she assured them the petitions would be a clear representation of their opinion; and Katherine Ford, who spoke with Commissioner Higgs today, indicated there should be no ingress or egress from Florida Avenue if the CUP is granted. She noted she realizes that the six-foot fence is common and standard for residential homes; she did not find an eight-foot fence an unlikely scenario as her home sits much higher; with a six-foot fence, she is going to clearly see out and around Father Conway’s entire property; so there will not be a sound barrier. Ms. Tsamoutales stated Father Conway wants to use his property for a seniors’ club every day; the people do not have to be parishioners; the club will generate more traffic, people, and concerns; there are a boat and car parked on the property that are not Father Conway’s; and she does not know if they are issues for Code Enforcement. She noted none of the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods received letters from Father Conway inviting them to the neighborhood meeting; the proposed use is not compatible; she does not understand why Father Conway is trying to squeeze the church onto one and one-half acres; there is a lovely four-acre parcel up the road; but it is not her job to tell Father Conway how to live. She stated she does not want Father Conway coming into her neighborhood and telling her how to live either; this is her home; it is not a business; the property in question was not set up to be a church; and the church would not be the appropriate zoning for the property. Ms. Tsamoutales stated she, her husband, and Ms. Lawandales do not find the CUP compatible.

Attorney Torpy stated Father Conway was working a retreat center, which explains the 13 telephone numbers; there were separate apartments; each had a separate phone number; and each phone was registered to Father Conway. He stated the property is owned by The Old Catholic Church in America; there are two different deeds; and the one that says “of America” is mistaken. He noted Mr. Tsamoutales telling the Board what some realtor said in an informal evaluation is not evidence of value or devaluation of his property; it would have been simple to get an appraisal if it was a legitimate point; it does not stand on any evidentiary basis; and the realtor is a friend of Mr. Tsamoutales. He stated he and Father Conway disagree and believe the request would increase the property value as it enhances the beautification of the site and what the site had before; he sent out over 80 letters to residents; the homeowners in Whisperwoods did not receive such letters; and they are across a four-lane divided highway, Dairy Road, so he doubts the church is going to impact the Tsamoutales family. Attorney Torpy stated the egress onto Dairy Road is on the opposite side of the divided highway, so traffic is not going to go to the proposed site; three residents of Casa Del Mar attended the neighborhood meeting; and none of them have contacted him or raised any opposition to the request. He noted Ms. Lawandales is very competent to do reviews, and commented on value; but there is no evidence of it; there is a difference in height and Father Conway is willing to put up a wall, which will be adequate buffering; and the issue is about compatibility. He stated the only residents objecting to the request are Mr. and Mrs. Tsamoutales; there are two neighbors to the south in support of the project; Father Conway is doing everything he can, short of not building the church; and the request is compatible and consistent. Attorney Torpy stated Father Conway has done everything possible to be a good neighbor, limiting the size to a 115 total people at any given time; the church is not huge; there would be no Sunday schools or day cares on the site; and the facility would close at 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and 10:30 p.m. on weekends. He noted there would be no soup kitchens; seniors will be invited to the facility; he cannot imagine a senior walking around the grounds for exercise is going to be disruptive; and it is a community church. He stated the Old Catholic Church is a community church and designed to be small and nestled into residential communities to service the needs of the community; they are restricted by their own order; if they get over 100 people, they have to start opening up a new church; so they are designed for what the CUP is, a small community church in a neighborhood. Attorney Torpy stated 87 people were notified of the neighborhood meeting; some of the people said they did not receive the letters, but if they were within the 500 feet they should have received a notice from Brevard County; and requested the Board approve the CUP.

Commissioner Higgs stated staff indicated there may be some difficulty with the format and advertising; and requested staff address the issue.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated in reviewing the application and information provided to the Board by Mr. Tsamoutales, the application states that the property is owned by The Old Catholic Church in America; the tax records indicate that one parcel is owned by The Old Catholic Church of America and the other one The Old Catholic Church in America; the application is signed by Father Conway, who is an officer in The Old Catholic Church in America; and there are two different owners. He noted if what Attorney Torpy says is correct, the item may be fine, but staff has no way of verifying that.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated staff checked with Tallahassee; there is a separate corporation that is The Old Catholic Church of America; even assuming it is supposed to be “in America”, the Public Records show “in America” has Directors Conway, Robinson, and Blythe; the documents are not signed by Mr. Blythe; and there is no signature by a president, which is normally required in a corporation. Commissioner Higgs inquired what would be the proper action of the Board. Attorney Bentley stated the Board in the past has given the applicant an opportunity to correct the paperwork and readvertise; and the item was advertised as “in America”. Commissioner Higgs noted it would be improper to make a decision unless the County had proper notification and the proper applicant. Attorney Bentley stated the Board is not authorized at this point to change the zoning on the property as it does not have proper signatures.

Attorney Torpy stated the confusion is that it is The Old Catholic Church in America of Central Florida, Inc.; there is confusion in the corporate records, but he can clarify the record that Father Conway has full authority on behalf of the owner, which is The Old Catholic Church in America, Inc.; and they are the applicants today. He noted there are other Old Catholic Churches with different corporate names; he can fix that; and requested the Board move forward on the item, subject to providing adequate evidence to the County Attorney’s Office and Zoning Department that proper notification has been given out. He stated if not, the item is going to have to be readvertised; if the Board does not move forward and desires readvertisement, time has been lost; he believes the item has been properly advertised with proper names; and there is proper authority on the application.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem goes further; Attorney Bentley is inferring that Father Conway may have taken title in some other corporate name; therefore, the County needs to see copies of the Deed; and Father Conway may need to get a quitclaim deed back from the other corporation. Attorney Torpy noted if there is an error in a Deed, the issue is not deeds, but whether or not the applicant, who signed the application representing he had authority to ask for the rezoning, did in fact have authority of the owner to request the rezoning; he is representing to the Board today that he can provide the documents that the applicant has proper authority of the owner; and if there is a major mess up in the Deeds, he agrees it will have to be fixed. He stated if there is a scriveners error, a notice of scrivener’s error can be recorded and fixed; and requested the Board give him a few days to work it out or table the item to the next meeting. He noted he does not want to stop the process today, assuming it is wrong; he would like the opportunity to review the issue; if the Board is uncomfortable moving forward, it can table the item for him to get a resolution to the question; and if the application is incorrect, the item can be re-noticed.

Commissioner Higgs noted the Board could table the item to the first meeting in January 2003. Attorney Torpy stated if there is a problem with the Deeds, the applicant is back to square one; he does not believe that is the situation; and he would like the opportunity to fix it.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 4 to the January 21, 2003 Board of County Commissioners’ meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z0210502) Klebeck’s Groceries, Inc.’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (02S.13) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and change from RU-1-9 to BU-1 on 1.07 acres located on the east side of City Acres Road, south of U.S. 192, which was recommended for approval as Community Commercial by the Local Planning Agency (LPA) and BU-1 by the P&Z Board.

Tom Klebeck, President of Klebeck’s Groceries, stated the rezoning was tabled last month due to Commissioner Higgs’ concern regarding traffic flow in the residential areas surrounding the proposed property; there was misinformation provided at the meeting and he wants to correct it; when he purchased the property there were five structures on the property; and the entire property and structures were in general disrepair. He noted there was one tenant living rent free on the premise who would be a caretaker for all of the property, yet there was no care being exerted toward the land; three of the buildings were not occupied and had been shuttered; they were being used for illegal activity and were crack houses; and it is clear in looking at the shuttered facilities that inappropriate behavior was taking place in them. Mr. Klebeck stated since purchasing the property, he has demolished four of the five structures and cleared them; the remaining structure has been re-roofed, the building has been repainted, the ceiling has been redone, the bathroom has been retrofitted, the facility has been re-carpeted, all the exterior lighting has been fixed, and the parking lot has been leveled and fixed. He noted a tremendous effort has been made to improve the property; he is requesting a rezoning of the back acre of the property; and in the three years prior to him purchasing the property, there were 20 domestic disturbance calls to the property. He stated the question was raised last month as he tried to rezone the back acre along City Acres Road as to how close it was to a residential community; the property immediately across City Acres Road is zoned commercial; it is operating as an auto repair business; and it has approximately a 70-foot wide driveway access. Mr. Klebeck noted it is to the south of his property; any access he would provide off City Acres Road or onto such Road would inherently be to the north of another commercial business that is already further south; therefore, no additional traffic would come in the way of residences. He stated the nearest residential property line from the existing access to the property is over 125 feet away and to the south; landlocking the property to the front acre limits the use of the property and ties the two acres together, so he prefers not to do that; forcing access closer to S.R. 192 in any high-traffic use, although he does not anticipate such a use, would only be a bad zoning deal as it would force more traffic onto S.R. 192 and make a situation worse and not better; and everything he has done to date has been not to increase traffic, but to improve the community. Mr. Klebeck noted there have been no objections; neither of the meetings that have been held has anybody showed up to object; there was only one letter written in regard to the subject concerning traffic; but it is an invalid concern. He requested the Board consider the original rezoning request; stated he submitted a binding development agreement (BDA) and would limit access, but he does not feel it is appropriate.

Bruce Moia stated with the four units Mr. Klebeck removed from the property, it would take approximately 40 trips off of the road; the size of the property Mr. Klebeck wants to rezone is about the same size as the first property; and Mr. Klebeck could double the business and generate less traffic than what is currently there.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 6 with BDA with no access to City Acres Road; and adopt Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Thirteenth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2002, 02S.13, 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. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired does the motion include the BDA that was submitted; with Commissioner Pritchard responding yes.

Mr. Klebeck requested the Board reconsider not limiting the access. Commissioner Pritchard stated the motion includes the BDA that has been submitted as part of the package with the limited access. Mr. Klebeck stated he submitted the BDA as an absolute last necessity to achieve the objectives; but he was hoping the Board would reconsider based on the facts that there is commercial access to businesses further to the south and closer to residential neighborhoods; his access to the property is not within 125 feet of any residences; and reiterated the BDA was submitted as a last effort, if it was required, to alleviate someone’s concerns regarding increased traffic in a residential area. He noted he does not believe there is increased traffic; and requested the Board consider the original rezoning without the BDA.

Commissioner Carlson inquired does the maker of the motion want to put the item back on the table for reconsideration; with Commissioner Pritchard responding affirmatively.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated Mosby and Associates submitted the BDA with the limitation that it not be accessed onto City Acres Drive; and the applicant or the owner has requested the Board approve the item without the BDA and limitation.

Chairperson Colon stated she supports the item with the BDA; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he would support that motion. Commissioner Higgs noted it is consistent with what the Board has done in the past. Commissioner Pritchard stated that was the original motion; and expressed concern that staff, the applicant, and Mr. Moia are saying that the BDA may be inappropriate.

Mr. Klebeck stated the BDA resolves concerns regarding increased traffic into a residential area as it totally restricts access to the property; the only access to the property is through another property, not via public roads; it is a constricting requirement for the Board to put on him; but he is willing to do it, if necessary. He noted he tried to present to the Board the reasons why the BDA is not necessary; there are already commercial businesses across the street and to the south closer to residences; no increased traffic is going to change the residential community as it exists today; and yes, he submitted a BDA but did so with a letter noting he prefers not to have the BDA as a requirement. Mr. Klebeck stated if the Board mandates such agreement, he will succumb to that.

Chairperson Colon stated because of the submission of the BDA, she feels comfortable with the item; and inquired does staff feel comfortable with it and are there certain things that need to be discussed. Mr. Enos noted he does not believe the BDA is absolutely essential because there is a parcel across the street zoned BU-1 that has access directly onto the road; he does not have a problem without having the BDA; however, he agrees that it would be more protection of the neighborhood to have it; and the Board can go either way on this.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated it has been the recommendation of Traffic Engineer Dick Thompson in the past that having two entrances, one on the main highway and one on a side street, is preferred; on occasion, it has not worked out; but it is Mr. Thompson’s general recommendation. Commissioner Pritchard stated the BDA calls for not allowing an access driveway to City Acres Road. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County recently paid Attorney Leonard Spielvogel $13,000 for a similar case because it backed out of something that happened; he does not know the proposed site and whether or not there are any problems there; the item is in Chairperson Colon’s District; and how she calls it is how he is going to vote. He noted Ms. Busacca indicated the County has had problems in the past; and it does not make any sense not to do it. Chairperson Colon stated she prefers going with the motion that originally was made which is with the BDA.

Commissioner Scarborough noted Commissioner Pritchard withdrew his motion, so he will make a new motion.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 6 with BDA with no access to City Acres Road; and adopt Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Thirteenth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2002, 02S.13, 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. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay. (See pages for Ordinance No. 02-60, BDA, and Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
NOVEMBER 4, 2002

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting on November 4, 2002, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0211401) James and Jane Mink’s request for change from EU and BU-1 to all EU on 1? acre located on the east side of U.S. 1, south of McIver Lane, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan (BDP) as submitted.

Commissioner Carlson stated the item is a down zoning and there is a BDP for one unit.

David Horvath stated he recently purchased the property adjacent to the Minks; the first 300 feet is zoned BU-1; the reason he purchased his property was due to its commercial value; and he intends to develop it at some point. He noted the Minks’ plan is to move back to 200 feet from U.S. 1, which would leave 100 feet of the back of his commercial property adjacent to residential; the Minks are fine people; and expressed concern how the request would affect his property. He stated if a commercial property is located next to a residential property, it changes his setback from five feet to 15 feet and would require a wall; he is looking at 1,000 square feet of buildable office space he cannot use; development costs of a retaining or buffering wall would also devalue his investment; and expressed concern with the costs directly to him as an investor. Mr. Horvath stated if he can get a variance or waiver that requires him to do those types of things he would not have a problem with the issue; he has heard nothing but problems with commercial property next to residential property; and he does not want to run into that himself.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated the requirement would be a 15-foot setback as opposed to a five-foot setback on the portion of the property adjacent to the residential lot; and a wall would be required six feet in height.

Commissioner Carlson inquired does the County make those kinds of considerations when it does compatibility reviews; with Mr. Enos responding affirmatively. Mr. Enos stated the issue would create a potential compatibility problem between the BU-1 and EU; the difference is normally it is going the other direction; the owner in this case is inviting a compatibility issue onto his own property; and it would be evident that he does not object to it. Mr. Enos noted the concerns expressed by Mr. Horvath are valid. Commissioner Carlson stated the impact to the adjacent piece of property would be a concern of hers in terms of the person’s property value.

William Donnell stated he lives south of Mr. Horvath; he owns riverfront property; his property and Mr. Horvath’s property come out onto U.S. 1; he purchased his property and invested over $1 million into it; his intention was to save what he could of the property and also have a business, but not hurt anybody in the surrounding area. He noted he wants to make sure that the original intention for purchasing the property as a good investment for business purposes will not be hindered by the Minks wanting to put a house on their property; he does not wish to devalue his lifetime investment; and it is his understanding that the Minks paid approximately $10,000 for their property as it was given to them as a gift. Mr. Donnell stated he has lived in Brevard County his entire life and intends to stay here; the Minks would be changing the surrounding property owners’ property values and what their plans were when they originally purchased their properties; and that is his concern.

Jane Mink stated when the initial notices went out from the Zoning Department there was an error; such notices indicated they wanted to change all of the property to BU-1; she received telephone calls from neighbors who were irate; and the house behind her property was appraised 10 years ago at $1.2 million. She noted she and her husband purchased the property from a friend with the condition they would build a house there; Mr. Donnell is here due to a vendetta; she has a police report where on June 15, 2002, Mr. Donnell cut trees from property that belonged to Mr. Dumont; and Mr. Dumont owned the property which is now Mr. Horvath’s. She stated Mr. Dumont wanted she and her husband to purchase the property and they told him they would, but Mr. Horvath and his wife wanted the property as they did not want anyone in back of their house, which is understandable; the Horvaths knew she and her husband’s intention to build a home; she did not expect to have anybody complain; and the BU-1 comes back 300 feet. Ms. Mink stated the part they are requesting for rezoning is parcel 2; such parcel is a mixture of BU-1 and EU; it is probably less than 100 feet that will touch Mr. Horvath’s property; and the front part will be left BU-1. She noted she and her husband have tried to do everything according to law; they have a right to have their home; and they have worked hard for it.

Commissioner Carlson inquired did Mr. Enos meet with the Minks. Mr. Enos responded he is not all that familiar with the specifics of the application; and the Minks have several parcels, one of which is commercial and the other parcels are residential. Commissioner Carlson noted the only way they can build a house is if they take that part of the BU-1 away to build their house, if they go by what the Code says; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct on the parcel in question. Commissioner Higgs inquired could the Minks have a house in BU-1. Mr. Enos responded one could have a house in BU-1; however, the subject parcel was split part BU-1 and part EU; the classifications are substantially different; if it were the Board’s pleasure to allow the house to be built in the BU-1 portion or straddle the zoning boundary, he would not object to it; but it is somewhat unusual that there are parcels such as this; and that is why staff suggested the item go to the Board. Commissioner Higgs inquired would it change the setbacks for the Minks; and stated the setbacks would not be any more restrictive in the BU-1. Mr. Enos stated the setbacks are five feet against commercial and 15 feet against residential. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Minks built a house on half BU-1 and half EU, would the setbacks for the portion of the house in BU-1 be more restrictive than the setbacks in EU; with Mr. Enos responding negatively, under the current pattern of zoning in that area. Mr. Enos stated if the Minks ever wanted to change the use of the property, since half of it is BU-1, and go to commercial use on it, that would cause problems.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired has there been any discussion of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Commissioner Carlson stated the BDP is basically EU and indicates the Minks are only going to have one unit; the only concern she has is the BU-1 line all the way down; to allow encroachment of EU into BU-1 is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan; perhaps there is a way that makes sense to be able to utilize it so the Minks can build their house and still stay without having to zone it; but she has never heard of that before and does not know if it is something that could be worked out. Mr. Enos noted the issue is highly unusual, but something could probably be worked out; he is concerned that it could potentially cause problems in the future; but the way things are now, he believes it could be done.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is there something in the BDP that the County would need to describe in order to make something like this legitimate as she does not feel comfortable with it.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responded the Code requirements would apply regardless; and the applicant would have to comply with BU-1 and EU. Commissioner Carlson stated the applicants would not need to have the zoning request; and they could build a home with all the requirements the way it is. Mr. Enos responded that is correct; and the County could insist that the applicants meet the toughest requirements for setbacks and land development regulations of both classifications. Commissioner Carlson inquired is the County equipped to do this with its Land Development Code. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responded it is her understanding that this kind of split zoning is only done when the Board approves it; and staff does not approve this type of thing. Mr. Enos noted that is correct. Ms. Busacca inquired would the County need a BDP on the item even without the change in zoning. Mr. Enos responded it would be useful to have a BDP on the property. Ms. Busacca stated without a change in the actual zoning category, the County would put a BDP on the property to permit the single-family home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 1 to the January 21, 2003 Board of County Commissioners’ meeting.

Ms. Mink stated the house will only go on EU and will not touch the BU-1. Commissioner Carlson stated that is fine; and the County needs to clarify it for future use and make sure there is protection.

Chairperson Colon inquired how is the BDP going to affect the neighbors. Mr. Enos responded if the Board were to deny the rezoning, but place a BDP on the property indicating one single residence would be placed on the property, it would not affect the adjacent property owners as the applicants are still adjacent to commercial property and have a residence on it; so the applicants would not have the setbacks changed. Ms. Busacca inquired do the performance standards say, in some instances, where it is developed as residential rather than where it is zoned residential. Mr. Enos responded it is the site plan regulations; he cannot speak to the wall as it is in the site plan regulations; but the setback will not change. Ms. Busacca noted she is referring to performance standards of lighting, sound, etc. Mr. Enos stated the performance standards that deal with lighting would still come into effect; he does not believe it would affect the use of the property; and it becomes a design issue.

Commissioner Higgs stated the applicant indicated the house would be located in EU; so it is only going to be developed as residential in EU. Commissioner Carlson stated it needs to be explicitly put in the BDP. Chairperson Colon noted the most important thing is to make sure the County protects both the applicants and the surrounding neighbors.

Commissioner Pritchard advised he will second Commissioner Carlson’s motion.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0211501) Dilesh Enterprises, Inc.’s request for CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (beer and wine only) in TU-1(20) zone on 1.3 acres located on the west side of Highway A1A, directly between North and South Courts, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board, contingent on site plan approval.

Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have a problem with the item; but would like to include that the CUP would be only for restaurant usage and construction of parking improvements.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 2, contingent on site plan approval, CUP for alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption (beer and wine only) for restaurant usage, and construction of parking improvements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 7:13 p.m. and reconvened at 7:25 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: RESOLUTION FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL
DEVIATION AND PROPOSED CHANGE #12 FOR VIERA DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT

Commissioner Carlson stated the Commissioners have been briefed by The Viera Company on Item II.B.9., which also goes with Item II.F.; and requested the items be taken at this time.

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider a resolution for determination of substantial deviation and proposed Change #12 for Viera Development of Regional Impact (DRI).

Each Commissioner advised they were briefed and went through the proposals with The Viera Company representatives.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution for determination of substantial deviation and proposed Change #12 for Viera Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 02-314.)

Item 9. (SPE21101) A. Duda and Sons, Inc.’s requests for change from PUD to PUD with an amendment to the PDP on 4,663.43? acres located west of I-95, south of Barnes Boulevard, and north of Pineda, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 4. (Z0211102) Veronica Estates, Inc. and Veronica M. Lawhon’s request for amendment to existing BDP in SR zone on 118.9? acres located north of Canaveral Groves Boulevard and west of Grissom Parkway, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this particular development is between Canaveral Groves and Port St. John; Port St. John is a GDC development and has smaller units; Canaveral Groves has typically developed with the larger lots; and when Veronica Estates started, it had one-acre lots. He noted the plan before the Board would reduce the size of the lots to one-half acre and larger, but the remaining parcels will be held in a preserved-type environment.

Veronica Lawhon stated they are trying to eliminate impacting the protective areas; they have spoken to the homeowners, and they understand and agree to the one-half acre.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there has been some discussion about not having increased units, but units on smaller parcels where the parcels would have more open and preserved areas; so this item is in that basic concept.

Commissioner Carlson stated in her briefing she talked to Planner Alan Woolwich about the various formats; the discussion they had was in the case that if Veronica Estates did not go with that kind of scenario and went with the one-half acre lots, it would have to go through St. Johns River Water Management District to get permitting, etc.; with the open space subdivision design and preserving the wetlands, Veronica Estates would not have to go through the permitting process; and inquired is Ms. Lawhon willing to go through that process and discuss it in more depth with the Zoning Department. Ms. Lawhon inquired would it be the one-quarter acre. Mr. Enos responded the open space subdivision design would require the one-quarter acre lots; discussed in briefings this week was doing the S.R. subdivision with the BDP, but using such Plan as a way to incorporate some of the aspects of an open space subdivision; and there may be some one-half acre lots and some smaller than one-half acre or use easements over parts of the lots to reduce further the wetland impacts. Commissioner Carlson noted through a BDP the County could give the applicant more flexibility in terms of lot size so there would not be all one-quarter acre lots. She inquired if Ms. Lawhon is requesting 63 units; with Ms. Lawhon responding affirmatively. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Woolwich led her to believe that Ms. Lawhon could get that kind of density with some flexibility through a BDP which would have the same affect as the open space subdivision design. Mr. Enos noted that is correct. Ms. Lawhon expressed concern about the open space as it allows an incentive bonus of 25%; stated she is not able to do that in her area as she is maximized for the 63 lots; but the most important thing is the affect to the homeowners that are already there; there are side entry garages; and the homes are large. She noted with doing one-quarter acre lots 80 feet minimum, she cannot get a side entry garage, which is important to the people and was promised throughout the whole subdivision; and it is also included in the deed restrictions.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are people who bought out there with the one acre; they came out in great mass to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting; such Board recommended denial on an 8:2 vote due to their concerns with reduced lot sizes; if the envelope is pushed too far, the people may oppose it; and the property touches on the portion of Canaveral Groves where it has larger lots.

Commissioner Carlson inquired does Ms. Lawhon want to go through the St. Johns River Water Management District to mitigate the wetlands. Ms. Lawhon responded with the one-half acre there would be little to no impact through the District; she has spoken to it and walked the property; and it understands what she is trying to do. Commissioner Carlson noted there is going to be mitigation with the wetlands that will be destroyed. Ms. Lawhon responded it may not be; Bussen Mayer Engineering only did a preliminary draft; it has not been critiqued; and she would like to have the whole north top section saved for an equestrian center and park area for the children, including a gazebo and play gym. She noted she is trying to put nice incentives in the neighborhood; with the open space, Mr. Woolwich showed impacting the wetlands getting to the upland area and opening it up for more lots; but she would rather not do that.

Commissioner Higgs stated she talked to the applicant and discussed the open space; she understands the concern; and it is an accommodation to both the existing residents and environment. Commissioner Scarborough concurred with Commissioner Higgs’ comments; stated if it was a new project, he would want to push it further; however, some people purchased one-acre lots; and the idea that there were going to be people living at the back with one-half acre lots got them upset. He noted there has been some education and they understand there is a value to the reserves and preserves; and as they become introduced and people see these are valuable lots and there is a market, the market is going to drive it, and adjoining property owners are going to begin to accept it; but the County runs the risk if it goes too far today it could end up with other problems from residents trying to comprehend why they have one acre and then the lots drop to one-quarter acre.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Alan Woolwich explain the scenario on Merritt Island. Planner Alan Woolwich stated Commissioner Scarborough asked staff to review some of the impacts and results of the first open space subdivisions approved over the last year under the new Open Space Subdivision Ordinance; staff looked at what has happened surrounding Chase Hammock Lakes to date; there are two subdivisions immediately east and west of Chase Hammock Lakes Subdivision, which is on the north side of Chase Hammock Lakes. He noted it is a new Subdivision; the lots in Otter Trace Subdivision have been selling between $30,000 and $55,000 each; the subdivisions on the east and west sides have lots around one acre down to one-half acre; and the Chase Hammock Lakes Subdivision lots of one acre are selling starting at approximately $79,000. Mr. Woolwich stated there seems to be an increased cost and success in marketing open space lots and lots that are fronting on large retention ponds or natural areas; and the homes in some of the subdivisions east and west of Chase Hammock Lakes have been selling or reselling for approximately $175,000 to $250,000.

Ms. Lawhon stated Mr. Woolwich mentions Merritt Island; it is a totally different location from Veronica Estates; the prison is located near her property; and the drug rehabilitation center is down the street. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not where the property is, it is that people find a value to a lot that does not back up to another lot; and people are paying about 50% premium to get into that type of environment.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Chase Hammock Lakes is 63 homes on 120 acres with a lot of water; it will bring a good price as people will have the benefit of having water and forest in their backyards, which is what Ms. Lawhon’s development is going to do; Ms. Lawhon briefed him yesterday; and the concern she had at the time was that the residents of Phase 1 were concerned about having smaller lots, frontage, or garages, and Ms. Lawhon has been able to work that out with the residents so there is no objection to that. He noted what Ms. Lawhon is planning to put in is a viable development; it should enhance the community; it looks like a good workable project; and reiterated Ms. Lawhon has worked out the issues she had with the neighbors in the original phase.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 4 with a Binding Development Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Binding Development Plan.)

Item 7. (Z0211203) Robert D. and Patricia A. Gay’s request for change from RR-1 to AU on 14.04 acres located on the south side of James Road, west of Cox Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Randy Childers stated he and his wife are in the process of purchasing 14.04 acres off of James Road; and requested approval for rezoning from RR-1 to AU. He noted they would like to build their barn before they build their house; they recently paid off their house in Levitt Park and are able to purchase the subject property; he has had the wetlands surveyed on the property and has enough buildable land for the house and horse barn; and eight and one-half acres of the property is a Florida Power and Light (FP&L) Company easement, which can never be built on and can only be used for a horse pasture. He provided copies of the wetland assessment to the Board, but not the Clerk; and requested the Board support the rezoning request.

Lee Windschitl submitted maps to the Board, but not the Clerk; stated he submitted a letter challenging the rezoning request; the map outlines in yellow the area that is up for rezoning; and 12 of the 14 acres were established as Tracts I, J, and K in 1992 when Oak Trail Subdivision was recorded in the Official Records of Brevard County. He noted the Subdivision encompasses Tracts A through K on the map; Tract K is approximately six and one-half acres and two acres to the east that are under the FP&L overhead; under FP&L overhead high voltage power lines, FP&L has an easement over the eight and one-half acres Mr. Childers pointed out; and Tracts I and J, including a flag stem accessed to Tract I, encompasses the remaining five and one-half acres of the 14 acres. Mr. Windschitl stated he and his wife are directly affected as their property abuts 11 of the 14 acres; they own Tract F and live on Tract H; and they looked at and had the opportunity to purchase Tracts I and J, but purchased Tracts F and H instead. He noted at that time in 1993 they were considered mostly wetlands and are still that way; and provided pictures of the subject property with both uplands and wetlands to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated he is not opposed to personally-owned horses, although none of the homeowners in this particular subdivision keep horses on their property, nor do any of the neighbors directly on the west side of the subdivision or on the east side of Tract K across the FP&L easement; there is some AU acreage about one-half mile northwest of him on James Road with a barn but no house; and there have not been any horses there in a long time. Mr. Windschitl stated the closest area with horses is one mile or more west at the intersection of James and Friday Roads; they are kept for personal use only; and requested the Board deny the rezoning request. He noted the raising, grazing, or boarding of animals allowable under AU zoning will negatively impact the wetlands and Oak Trail Subdivision; and under AU zoning, the landowner never has to build a home on this property.

Jim Wembers stated he lives on Tract G in Oak Trail Subdivision; Mr. Childers owns two horses, but plans to keep eight horses on the property; he and his wife purchased their property seven years ago and built their dream house on the lake; and they bought in the area due to the deed restrictions being stringent. He noted they were under the impression that nothing could change the deed restrictions; they built a 3,400-square foot home appraised at $350,000 at this time; they have paid their taxes and abided by the deed restrictions; and the neighborhood is beautiful. He stated he and his wife have been good neighbors; if the zoning is changed, it will reduce property values and run down the area; it would open the door for any kind of farm animal in the area; and inquired would the Commissioners like to live next door to the possibility of pigs, chickens, goats, and horses that may or may not be cared for properly. Mr. Wembers noted the current deed restrictions call for a home to be 2,000 square feet or larger; if the zoning is changed, a small home could be built, a mobile home could be placed on the property, or there could be no home at all; there could be a horse breeding or horse riding business; and expressed concern with the environmental impact on the area. He stated he found two different studies on the Internet from Universities of New Hampshire and Rhode Island; there is more documentation of the information from other universities and studies; each horse can produce 50 pounds of manure and two to eight gallons of urine per day; and it does not count the straw bedding in horses stalls. He noted the area behind Oak Trail Subdivision is 97% wetlands; the studies show each horse will produce 10 tons of manure per year; the horse manure contains bacteria and nutrients that will contaminate any nearby water supply; the bacteria will cause disease; and nitrogen and phosphorus are the primary nutrients that will cause the growth of algae. Mr. Wembers stated the nitrate can cause methoglucoma or blue baby syndrome in infants, horses, sheep, and cattle of all ages; each horse will generate 110 pounds of nitrogen and 40 pounds of phosphorus per year; and eight horses will generate 880 pounds of nitrogen and 320 pounds of phosphorus. He noted the Childers indicated at the P&Z Board meeting they want to have eight horses; and inquired what will they do with 80 tons of manure and will eight horses turn into 18 horses or more. He stated it will cause problems and kill the fish in the lakes; on October 5, 2000, Brevard County Environmental Specialist Nanette Church indicated in a report to Mr. Gay after a site visit to the property, “No impacts to wetlands would be allowed on either lot. Allowable impacts on wetlands include fill for a house pad, septic system, and single driveway access. No other impacts allowed.” Mr. Wembers stated with eight horses, there would be other people coming and going from the property all times of the day and night; someone must take care of the horses twice a day to feed, water, and change the stalls; he would welcome the Childers if they were to build a nice home following the current deed restrictions; and he would be a good neighbor and look forward to it. He requested the Board review the request and put itself in the residents’ positions; and inquired would the Commissioners want to live next door to 80 tons of horse manure and eight to 18 horses, and have a business run for profit instead of a home in a neighborhood.

Attorney Kimberly Bonder Rezanka, representing the Wembers, Persingers, and Windschitls, stated she presented each Commissioner a package which includes a number of the studies Mr. Wembers referred to regarding animal waste from horses; there are only five owners of property in the Subdivision; she represents three of them who are opposed to the rezoning request; and they are opposed to same because the request is incompatible, not harmonious, and detrimental to the neighborhood and surrounding area. She noted the property is currently zoned RR-1, which is a single-family residence with spacious character; it does allow barns and horses, but only for personal use; as the P&Z Board minutes reflect, the Childers indicated they intend to have eight horses on the property and build a barn before they build their house; and the house may be built in five years. Attorney Rezanka stated the RR-1 zoning classification has setbacks for barns which are 125 feet from the front lot line and 50 feet from the side lot line; comparing that with AU zoning, the setback requirements are 25 feet from the front line for a structure and ten feet from the side; the setbacks are not far; and the barn would be close to her clients’ properties. She noted if the property is rezoned AU it is going to put an incompatible permitted use in a subdivision; the other permitted uses in AU are all agricultural pursuits, raising and grazing of animals, which can be pigs, cows, chickens, sheep, or any animals, fowl raising and bee keeping, plant nurseries, private golf courses, private camps, foster homes, and group homes; and none of these are compatible with the spacious character of the residential neighborhood of the subdivision. Attorney Rezanka stated right now the applicant is only requesting the zoning change; but eight horses seems to imply a commercial use of the property; the applicants could be back before the Board for a CUP; and a building permit is not needed for a barn in AU as it is for RR-1 as there is an agricultural exception. She noted the environmental issues are clear; it has been stated there is 100% wetlands; staff has said that and it is referenced in a letter dated October 5, 2000 from Ms. Church, which was submitted with Mr. Windschitl’s information; and Jim Carr of Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducted a site visit and determined most of the property consisted of wetlands. She stated there is standing water, which has been demonstrated by the photographs; it is an 80% regulated floodplain; agricultural uses within wetlands are allowed if they do not adversely affect the function of the wetlands; however, any building on the wetlands which involved clearing, digging or filling would adversely affect the functions of wetlands according to Ms. Church. Attorney Rezanka stated the AU would not allow building as it would affect the function of the wetlands; there are valid concerns about the animal waste contaminating the surface water and ground water; the Childers may be looking to put a commercial purpose or creating the possibility of a commercial purpose by the rezoning; and a use solely for a barn is not consistent with the RR-1 residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. She noted there is no decrease in density by the rezoning request; there are only five and one-half acres that could possibly be built on; there are the wetlands acres; and it only makes one dwelling permittable. She stated under Section 62-1151(C)(4) and (5), the Board is challenged with examining compatibility with the existing land use and the appropriateness based on the consideration of public health, safety, and welfare. Attorney Rezanka stated the request is not in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare; if the rezoning is permitted, the Board is opening the property to uses not contemplated in a neighborhood of RR-1 homes; it allows the classification to be less restrictive as to building a barn; and there are environmental concerns, which have been put forth tonight in the way of health and safety issues, groundwater and surface water, and no reduction in density. She requested the Board deny the applicants’ request.

Mr. Childers stated according to his Attorneys Dressler and Dressler, Tracts I, J, and K are not subject to the deed restrictions due to the fact that the property was foreclosed on; there is no recollection of the Autreys buying the property with the deed restrictions; the waste would go in a garbage can-type container; and someone would pick up the container and dispose of it. He noted it is being done on one of the farms and used for fertilizer for A. Duda and Sons; he has had the wetlands surveyed; Environmental Services Department flagged the uplands; and Bob Packard conducted a survey of the uplands, but he has not received it yet to see how much property is uplands. He stated the parcel in the back of Tract H that the neighbors complained was wet all the time was due to the person behind him doing land clearing; the individual cleared out part of the property he and his wife are looking at purchasing; it is approximately 100 feet by 200 feet; and DEP is supposed to get back with him to let him know what it is going to do about it. Mr. Childers noted he wants to build a barn and does not have the money or resources right now to build his house; he indicated he wanted eight stalls, but never stated how many horses; he has two horses and was looking to get one or two more; and he wants to change the zoning to AU so he can build his barn and get on with his life.

Polly Childers stated there are many horse barns in the area; it is a horse area; the property is not shown as being deed restricted by the title company; and requested the Board review the area. She noted she will not hurt the area; there is a dumpster one can get from the County to put the manure in; someone comes two times a week to pick it up; sand and saw dust would be used for the stalls; and it is organic and can sit for six months to one year and go back as fill.

Attorney Rezanka stated the survey indicates there is .89 acre of uplands and maybe .21 in another area of the entire site; and it does not appear to be enough uplands to build on.

Mr. Enos stated staff reviewed the deed restrictions; although it is not clear to him whether the deed restrictions apply, the permitted uses and prohibited uses state that no animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on the parcel except horses, dogs, cats, and other domestic household pets; and such household pets may be kept, provided they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes. He noted if the deed restrictions did apply to the property, the Childers would be allowed to keep horses, but no other type of livestock.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue appears to be compatibility; the residents in the neighborhood do not have a desire to be located next to what they perceive as becoming a horse farm; the horse manure issue is also a concern of the neighbors; and he understands their concerns and the compatibility of having a horse boarding facility next door.

Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner Pritchard summed it up pretty well; the map is dominant in the RR-1 uses around the parcel; all but one side is all RR-1; so the dominant feature of the area around the subject parcel is RR-1. Commissioner Scarborough noted he would support a motion to deny the request.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to deny Item 7. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z0211301) Edward T. and Linda L. Lyles’ request for change from RR-1 to AU on 20.25 acres located on the northeast corner of Hitch-N-Post Lane and Fleming Grant Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP limiting use to a tree farm only, no additional homes to be placed on the property, and no more than two horses.

Edward Lyles stated he and his wife agree to the BDP submitted by the Zoning Department, which is for the tree farm on the property; they live on the property; all the abutting property is AU, which is the zoning they are requesting; and they have a Forestry Department plan for planting the trees. He noted it is the third tree farm they have had in Florida, including one in Pinellas County, which is now part of its park system, and one in Sarasota County which was sold to a neighbor after they left; such farms have been successful; and there have been no problems with the neighbors. He stated they approached all the neighbors to see if there were any objections; at that time there were none; but he sees tonight there are two neighbors present; and he would like to defer the rest of his time until after the other speakers have commented.

Commissioner Higgs stated in the BDP, the Lyles indicate no additional residences are to be constructed; the current home is the only one the Lyles intend; and inquired if Mr. Lyles has any objection to inserting that no manufactured or mobile homes would be put on the property. Mr. Lyles responded he has no objection to that. Commissioner Higgs noted the Lyles indicated a two-horse limit on the property. Mr. Lyles stated they have two horses and do not plan on adding any more. Commissioner Higgs stated the property is to be used for a tree farm only and the Lyles’ residence; the other uses in AU are not the Lyles’ intention to request; and the only AU used will be the tree farm. Mr. Lyles responded that is correct.

Marlene Hughes stated she owns property abutting the Lyles’ property; she attended the P&Z Board meeting; she is not opposed to the AU zoning; and expressed concern about the compatibility with the BDP she was restricted to, along with another neighbor who also changed to AU zoning. She noted she received a copy of the BDP presented by Mr. Lyles; it was open for a lot of other uses; Commissioner Higgs has clarified some of it; and if the Lyles agree to the BDP that specifically says only these particular items, she would not have a problem with the zoning change. She stated she would not want to see the total acreage be restricted to only two horses for the future if something were to happen that the Lyles had to sell or move again; under the RR-1, one is allowed to have four horses per acre; she understands the Lyles only have two horses; but for future use, if anybody were to move in and wanted to have additional horses, it would be binding them; so the Lyles may want to re-think about only having two horses for the AU change.

Lorraine DeMontigny stated she believes the Lyles intent is as stated; the only issue she has is the BDP seems skimpy; she does not know that it is as specific as it could be; when other individuals in the area went through the process, Commissioner Scarborough brought up the point that within the AU classification there are incompatibilities; and that is why all the neighbors are coming forward tonight. She noted there are certain things one cannot do in the RR-1 classification that they would be able to do in the AU; but there are things in AU that are not compatible with residential uses; and it may be something the Board needs to review. She stated if the BDP can be tightened up, she has no problem with it; the Lyles’ intent has been for a tree farm; and she understands the change in zoning is needed for such farm.

Mr. Lyles stated he does not see how the BDP can be more restrictive; it is one house for 20 acres; it will be a tree farm period; and he is restricted to two horses. He noted anybody else who buys the property would be restricted to two horses unless he or she gets it rezoned; and requested the Board support the request.

Commissioner Higgs noted Mr. Lyles is willing to say in the BDP no manufactured mobile homes, the two-horse limit, the property is only to have the agricultural use of the tree farm, and the owner’s residence, which is already constructed, is the only one that is going to be on the property. Mr. Lyles advised that is correct. Commissioner Higgs stated if it is no agricultural uses other than the tree farm, it takes out many of the issues that people have had; so while it is not an elaborate BDP, it covers all the essential points and takes care of it.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 8 with a Binding Development Plan limiting use to a tree farm only, no additional homes to be placed on the property, and no more than two horses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for BDP and Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF NOVEMBER 4, 2002

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider administrative rezoning recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting on November 4, 2002, as follows:

Item 1. Section 20, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 754 through 756.3, and Parcels 759 through 765.7, owned by Jene C. and Samuel S. Henderson, Karen J. Luttrell, John W. Monday and Gloria H. Monday, Trustees; Mary E. Deitrick, Life Estate; Daniel P. and Mary Renee Ring, Barbara M. Wojcik, Michael Kaier, William L. and Darlene M. Morgridge, Stephen Craig Calhoun, Celine Ward, Michael A. Lynar, Teck S. Lian, Edward S. Weingartner, Helen F. Mackay, Life Estate; Ruth Anne Murphy, James Andrew Smith, Jr. and Susan H. Boulware, Preston E. and Margaret R. Watson, Colleen E. Harrington, Water C. (Jr.) and Marie H. Shepard, Wylene H. Jenkins, Trustee; Laura J. Briggs and Barbara S. Brock, James O. and Danese O. Sledge, Mary Willadene Baugh, Life Estate; LXL Enterprises, Song Sik Cho, Marvin and Lisa J. Berdinsky, Terry Louise Walker Larimore, Richard and Alec G. Brackin, Ronald L. Shelton and Shelby J. Shelton, Co-Trustees; Steven D. and Barbara A. Swanson, Rene Akridge-Mass, Wilda Imogen Dixon and Norma Jean Dixon Burch, Robert G. Hutchinson, John F. (Jr.) and Peggy A. Hummel, Richard F. and Kathryn D. Franchetti, W. D. Sharp and Janette E. Sharp, Raymond H. D. and Margaret E. Reidy-Smith, Jerry G. Rowell and Janet L. Rowell, William F. and Stephanie L. Voigt, James P. Grant, Theodore J. Skarbowski, Deborah S. Necessary, Carol A. Hupfer, William E. and In Su Peters, Cedric A. and Marilyn L. Wetherbee, Edwin W. (III) and Brenda A. Winkler, Jeff J. Jackson, Florence O’Neill, Patricia S. Haynes, Julia L. Thompson, Carl M. and Rosalie R. Dickens, Donna K. Wenzel, Arthur C. and Maryann Corlew, Daphne Lacy, Associates Financial Services of America, Inc., Michael R. Coletti, George A. Dyson, Trustee; Virginia P. Noble, Cecilia R. McCoy, Nadja E. Wiggers, Charlotte F. Hill, Marilyn K. Geoghean, Ruben Garcia, Isabel Warobick, Laura R. and Michael Beebe, Richard W. Ashby, Jorge and Hilda A. Rivera DeLeon, Christina Mitchell, William (IV) and DaWilla Madsen, Iliana Gonzalez, Neil E. Thompson, Charles D. Corrello, Country Woods Village Condo Association, Jeanette Hart, Christine E. Derwitsch, Johni Sue Alexander, George K. and Mary J. Trembly, Mark K. Chaffiot and Victor A. Chaffiot, Trustees, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5406 for Sewer Plant.

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

Item 2. Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 19, owned by Melbourne Sand Supply Company, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5666 for Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 2 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. DE, Block 2, Lots 11 to 16; Block 3, Lots 12, 15, and 16; Block 7, Lots 1 through 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9; Block 7 pt. of Lots 4, 6, and 8; Block 8, Lots 1 through 16, owned by Health First Health Plans, Inc.; and Carl D. and Tambelynn Saladino, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5717 for Mini-Warehouses.

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

Item 4. Section 13, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. DE, Block 1, Lots 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 11, owned by Suntree Pointe, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5720 for Mini-Warehouses.

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

Item 5. Section 20, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. 25, Lots 1 through 27, Tracts C, C.1, and E; and Parcels 253, 264, and 269, owned by Alberta K. Wilson, John E. Cooper and Margaret B. Cooper, Agnes S. and Philip C. Worbey, Darrell Franklin and Mary Lee Landers, Leonard W. and Theresa M. Faulkner, William C. (Jr.) and Janice L. Shattuck, Steven J. and Debra L. Mundine, Robert M. Lee and Mary F. Lee, Co-Trustees; Robert A. O’Reilly and Marion T. O’Reilly, Co-Trustees; Hazel Snoddy, Estate; Brian and Carmen Pendleton, James H. and Monica L. Blount, Travis L. and Erin K. Goodson, Lloyd T. and Chin L. Veale, Calvin E. and Sherry R. Amos, Tom and Evelyn W. Goodson, Evan V. and Joanna M. Brookins, Scott K. and Carolyn M. Parise, Sean and Kirsten Halfacre, Donald L. and Susan A. Flammio, Edward and Anne C. Beyette, Charles J. Lindenberger and Kami R. Lindenberger, Leslie D. and Sandra K. Hope, Avis O. and Charlie (Jr.) Williams, Elzbieta K. Chrzanowski, Ernest L. and Janet C. Moragne, Tuckaway Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. John F. and Kathleen R. Beyer, William J. (Jr.) and Patricia D. Sims, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5913 for Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 5 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. Section 26, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 501 and 506, owned by Coyte E. and Mary E. Houston, and EZY Com, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6119 for Borrow Pit, retaining Conditional Use Permit Z-7472 for Tower and Antennae (Parcel 506 only).

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 6 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. Section 18, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. NM, Lots 1 and 2, owned by Paradise Marine of Melbourne, Inc. and Holidog Inns, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-6038 for Boat Sales and Repair and Z-9344 for Boat Sales and Service (Lot 1 only).

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

Item 8. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Parcels 6 through 14.5, owned by Michael McDonnell, Bernard C. and Adarene Lane, Marie L. Dewdney, Trustee; Richard L. and Chere Z. Jones, Gary Pearce and Mary Miller, Lynda Cajoleas, Kathleen Rathgeber Flury, Ocean Walk Beach Condo Association, Inc., Julio D. Vallette and Gloria Vallette, Trustees; Elizabeth Davis and Howard Davis, Co-Trustees; Michale and Elizabeth J. Howard, Sharon Weavil Eller, James C. and Carol A. Kesterson, Christopher J. Pohlman, William MacPherson, Trustee; Teri H. Deets, David E. Willmes, William R. Selby and Deloris M. Selby, Normandy Properties, Nocola and Virginia Lanaro, Jose J. Perez, Trustee and Mary Perez, Trustee; Mildred K. Silveus and Betty Shlepr, Christopher Beauman, A Custodian; Frances M. Shiflet, Norman S. Delbridge, Jeffrey L. Barch, Darrel J. Reaser and Betty L. Reaser, Trustees; Michael and Jill D. O’Malley, Richard D. Shea, Elma R. Craft, Trustee; Lynda A. Ferrell, Peter J. and Emily Carnella, Fern B. Alderson, Helen M. Hutcherson, Kenneth H. Miller, Christine A. Kiehslich, Patricia A. Smith, Harold W. and Francis J. Eklund, Ernest S. Tremblay and Carol F. Tremblay, Trustees; Clinton A. Albury, Jr. and Irene Fox, John Del Monaco, William E. Lyske and Rosalie A. Lyske, Trustees; Nancy E. and John W. Dwyer, Ray S. Mullin, Jr. and Dorothy M. Mullin, Trustees; Kimberly A. Hoogenboom, Lori H. Zeller and Joyce Mazza, Cornelia A. Culbertson, M. R. Associates, Robert F. Koke, Trustee; Margaret J. Dubois, Trustee, Phyllis S. Patterson, Trustee; Steve J. Davids and Kathleen McGraw-Davids, Robert J. and Alice B. O’Connor, Dupree B. and Gwenna A. Dotson, Andrew D. Bair, Warren and Patricia Gaglione, Frank X. Venzara and Cheryl A. Venzara, Co-Trustees; Kenneth R. and Susan E. Stone, William A. and Carol E. Hove, Patrick James and Susan F. Reilly, Robert J. and Charlotte D. Davis, Cheryl A. Berman, Life Estate; Lorenzo J. and Elsa N. Abella, Joseph L. and Marian A. Mehalick, Louise A. Tavani, Life Estate; Timothy F. and Joanne G. Hayes, Joseph M. and Mary Warnick, Richard M. Adams, Victor A. Arana, Mary Louise Creamean, W. Charles and J. Karen Shuffield, RMR Properties, LLC, and Russell R. Wall; Paul J. and Colleen M. Maluso, Theresa Fazio and Patricia Gaglione, Joanne D. Dannemiller, R. H. (Jr.) and Shirley J. Vangilder, James C. Koehler and Bonnie L. Koehler, Earl E. Deimund, II; John T. Brickson, Gary W. and Roslyn Cramer, Dorothy Ellerbrock, Sara Rose Nagle, Carlo G. and Jacqueline A. Pantano, Champaklal T. and Pushpa C. Patel, and Benjamin G. and Maureen M. Baldwin, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal off Conditional Use Permit Z-6131 for Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 8 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Sub. 03, Lot 12, owned by Manuel J. and Linda M. Pepen, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5756 for Consumption of Premises of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 9 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. Withdrawn.

Item 11. Section 14, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lot 74.01, owned by Amit Food, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5578 for Gasoline Sales.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 11 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 12. Section 34, Township 30, Range 35, Parcel 501, owned by Timothy A. Lyden and Don Mince, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6117 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 12 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. Section 16, Township 30, Range 37, Parcel 1, owned by Boruch-David, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5605 for Telephone Switching Center.

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

Item 14. Section 35, Township 20, Range 34, Parcel 2; Section 36, Township 20, Range 34, Parcel 1; Section 01, Township 21, Range 34, Parcels 2, 11, 254, 502, 504, 754, and 755; Section 02, Township 21, Range 34, Parcel 2; Section 12, Township 21, Range 34, Parcels 1, 12, 254, 255, and 256; and Section 06, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 508, 510, and 518, owned by Millennium Development of Titusville, LLC; State of Florida (Department of Transportation), and Brevard County, C/O Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-5308 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Homes (2), and Z-5821 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home (4) (Section 12, Township 21, Range 34, Parcels 1, 12, 254, 255 and 256 only), retaining Conditional Use Permit Z-8777 for Wastewater Treatment Plant (Section 01, Township 21, Range 34, Parcel 504 only).

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

Item 15. Section 23, Township 20G., Range 34, Sub. AI, Block 6, Lot 4, owned by Catherine G. Elliott, which was withdrawn by staff for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5993 for Farm Animals and Fowl.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to withdraw Item 15 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 16. Section 32, Township 20, Range 35, Parcels 253, 256, 257, 258, and 259, owned by John Albert and Lou Ray Williams, Stroder and Norma Jean Moore, and Dan E. and Tina M. Williams, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5819 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home.

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

Item 17. Section 06, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 276 and 277, owned by Jerry D. Hughes, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5423 for Sewer and Water Treatment Plants.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 17 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 18. Section 20, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 766 and 768, owned by James T. Nichols, Jr., Trustee, and Timothy Deane Nichols, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5395 for Automobile Repairs.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 18 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 19. Section 16, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 01, Tracts 65 to 78, 85 to 105 and part of Tracts 79, 80, 82 to 84, and 106 to 109, owned by Star Ranch Enterprises, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5538 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 19 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 20. Section 24, Township 23, Range 35, Parcels 751, 756 through 758.3, and Section 25, Township 23, Range 35, Parcel 47.2, owned by R. C. Cowan Mining Co., Inc.; Bruce M. Barnes, Kenneth W. Grantland, Charles R. Benner, Richard D. and Emma L. Spangler, Thomas D. and Judith L. Amstadt, William C. (II) and Laura A. Roper, Rose M. Maxey, Ward A. Yordy and Eva M. Gilder, Julielynn Ulrich, Coastal Properties, Roy S. and Nancy A. Kozlowski, Deborah A. Burns, Charlie Williams, Charles J. and Sharon M. Kuhnow, Raymond and Bonnie Van Slyke, Ronald E. Nearhoof, Rhonda D. Brush, Oval L. and Margaret M. Hensley, Michael L.

Currie and Murice L. Currie, Eugene Kirby, Catherine L. Abernethy and Robert C. Abernethy, Sandra A. Qahtani, Martha S. Baker, Douglas M. Williams, and Dale R. Senn, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5537 for Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 20 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 21. Section 19, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. 01, Lot 1.08, owned by DDM of Brevard, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5329 for Electronic Assembly Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 21 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 22. Section 26, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 506, owned by McDonald Real Estate, LLLP, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6042 for Electrical Assembly Plant.

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

Item 23. Section 26, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 507, owned by Suncoast Properties of Jacksonville, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5278 for Major Automobile Repairs and Auto Paint and Body.

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

Item 24. Section 26, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 508 and 537, owned by Suncoast Properties of Jacksonville, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5297 for Major Automobile Repairs and Auto Paint and Body.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 24 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 25. Section 08, Township 24, Range 36, parcels 261 and 274, owned by Love Modular Homes, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6088 for Outside Sale of Mobile Homes.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 25 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 26. Section 24, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 501, owned by Samuel J. Foosaner, Estate, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5436 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home and Z-6148 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 26 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 27. Section 22, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 1 and 43, owned by Ralph S. and Susan H. Bird, and Bret J. and Sharon Travis, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6083 for Farm Animals and Fowl (excluding hogs).

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 27 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 28. Section 25, Township 24, Range 35, Parcels 757 and 757.1, owned by International Master Builders, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5597 for Sewer Lift Station.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 28 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 29. Section 35, Township 24, Range 35, Sub. 03, Lots 17 and 18, owned by Donald L. and Angela A. Sandlin, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4908 for Private Club/Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 29 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 30. Section 14, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 539, owned by Edward Meixsell, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5264 for Snack Bar and Coin Launderette.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 30 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 31. Section 23, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 10, owned by Brevard County,C/O Property Control, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-5743 for Sewer Facilities and Z-8777 for Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 31 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 32. Section 23, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. BX, Lots 1.01, 1.02, and 2.01, owned by Palm Chapel Assembly of God, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6073 for School Accessory to a Church, retaining Conditional Use Permit Z-4556 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 32 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 33. Section 32, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 265, owned by Thomas J. Strickland and Steven W. Spears, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6027 for Mini-Warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 33 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 34. Section 32, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 27, Lots 31 and 32, owned by Albert P. Elabash, Jr., Trustee, and W. Michael Selig, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6085 for Mini-Warehouse.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 34 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 35. Section 31, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. 7f5, Lots 25 and 26, owned by Eastern Realty Company, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-6113 for Convalescent Home and Z-6626 for Adult Congregate Living Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 35 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 36. Section 24, Township 25, Range 36, Sub. CS, Lots 5.06 and 5.12, owned by Laurin S. and Barbara S. Stacey, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6011 for Telephone Switching Facility.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 36 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 37. Section 17, Township 28, Range 37, Parcel 767, owned by Florida Power & Light, Co., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5592 for Electric Substation.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 37 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 38. Section 18, Township 28, Range 37, Parcel 508.1, owned by Flor-Ohio, Ltd., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5929 for Sewer Facilities.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 38 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 39. Section 23, Township 29, Range 37, Parcel 504, owned by Henry E. Payne, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6078 for Electronic Assembly Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 39 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 40. Section 13, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 505, 585, 586, and 587, owned by Katharine T. Clark, Steven L. Reynolds, Anthony F. and Rebecca A. Ciserano, and Leo F. and Lucille F. Reynolds, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for Removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5322 for Tenant Dwelling/Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 40 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 41. Section 26, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 2, 251, and 253 through 263, owned by Barbara Smith Arthur, Trustee, and John Robert Smith, Jr., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-5881 for Parking of Recreational Vehicles Accessory to a Fish Camp and Z-5988 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home, retaining Conditional Use Permit Z-5881 for the sale of Alcoholic Beverages Accessory to a Fish Camp.

Commissioner Higgs stated she talked to the property owner to get clarification on what they wanted.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 41 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 42. Section 36, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 29, Lots 2B, and 3B; and Sub. 30, Lots 12, 13, and Tract D, owned by Petrus Group, LP; Aquarina Community Service Association, Inc.; Timothy M. and Christine C. Simon Kenefick, 4 Carnegia Avenue Associates, LLC, and 10 Carnegie Avenue Associates, LLC; River Oaks at Aquarina Homeowners Association, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5923 for Water and Sewer Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 42 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 43. Section 10, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 5, owned by Burkim Enterprises, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6080 for Towers and Antenna.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 43 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 44. Section 11, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 254, owned by Harry Gould, Estate, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5378 for Mobile Home Sales.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 44 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 45. Section 11, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 521, owned by Arthur Frederick and Amy Priep, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5267 for Mini-Warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 45 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 46. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. 28, Lot 15, owned by Lucy P. S. Moore, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5909 for Guest House Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 46 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 47. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Sub. 28, Lot 31, owned by Dorothy Killgallon, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5614 for Mobile Home Guest House.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 47 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 48. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 261, owned by River Grove Mobile Home Village I and II, LTD, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6101 for Water and Sewer Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 48 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 49. Section 11, Township 30G., Range 38, Sub. HL, Lots 40, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 64; and Section 19, Township 30G., Range 38, Sub. HR, Lot 40, owned by Don Bosco Groves, Inc.; and R. Blanch Wood and Michael J. Mulcahy, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5956 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 49 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 50. Section 06, Township 30, Range 39, Parcels 271 and 272, owned by Patricia Lee Stay, and Charles B. and Carol E. Draper, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6103 for Water and Sewer Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 50 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 51. Section 06, Township 30, Range 39, Parcel 519, owned by State of Florida, TIITF, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5604 for Water/Wastewater Treatment Plants.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 51 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 52. Section 07, Township 30, Range 39, Parcels 763 and 767, owned by United States of America, and Longpoint Bait & Tackle, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-6045 for Gas Pumps, and Z-9403 for Bait & Tackle Shop (Parcel 767 only.)

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Scarborough, to approve Item 52 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING GROUP HOMES ZONING
REGULATIONS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending group homes zoning regulations.

Lila Klausman stated she applied for a group home licensure in April 2002 and was handed applications and schedule of fees for $277.00; she also had to get a map for $28.00; it is a violation of Florida Statute, Chapter 419 which exempts group homes of six beds or less from having to get prior authorization or pre-approval; and she contacted the Developmental Disabilities Office. She noted such Office revised the letter to apply for foster home instead as her home was small and she only has two beds; it does not require so many rules as a regular group home of six beds or less; however, the question still stands if someone wants to expand to a group home; and she is speaking in the interest of all the families who have disabled children. She noted when she heard the ordinance was going to be discussed she was pleased; she supports the changes; it is a step in the right direction; and more residential opportunities are needed for adult children. Ms. Klausman stated Florida Statute, Chapter 419 also includes the 1,000-foot rule which exempts someone from prior authorization requirement, providing the house is sited 1,000 feet away from the next house; it is un-American; it tells loved ones where they cannot live; and it is inherently segregating by setting boundaries and discriminating by creating class distinctions. She noted it labels loved ones insidiously as undesirables; it tells loved ones they cannot enjoy a lifestyle that society as a whole enjoys, that is to live in a neighborhood as close to a friend as they want or to live in a community that they design; and it flies in the face of equal housing opportunities which are afforded to all Americans. She stated she talked to Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore and Planner Robin Sobrino; they indicated staff has included in the ordinance reasonable accommodation standards and procedures; and she applauds the direction. Ms. Klausman noted she re-read the ordinance and there is still a sting in the words that are being used; she understands the impetus and guiding principle for the revision was the Fair Housing Act; there are some rules or reasonable accommodations in here that go to the heart of fair housing and equal opportunities that fly in the face of the equal opportunity rights that all Americans enjoy; and the language reads, “Reasonable Accommodation. It is the policy of the County to provide fair access to housing for persons with disabilities and all other persons protected by the federal Fair Housing Act, including providing reasonable accommodation in the application of zoning regulations, etc. The persons requesting relief must demonstrate that the requested accommodation is necessary and that without the accommodation they would be denied the opportunity to enjoy housing of their choice in the community of their choice. Once this standard is met, the burden shifts to the County to determine whether the requested accommodation is reasonable.” Ms. Klausman stated she understands the disabled individual has to apply for the same opportunity to enjoy the housing of his or her choice in the community of his or her choice that all other Americans enjoy automatically; and if the application is denied, one has to appeal for those rights.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to allow Ms. Klausman additional time to complete her comments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Klausman stated the County, not the individual, will determine what is reasonable and necessary to meet his or her own needs; and it will be the ultimate judge of what will benefit the individual. She noted item c says, “The following factor shall be weighed in considering reasonable accommodation: Potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested modification”; the individual has to prove there will be some benefit for the modification; Americans do not have to prove that benefit; they know the benefits of a planned residential community; but the disabled person has to prove it and it is un-American. She stated other language in the ordinance says, “. . . alternative accommodations which may provide an equivalent level of benefit . . .”; inquired who decides what will benefit the individual, the County or the individual; stated disabled individuals are denied the same kind of choice that all other Americans enjoy; and requested the Board re-examine the language in “reasonable accommodations” under Section 62-305 so that the County does not become the ultimate authority for what will benefit the person, but the individual himself, guaranteeing his private and personal choice.

Commissioner Scarborough requested the public hearing be continued since Attorney Lepore is not present.

Commissioner Higgs stated the ordinance sets out standards for group homes; it allows a special dispensation or accommodation for people who have certain challenging situations that others might not enjoy; and while the standards are set out for group homes, the County is able to give special accommodations.

Planner Robin Sobrino stated the County’s current regulations are different than what is presented here; there are stipulations where the County limits anything above six residents requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in many zoning classifications; the County is trying to bring the Ordinance in line with Florida Statutes; and the amendments in the proposed ordinance align clearly with Florida Statutes where there would be up to six residents in any single-family classification and up to 14 residents in any multi-family or commercial classification. She noted it is permitted by right; it has been made clear by the County

Attorney’s Office that the intent is to enable group homes to enjoy the same rights and privileges that any other use in the same classification is able to enjoy; that is why they are permitted in these classifications under the change in the Ordinance; the State Statutes establish the 1,000-foot radius for spacing in the single-family classifications; it is the State Statute that establishes the 1,200-foot spacing requirement in the multi-family classifications; and the County is bringing its regulations in alignment with Florida Statutes. Ms. Sobrino stated in terms of reasonable accommodation, it is an opportunity when someone comes before the Board and says he or she wishes to locate a group home in a certain area and the reason they want to go in this location is x, y and z, and what the benefits would be; the individual would make the presentation to the Board; and it could determine whether the person has a basis for locating in a situation that does not comply with the 1,000-foot or 1,200-foot standards.

Commissioner Higgs stated if someone wants to locate a group home he or she needs to comply with the standards; if someone feels he or she should have special accommodations it goes beyond the standard to allow the Board to give a special consideration that someone else might not be able to qualify for; so it does not limit someone, but gives a special accommodation to a person trying to locate a group home; and special accommodations are made.

Commissioner Carlson stated the group home issue has always been a volatile issue; people who live around group homes have not liked them for one reason or another; it has always been a bone of contention; and it would be nice if Attorney Lepore were present to explain the legal perspectives that were built into the Statutes to bring the County to this point.

Ms. Sobrino stated the reasonable accommodation criteria as outlined was based on what the Fair Housing Act sets forth; the Act already recognizes that there may be certain parameters for location, and yet there should be an ability to provide reasonable accommodation; and the requirement of the law is to at least afford that opportunity for reasonable accommodation.

Chairperson Colon stated the group home issue is controversial; the proposed ordinance would help; and the County is following State law.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the issue is sensitive; the County has requirements it has to meet; and it wants to be fair to all people.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to continue public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, governing group homes to the January 14, 2003 Board meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE VI, SECTION
62-1155, BAIL BONDSMEN AND MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AS HOME
OCCUPATIONS

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, Section 62-1155, Bail Bondsmen and Medical Professionals as home occupations.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Section 62-1155 to place conditions on medical related home occupations and to prohibit bail bondsman as a home occupation; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Ordinance No. 02-61.)

SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS, RE: BORSELLA V. BREVARD COUNTY CASE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize settlement of all claims in the Borsella v. Brevard County case. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS, RE: McKEEVER V. BREVARD COUNTY CASE

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to authorize settlement of all claims in the McKeever v. Brevard County case. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL, RE: 2003 BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the remainder of the 2003 Board Meeting Schedule for March through December, 2003. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: AGRICULTURAL USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a lot of incompatibility because Agricultural Use (AU) zoning is so broad; staff is prepared to come forward with a memorandum as to some suggestions of what is done elsewhere; AU runs a whole gamut from pig farms to luxury estates; and he will make a motion to direct staff to prepare a memorandum for the Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to prepare a memorandum to the Board with ideas and suggestions for the Agricultural Use (AU) zoning classification and what is done elsewhere. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: CHRISTMAS PARADES

Chairperson Colon stated the Palm Bay Christmas Parade will be held on December 7, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.; and the tree lighting will be at Palm Bay City Hall at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Merritt Island Christmas Parade is this Saturday at 10:00 a.m., leaving from Merritt Island High School and heading south on Courtenay Parkway; the Cocoa/Rockledge Christmas Parade is on December 14, 2002 at 10:00 a.m; and the Cocoa Beach Christmas Parade is on December 14, 2002 at 2:00 p.m.

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)