The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on September 24, 1998, at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Mark Cook, Community Development Administrator Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Chairman Helen Voltz.

Commissioner Randy O'Brien led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: TABLE ZONING ITEMS

Commissioner O'Brien advised the attorney for Item 6, Ronald E. Dimenna requested the item be tabled as they are trying to work with their engineers.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 6, Ronald E. Dimenna's request for change from SR to SR with BDP on 21.24 acres located on the south side of North Tropical Trail west of Colony Park Drive, which was approved by the P&Z Board, until December 3, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien recommended Item 5, Ipco, Inc.'s request be tabled for 60 days so they can meet with the community.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table Item 5, Ipco, Inc.'s request for change from BU-1 with CUP for alcoholic beverages on-premise consumption and CUP for commercial entertainment and amusement enterprise and BDP to BU-1 with amended BDP and retaining existing CUP's on 9.57 acres located on the south side of Fortenberry Road, west of Sykes Creek Parkway, which was approved with stipulations by the P&Z Board, until December 3, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended Item 7 Port St. John Junior Chamber of Commerce, Inc., B. B. Nelson, and Jack Moore's request be tabled to October 29, 1998.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table Item 7, Port St. John Junior Chamber of Commerce, Inc., B. B. Nelson, and Jack Moore's request for Small Scale Plan Amendment to change land use designation from residential to mixed use district and classification from GU and AU to BU-1 and CUP for towers and antennas on 7.97 acres located west of I-95 across the canal from the southern terminus of Homestead Avenue, which BU-1 was denied and CUP for tower approved by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. Commissioner Cook advised the applicant asked that Item 9, Jane G. Madry, Trustee's request be tabled for 30 days.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 9, Jane G. Madry, Trustee's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 45? acres located on the north side of Carolwood Drive, east of Harlock Road, until October 29, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: PSC MEETING ON AREA CODES

Commissioner Cook advised the Public Service Commission (PSC) is meeting tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room on area codes; the County is taking a position against the overlay; and encouraged everybody to come and make it clear the overlay is not good for Brevard County.

Chairman Voltz advised the overlay would apply new area codes to new homes and business and the next door neighbor will have a different area code, so to call a neighbor that person would have ten digit dialing; it should be left as 407, or if a new number is needed, everyone should have the same area code number. She stated Palm Bay changed its vote against it.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a problem with more than one Commissioner being at the PSC meeting; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding as long as it is not coming back to the Board it should not be a problem.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS FROM MAY 4 AND 5 AND AUGUST 3, 1998

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider items that were tabled from the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board's agendas of May 4 and 5, 1998, and August 3, 1998, as follows:

Item 2. (PSJ80802), Michael A. and Georgeanne Vendlinski, et al's request for expansion of the Mixed Use District boundary and change from RU-1-7 to BU-1 on 1.3 acres located on the northeast corner of Palm Street and Manth Avenue, which was approved by the LPA and Port St. John Special District Board.

Rodney Honeycutt, representing the owners of seven lots in Port St. John, explained an area map depicting the lots and existing commercial and residential properties; stated there has been no complaints from the neighbors; and requested expanding the Mixed Use District and rezoning of seven lots along Manth Avenue to BU-1, same as the areas to the East and North.

Mitch Goldman advised he has petitions from property owners and a letter from Bernie Simpkins in favor of the rezoning.

Jackie Thompson urged the Board to commercialize the lots to benefit Port St. John by attracting business and providing job opportunities; stated aesthetically it would be preferable to have a large buffer zone between residential and commercial property and make Port St. John appear more attractive; and mentioned what could occur if their property is not rezoned. She requested the Board approve the rezoning.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the buffer zone; with Ms. Thompson responding their front yards will become a buffer zone between commercial and those people who remain. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Thompson is one of the applicants; with Ms. Thompson responding yes.

Michael Vendlinski, owner of Lot 5, supported the rezoning; advised the P&Z Board and Port St. John Board approved it; there were no letters of objection; and it will be good for the community and give them relief from the surrounding commercial properties.

Richard Gramling, representing shopping center interest, advised if the rezoning goes through, they are interested in the property; the drug store does not want to be there without a grocery store; and he would appreciate the Board's support for the rezoning.

Carmine Ferraro requested the Board support the rezoning to allow development of the entire tract.

Chairman Voltz inquired about the buffer that was mentioned; with Mr. Honeycutt responding they would continue a standard 15-foot wide buffer along Manth Avenue. Commissioner Scarborough stated 15 feet is not a buffer in his concept; and Commissioner Higgs stated 15 feet is slim. Mr. Honeycutt stated if the Board is talking about the entire area, it would be better to table the item.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he met with Rod Honeycutt, Bernie Simpkins, and Harry Jones, Mr. Simpkins' attorney; and they indicated it would not accommodate the drug store.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to table Item 2. (PSJ80802), Michael and Georgeanne Vendlinski's request for expansion of Mixed Use District boundary and change from RU-1-7 to BU-1 until October 29, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1998

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on September 1, 1998, as follows:

Item 1. (Z9809101) Hans K. and Marianne D. Saurenmann's request for change from GU to ARR on 1.04 acres located on the east side of Satellite Boulevard, south of Terri Lee Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 2. (Z9809102) Roger Lewis Phipps' request for change from AU to BU-1-A and CUP for convenience store on 3.25 acres located on the southeast corner of U.S. 1 and County Line Road, which was denied by the P&Z Board.

Roger Phipps advised he is willing to drop the CUP for a store and gas station but would like to have BU-1-A. He stated the property has been in his family since 1971, and he is trying to get it in a marketable position.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if people came to the meeting objecting; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding no, but there were a lot of letters of objection. Mr. Phipps stated one person spoke in favor of it and said he was approached. Commissioner Scarborough stated since the request has changed, could notices be sent to people and the item heard on October 29, 1998.

Commissioner Cook stated there were objections from Mims, but the property is in Scottsmoor. Commissioner Higgs inquired where is the property; with Mr. Phipps responding on U.S. 1 and County Line Road, which is the last piece of property before Volusia County.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to table Item 2, Roger Lewis Phipps' request for change from AU to BU-1-A located on U.S. 1 and County Line Road until October 29, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z9809103) Thomas H. and Marilyn G. Bissell's request for CUP for farm animals and fowl (7 goats and 7 chickens) in RRMH-1 zoning classification on 1 acre located on the southeast corner of Harrison and Hog Valley Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board never talked about chickens, but talked about goats.

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

Item 4. (Z9809104) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion and pursuant to Case No. 97-08118-AP, authorized rezoning of .87 acre owned by Tad Allen Kokoszka located on the east side of U.S. 1, south of Broadway Boulevard, from RU-2-10 to RP.

Tad Kokoszka advised in 1996 he looked to purchase property for his law office; his realtor contacted the County and was told RP would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; he had a letter and purchased the property on U.S. 1 and the Indian River based on partial reliance on that letter. He stated it is a duplex built in 1962 with access by Crosby Road; he made improvements to the property; and described the area, noting both sides of the road has businesses. He stated the P&Z Board approved it; the Board of County Commissioners denied it; the Circuit Court reversed it; the County appealed it; and the Court held up the Circuit Court. Mr. Kokoszka stated he wants to take half the duplex for his office; it has been on the market for two years and never sold; and there is a gentleman who lives on the other side. He read the Court findings; and noted Tino Gonzalez wants to address the Board.

Tino Gonzalez advised of his experience as a lawyer, member of the P&Z Board, and member of the Board of Adjustment; stated the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and poses no problem to neighbors; it was platted when Brevard County had very few people, but since then things have changed; however, it will be a good neighbor.

Commissioner Higgs stated the letter presented stated a staff member said RP will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and inquired if staff can bind the County in a zoning request; with Mr. Gonzalez responding he does not believe staff can bind the County, but based on what he did, reliance on the statement, and the decision of the court. Commissioner Higgs stated the final decision will have to be made by the Board of County Commissioners; and inquired if there are other zoning classifications that would be consistent; with Mr. Gonzalez responding BU-1.

Patricia Bayer advised the building is closer to the river than to U.S. 1; quoted from Chapter 8, Policy 9.8 and other sections of the Future Land Use Policy; and stated there is residential zoning along the Indian River and the Future Land Use Map shows residential to remain on the river.

Joyce Allison stated she lived next to the bar which is more than 100 feet from the property; and she called the County and was told there would be no permit for a sign.

Tad Kokoszka stated if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will not harm anyone, he could build seven to ten units, but he has no plans to do that; all he wants is to operate one side; and reiterated his plans for RP and not commercial development.

Commissioner Cook advised the Board denied the rezoning and the court said it was wrong and quashed the Board's action; the Board decided the local court was not right and appealed it and lost again; he understands how someone could act in reliance of something said; and in the future staff should put a disclaimer and clarification on written statements. Commissioner Higgs stated the letter was accurate, but other things could have been said that would have been accurate; however, it was not thorough. Commissioner Higgs inquired about competent substantial evidence; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding the Board would need an expert witness to testify it is residential in nature. Commissioner Higgs suggested staff bring forward competent substantial evidence. Commissioner Scarborough stated it could change compatibility directly on the water which is strictly residential; and suggested staff respond to the court and request what burden of proof and substantial evidence is required. Commissioner Higgs stated there are staff members who are expert witnesses, such as Ed Washburn; with Ms. Bentley responding Mr. Ed Washburn is a qualified planner, but he is also a County employee, so it may not be as effective as hiring an outside expert witness.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 4, and hire an independent planner to come to the Board and testify; and share the information with the property owner.

Ms. Bentley stated she asked for reports 14 days before and will provide the same courtesy.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to defer Item 4 until December 3, 1998, and provide information to the property owner. Chairman Voltz stated the County should have had an expert witness before now, and she will not support the motion. She called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Cook and Voltz voted nay.

Mr. Gonzalez objected to the tabling as they have been before the Board numerous times and would like to have a decision.

The meeting recessed at 6:57 p.m., and reconvened at 7:06 p.m.

Item 5. (Z980202) IPCO, Inc. was tabled to December 3, 1998, earlier in the meeting.

Item 6. (Z9809203) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by Donald H. Gabbert on which a development order was submitted initiating consideration of a change from AU to PIP which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z9809301) Emil Pizzulo and Emil C. Pizzulo's request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 on 1.225 acres located on the north side of Micco Road, west of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Emil Pizzulo advised his father owns the building; the change is to add mini-storage, as there is a great need for storage in the area; and there will be little impact to the landfill and the BU-2 land next door. Commissioner Higgs stated the map she has shows BU-2 on both sides; with Mr. Pizzulo responding no, one lot is BU-2, and two lots away from his property is BU-2. Mr. Enos advised going west is BU-1, BU-2, and AU, going east is a small sliver that is part of the rezoning, and immediately to the east is BU-1. Mr. Pizzulo stated the property was divided and 50 feet was sold to Calvin Beck for Beck Auto Service; the sliver belongs to his father; they assumed their property was Lot 524 and included the sliver; different maps show different things; the map shows it is two different pieces; and the legal description says 273 feet from the corner of Cumberland Farms.

Chairman Voltz inquired what is the dimensions of the property; with Mr. Enos responding it has 250 feet frontage; there are four parcels with four different owners; and Lot 523 appears to be owned by Evelyn Craftchurch. Mr. Pizzulo stated if it is not rezoned, the line will run through the middle of their building; and they are expanding to the east, which is why they needed the rezoning. Chairman Voltz inquired if it needs to be re-advertised; with Mr. Pizzulo responding it is all one piece of property and does not specify that the building is on Lot 523 or Lot 524. Mr. Enos advised it is possible that both parcels were advertised and the map may be wrong, but the application shows two parcels. Ms. Bentley recommended postponing the item to determine if it was advertised correctly. The Board postponed Item 7 until later in the meeting.

Item 8. (Z9809401) Donald I. Plymel and Susan M. Wenz' request for change from AU and BU-1 to all BU-1 on 3.59 acres located on the southeast corner of Coquina Road and U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP for a 50-foot buffer on the east property line that may also be used for retention.

Donald Plymel advised they own 3.59 acres on Coquina and U.S. 1, and are requesting the AU portion be changed to BU-1.

Attorney Richard Amari, representing Dr. Gerald Bird and his wife, advised they are opposed to the request on the basis that the proposed zoning is incompatible with surrounding land uses; and staff's comments suggest that the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan compatibility matrix describes the BU-1 zoning classification as being possibly incompatible with AU and EU classifications. He stated Policy 4.4(a) provides that intrusion of BU-1 commercial land uses into residential areas shall be limited; Policy 4.8(a) further states additional commercial land uses in strip commercial areas may only be considered where that pattern of development is established or appropriate, and they should consider the compatibility issues raised in Number 4. He explained a color-coded map of the area; stated the request is to extend the BU-1 zoning further east intruding into neighboring residential uses; and there is no where along the entire corridor of such an intrusive extension of commercial into the residential area. Mr. Amari stated the depth of the property on the south side is over 370 feet; it is well over 300 feet on the north area; the average depth of BU-1 parcels that have been established is only approximately 200 feet; so to have a parcel of such a large nature that extends over 370 feet into residential areas is the type of intrusion that the Comprehensive Plan warns against. He stated there was a stipulation agreeing to a 50-foot buffer along the east boundary of the property; they appreciate the applicant's suggestion for compliance with the request for a 50-foot buffer; however, a buffer that allows for retention is not really a buffer at all. Mr. Amari stated the area is very high, and is completely treed; if the applicant intends to put the retention along the back end of the property, they will have to bulldoze every tree in there and create a lake; and if they do that, they will lose any effective use of a buffer. He stated his clients would not like to see commercial abutting their property; if it is forced upon them, they would like to have whatever buffer they can have from the intrusion of lights coming into their windows or noises that may be caused from the neighboring commercial uses; that is what a real buffer means; so to allow the buffer area for retention totally defeats the purpose of the buffer. He requested the Board deny the request because it is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan; and if it is inclined to approve it, that the approval be conditioned on a true vegetative buffer that would not allow retention in that 50-foot strip. Commissioner Cook inquired about the current depth of commercial property; with Mr. Amari responding 200 to 250 feet in most areas. Commissioner Cook inquired if it was approved with the current vegetative buffer being left in its natural state, would that be sufficient; with Mr. Amari responding the trees would provide a nice buffer.

Chairman Voltz inquired if Mr. Amari said it was not consistent with the Land Use Plan; with Mr. Amari responding yes, and County staff said possible incompatibility. Mr. Enos advised it is consistent with the Future Land Use Map which requires mixed use, but it does not mean it is consistent with the entire Comprehensive Plan; and they have to deal with location policies and compatibility issues.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board discussed the same issue earlier about something termed one thing could be consistent, particularly in a mixed use district and a whole variety of things could be consistent. Mr. Enos stated when staff says it is consistent with the Future Land Use Map what that means is it may be considered under the Future Land Use Map as well as many other classifications, but that alone is not the entire Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Amari stated he appreciates that point; it is possible to have more than one use that is consistent with the Future Land Use Map; but their point is the request is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Higgs stated a mixed use district would allow a variety of uses, but whether they are compatible with the neighborhood is what the Board has to decide.

Edwin Pachulski stated traffic is bad on Coquina right now; the road is less than 20 feet wide; there is a sign that says a ton and a half limit; but there are cranes of over 20 tons that go down that road and chip away at the corners; and opening up the southeast part for a building site would be terrible.

Robert Welden stated for the beauty of the area he would like to see a good buffer zone; he cannot get city water and has to put in a well for his house; the subject property is higher in the back and slopes towards the river so the septic tank has to be in the front and the well in the back; so he would need as much buffer as he can get if they put a retention pond in there behind his lot. He stated he does not know what effect that would have on his water and would hate to find out it made him sick.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Welden does not object if there is a buffer; with Mr. Welden responding he would prefer to see it stay AU, and does not know what they plan to put there or about the septic system they will have. He stated water runs down hill and his property is down hill from the applicant's property, and he would like to have as much protection as possible.

Dr. Gerry Bird stated the goal of zoning is to find a balance between homeowners and developers; they are not looking forward to having more commercial intrusion in their backyard; he realizes there is a balance with the property owner and his ability to do what he wants with the property; and the way the situation is now is a good balance. He stated the corner is commercial and they can put a convenience store and other things; and the agricultural section serves as a good barrier to U. S. 1 and the railroad tracks. He stated Commissioner Scarborough mentioned tranquility along the river; that is what they have right now; they cannot hear the traffic on U.S. 1 and barely hear the trains; and that is because the land is elevated plus the dense vegetation that is there now. Dr. Bird stated they talked about leaving 50 feet for buffer and retention; in order for that to be a retention area, it would have to be leveled to make it lower than his property; the trees would not be able to stay there; and he does not relish the thought of looking at a cement block wall behind his pool. He stated Coquina Road is not a properly-sized road; they were able to convince Mr. Minneboo to pave it even though it was not of legal width; and if the proposed development is a large commercial project, the traffic that would have to be handled on Coquina could not be handled. He stated they are all on septic tanks and several are on wells; they do not know what the effects of a huge commercial development would be; and he does not relish the thought of orange dumpsters and big mercury vapor lamps outside his backyard. Dr. Bird stated he is against the request as is; they were trying to change it and leave 50 feet; and if they have to have the change, they would prefer the 50 feet be left with its 80 and 100-year old oak trees.

Susan Wenz Plymel stated she understands the concerns of the neighbors; and described projects they have done and landscaped beyond requirements, as well as a retention area where they were able to keep the oak trees. She stated the property is in the growth pattern of Viera at Barnes Boulevard intersection served by a traffic light; there would not be traffic on Coquina because they would have a deceleration lane and a turn lane onto their property; and they would provide the 50-foot buffer and not take down the trees. She stated the civil engineer will dictate the retention area, and it would not be removing all the trees; it is a sandridge area and sand percs very well; so there should not be a problem. Ms. Plymel stated rather than a 15-foot buffer, they agreed to 50 feet; the retention area will not be the whole back area; it was 3.59 acres , but since the zoning application they sold one acre; and it will not be a big project. She stated their landscaping never meets Code and far exceeds it; and they wanted to enter into the binding development plan to ensure things will stay there that should stay.

Chairman Voltz inquired if the 3.59 acres is wrong; with Ms. Plymel responding it is now about 2.59 acres as they sold the south one acre with 114 feet of frontage and approximately 372 feet deep, to the neighbor who lives behind it. Mr. Enos inquired if Ms. Plymel is withdrawing that part of the application; with Ms. Plymel responding they would have to because they do not own it. Mr. Enos requested a legal description of that portion of the property to be withdrawn.

Mr. Plymel stated when he made application for the rezoning, he was told it was consistent with the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Cook stated the Board has to consider compatibility as part of the request; something can be technically accurate, but staff cannot commit to a zoning classification; and that is why there are public hearings. Mr. Plymel stated the AU portion of the property is virtually useless. Commissioner Cook stated he is inclined to deny the request because the property has been altered, but it does not mean they cannot come back with another zoning classification that would be more compatible. He stated his main concerns are Coquina Road and extending the mixed use and retail into a residential area.

Discussion ensued on egress/ingress being on the Plymel property and not Coquina, use of Coquina Road, site plan with no left turn, sale of a portion of the property, more compatible zoning, traffic, retention areas requiring alteration, 50-foot buffer area, and incompatible use.

Commissioner O'Brien stated no other properties along there extend deeper into adjacent properties than this property; so if the motion is to deny, he will second it; and if it is to table to find a solution, he will go along with that also, but he cannot support the intrusion. Commissioner Higgs stated Policy 4.4, according to staff's report, says, "Intrusion of these land uses into the surrounding residential areas shall be limited"; and this particular rezoning would intrude further than any of the others. She stated the Comprehensive Plan talks about compatibility, has guidelines, and talks about an existing zoning classification of EU which is what is behind the property and the potential incompatibility with BU-1; it is incompatible; and unless someone can work out a plan that differs and provides that compatibility, she cannot support it. Commissioner Cook stated he thinks it is incompatible and Coquina Road does not meet standards.

Chairman Voltz recommended giving the applicants an opportunity to revise their request; with Commissioner Cook responding they can always re-apply. Mr. Plymel requested the item be tabled so he can come back with a different site plan; with Commissioner Cook responding he would prefer to deny it tonight and waive the waiting period if he wants to return with another zoning classification and BDP that is less intrusive and more of a transition from BU-1 to residential. Mr. Plymel inquired if the Board wants the entrance changed from Coquina to the center of his property with no left turn; with Commissioner Cook responding there may be other options that would help, but there is still the problem with compatibility of commercial intruding into residential, so he would prefer to deny the request and allow them to re-apply with something else.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to deny Item 8, and waive the six-months waiting period for re-application. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is a similarity between this request and the matter heard by the court; the Board needs to be cognizant of the nature of properties bounded by the Indian River on one side and U.S. 1 on the other; there is a rapid dynamic change that is not always reflected in a map; and that needs to be put into the record, otherwise the Board will be hammered with those requests throughout the County, and a lot of good property could be adversely affected by the failure of the Board to make that more a part of its planning. He stated he does not know if it should be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan, but it is a fundamental thought process that staff has to be able to say they have to look at the Indian River and U.S. 1 as a highly transitional area, and look at historical development and compatibility in a more critical sense. He stated a wrong decision can destroy whole strips of areas with a domino effect.

Item 7. (Z9809301) Emil Pizzulo and Emil C. Pizzulo. (continued)

Mr. Enos advised the legal description included the entire property which is more than what was mapped, so immediately to the west is BU-2. Chairman Voltz inquired if everything was advertised okay and the map was wrong; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct.

E. M. Cunningham, Legislative Committee Chairman, Micco, advised they object to the application and have serious concerns; it is not compatible with BU-2; it is unnecessary to upgrade and expand the existing zoning; the expansion would not assist in standardizing zoning in the area; and BU-1 surrounds the property on three sides with BU-2 and AU on the other side. He stated the increase in traffic will affect the area negatively; there could be possible impact on rights-of-way along Micco Road when that road is widened or other projects take place; and it would increase congestion to the ingress/egress to the property. Mr. Cunningham advised they understand the eastern portion of the property was designated by the applicant for wholesale auto sales; Section 62-1482, allows 110 permitted uses in BU-1, 17 with conditions and 15 require CUP's; and 11 are auto related. He stated Section 62-1483 allows 104 permitted uses in BU-2, 30 with conditions and 16 requiring CUP's; and 8 are related to automobiles; so the requested change is covered under BU-1 and seems to be lacking in BU-2. He read portions of Sections 62-1482, noting items of substantial size or which necessitate remaining outside of a building may be permitted to be displayed outside, including, but not limited to motor vehicles, utility sheds, nursery items, and boats. He stated the applicant erected on the property a substantial slab and attractive building which is not a problem; the intent to expand the zoning is a problem; and quoted Section 62-1483 relating to BU-2 uses. He inquired if the original application specifically said storage warehouses and wholesale auto sales and storage; with Mr. Enos responding Mr. Pizzulo's presentation said warehouses and wholesale, but the application did not state a proposed use. Mr. Cunningham stated whatever was submitted indicated it would be automotive related. Mr. Enos stated auto sales use is permitted in BU-1 as well as BU-2, so the only reason he is requesting BU-2 is to add warehousing and wholesale of automobiles. Mr. Cunningham stated he can do automotive functions under BU-1; and inquired if the Board wants him to explain the photographs. He stated there are no apparent buffers; and there were questions raised relative to the environment and land clearing.

Mr. Pizzulo advised the automotive part of the business is already up and the zoning for it is in place; and the reason for the change to BU-2 is to add a mini-storage to the building which they feel would be beneficial to the people in Barefoot Bay. He stated there are more than 10,000 people who live in trailers and need places to put their things; it will have very little impact on traffic; and it would be a win/win situation. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is the only use for BU-2; with Mr. Pizzulo responding no, they want to be able to wholesale automobiles. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the only BU-2 uses are the automobile wholesales and mini-warehouses, would the applicant accept limiting the BU-2 uses to those; with Mr. Pizzulo responding they plan to do auto repair, auto body and sell cars; they are already zoned to do that; but if the uses are changed later, they cannot do what they are doing now. Mr. Enos stated if a use has been operating for some time, and was legal under a zoning classification, and a change removes that use, he can continue to do that, but it becomes a nonconforming use.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board grants BU-2 and does not limit the uses, and someone else wants BU-2 and the Board denies it, it would go to the courts which would say there is BU-2 in the area; and if the Board says it is incompatible, the courts would strike it down because the Board gave Mr. Pizzulo BU-2; so if it is limited to certain uses, the Board can say that in court.

Discussion ensued on BU-1 and BU-2 uses, sale of the property, auto repairs, sale of used cars, and loss of BU-1 uses, auto repairs, and paint and body shop.

Commissioner Higgs advised BU-2 uses are not predominant in the area and the Board should deny the application; there is a BU-2 use next to the property and down the street and across the street; but on three sides are BU-1 uses; but she is willing to be reasonable. Mr. Pizzulo requested the Board include automotive uses, not only wholesale and mini-storage.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 7, as recommended by the P&Z Board, limiting uses to mini-warehouses and auto uses allowed in BU-2. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. (Z9809402) Jane G. Madry, Trustee's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 45? acres located on the north side of Carolwood Drive, east of Harlock Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board, was tabled by the Board of County Commissioners earlier in the meeting. Item 10. (Z9809403) A. Duda and Sons, Inc.'s request for change from PUD to RU-1-13 on 30 acres located at the western terminus of St. Andrews Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with BDP requiring a minimum of 80' x 120' lot size and 1,800 square-foot homes.

Charles Boyd, representing A. Duda and Sons in the rezoning of approximately 30 acres of land to RU-1-13, stated the land sits at the end of St. Andrews Boulevard at the southern end of Suntree area. Chairman Voltz inquired why the application says 54 acres; with Mr. Enos responding part of the western portion of the property was withdrawn from the request. Mr. Boyd stated RU-1-13 is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; another parcel on the other side of St. Andrews Boulevard was recently zoned RU-1-13; it allows for smaller houses and lots; and they agreed to a stipulation that the minimum house size will be 1,800 square feet and the minimum lot size will be 9,600 square feet. He stated they are planning a quality neighborhood with gated entryway; the Comprehensive Plan for the area is 12 units per acre; and they are coming in with two units per acre. He requested approval of the rezoning.

Hugh Evans, Jr. advised he is Mr. Boyd's development partner for the property; they are planning not only this property but continued development on a larger tract they will bring in later; this is the first phase; and it will be compatible with the Suntree neighborhood. He stated they are sensitive to the general deed restrictions of Suntree, and are willing to comply with those; they have established minimum house and lot sizes and a comprehensive set of deed restrictions; so they will match and blend with the quality of the Suntree community.

H. J. Vanderveen advised on the last letter submitted to the Board there are 20 signatures which represents half of the Suntree Estates development which is the only portion developed at this time; and they are asking to defer the rezoning until the Board and the neighbors can see the plan on paper. He stated they heard the representations, but did not see it; immediately abutting the property, lots run in excess of half an acre, and homes are in the 3,000 to 3,500 square-foot range under air; and with the rezoning, they could be directly abutting two lots and two houses. He stated they heard nothing about a buffer to separate Suntree Estates from the proposed development, or where the streets will enter and exit; they have not seen lot locations; and they would like to see something concrete before the Board makes a decision. He noted they do not know if they are opposed to it and cannot know until they see it. Chairman Voltz stated that comes with the site plan, and the Board cannot do it backwards.

Ron Klein advised there is only one exit and that is St. Andrews Boulevard; there is a great deal of traffic on there now; and the proposal for smaller lots means more traffic. He stated St. Andrews Isles have lot sizes of 85 feet and 2,000 square-foot homes; so the proposed development is smaller. He noted he saw plans that included high-density housing; Mr. Boyd did not mention that; but he noticed that some of the land was removed from consideration and heard that higher-density housing may be proposed at a later date.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the applicant would be willing to table the request for 30 days for residents to look at it and understand what is going on. He stated the restrictions on the house and lot sizes will go a long way to mitigate the problem. Mr. Boyd stated they are in the middle of engineering and would like to continue; and explained a colored layout of surrounding areas and the proposed development. He stated Suntree Estates has 50'x120' lots; Waterford Place has 80'x120' lots and is RU-1-13 with 1,800 square-foot houses; and they have stipulated to larger lots and houses, and need to go forward with their engineering. Commissioner Cook stated the residents want to see it laid out; with Mr. Boyd responding they did that in the stipulation. Commissioner Cook stated he has a petition from homeowners who do not understand what will be done with the property; and they would probably not object, but would like more opportunity to see it put out to give them a higher level of confidence.

Hugh Evans advised they are under contractual obligations to move forward with the project; a 30-day delay would not be to their benefit; they are within the Comprehensive Plan at 12 units per acre and looking at two units per acre; the entrance will be directly across from St. Andrews Isles; and they are preserving the wetlands on the site which defines where the entrance will be. He stated he does not know if in 30 days they can show the residents additional things; but to continue their planning process, they need to know the Board's position on the rezoning.

Commissioner Higgs advised the letter from Mr. Boyd was faxed to her today; she was also faxed the BDP today; and she thought there was a policy on applicants getting information in in a timely manner. Mr. Enos advised there is a policy that the BDP should be submitted ten days prior to the Board meeting; in this case he was only able to brief the Commissioners on what the positions were with the lot and house sizes; and the plan did come in yesterday and includes the same information.

Chairman Voltz stated they could put in 1,300 square-foot homes in there, so this is an upgrade. Commissioner Cook stated he does not object to the concept, the problem is the Homeowners Association has not had an opportunity to see the BDP or review it; and out of courtesy to them, the Board needs to give them that opportunity. He inquired if it could be brought back at a regular meeting; with Chairman Voltz responding yes. Mr. Vanderveen requested something in black and white and committed to. Chairman Voltz stated there is a BDP she could give to Mr. Vanderveen to read and postpone the item until later in the meeting. Mr. Vanderveen stated he has to take it to his Board and call a meeting of the residents to review it.

Commissioner Cook inquired if two weeks would be sufficient; with Mr. Evans responding he is not sure they will have a BDP but can bind the commitments and talk about the concept; they are not at the point in engineering to bind the plan; but they can bind the commitments they have made here.

Commissioner Higgs stated this is a zoning hearing not engineering. Chairman Voltz inquired if this is the way the Board normally does business by allowing everybody else to determine what they do; with Commissioner Cook responding the BDP should have been to the Board ten days before the meeting. Mr. Evans noted two weeks delay would be no problem.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 10 until October 6, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 8:33 p.m., and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.

Item 11. Zoning Official's Report. None.

Item 12. (Z9802201) Frankie J. Morgan-Gilliam's request for Small Scale Plan Amendment that proposes a change to the Future Land Use Map from residential to mixed use district and change from BU-1 to BU-2 on 0.88 acre located on the northeast corner of S. Banana River Drive and Worley Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the LPA for a small scale plan amendment, and by the P&Z Board, with specific uses for boat storage, boat repair, and all BU-1 uses.

Robin Squires advised they operate Inland Marina next door to the property; they have BU-2 zoning and are trying to acquire the lot for storage, maintenance, and repair of marine-related crafts; he has pictures of the marina before and after their improvements; and they are requesting approval to handle marine-related items. He stated they do not need anything relating to cars.

Thurston Squires, Robin's father, advised Robin always wanted a marina; he worked hard on this property; it is his life-time ambition and his job; and the lot to the south would be to add to the operation. He stated there is a critical mass with big equipment used in a marina to handle boats and move them around; there has to be enough boats to make it profitable; and with the additional lot it will work.

Jim Smithson advised he has been using the marina since 1993; at that time it was a complete mess; since Robin and Wendy Squires have taken over the marina, they cleaned it up and it looks good. He stated they acquired the lot across the street and bought a home across the street; and approval of the request will allow them to enhance their business.

Annie Worley advised she and her husband Jerry own the property abutting the property in question; Mr. Worley's family has owned the property for 56 years, so it is not something they knew when they moved into the area; they were there and the marina developed over the years; the property has been vacant for about 18 years as BU-1; and she sees no reason to change it to BU-2 next to single-family zoning. She stated Robin and Wendy Squires have done a good job; they have redone the marina beautifully; there is BU-2 zoning where they do repairs; and she does not understand why they need BU-2 and why they cannot use BU-1. She described what the Squires have done in the area, zoning classifications on properties in the area, and concerns with other BU-2 uses if the Squires sell the property; and inquired if there is a way to do a conditional use so it does not open the area up to all BU-2 uses.

Chairman Voltz stated the Board is not considering conditional use, but a binding development plan that will go with the property if it is sold. Ms. Worley stated that is not as bad as opening the property up for heavy commercial use which would devalue their property. She mentioned her husband wanting to retire, possible sale of their property for income, and what the Squires may do in the future and what they have acquired and accomplished. Commissioner Cook inquired if Ms. Worley would not object if the uses are marine related; with Ms. Worley responding she objects, but it is the lesser of two evils if they have to compromise and trust Mr. Squires to do what is right.

Gene McCoy, President of Missileland Development Corporation, record owner of Robin Squires' property, advised he is Mr. Squires partner; the change will benefit everyone particularly the neighbors; he is familiar with the area and moved there in 1962; and it used to be known as Angel City. He stated it was the roughest place in Florida; and described the trepidation of law enforcement and emergency medical personnel who had to go into the area, and the establishments in the area during that time. He stated his company purchased the marina in 1974; the subject lot has been a problem since the brothel that was on it burned down; and described the use of the lot by drug addicts, theft, vandalism, etc. that caused eight of his marina operators to fail in their endeavors. Mr. McCoy advised Robin and Wendy Squires have been there more than three years; they came with maturity, intelligence, savvy on how to run a marina, and how to clean up a neighborhood; and there has been a metamorphosis in all of Angel City. He stated the lot is a beautiful waterfront lot with access to the Banana River, and continues to attract parties, drugs, and over-nighters; the owners have fenced it off two or three times to no avail; it is the last step in cleaning up Angel City; and if the Squires acquired the lot and made it part of the marina for boat storage and associated boat work, Angel City metamorphosis would be completed. He stated he knows of no other use for the lot unless the County buys it for a park; it is only 100 feet wide and there has been no interest in it for a long time; so if the request is not approved, it will stay an attractive nuisance that draws groups that want to party on the waterfront and be a problem to the neighborhood for a long time.

James Harris from Altamonte Springs, advised he is a customer of the Marina for over a year and has seen the metamorphosis; the marina turned from something marginal to a place where he takes his family and enjoy it, spend the night, and feel safe; and the reason he traveled from Altamonte Springs to be at this meeting was because he thinks Mr. Squires deserves to have a good business. He stated Mr. Squires is a fair and honest businessman; he adheres to environmental policies; he does not put up with nuisances; and he brings revenue not only for him, but for the community. He stated his family goes to the restaurants, convenience stores, tackle shops, and spend money; Mr. Squires cannot get the economy of scale with what he has now; and the property will allow him more advanced storage and attractive setting to get more customers and bring in more business for him and the community.

Mark Whatman from Apopka, advised he is a customer of the Marina; the changes have been phenomenal; Robin and Wendy Squires spend most of their time to make the property better; and he also comes twice a month and stays over and spends money in the community. He stated development of the lot will enhance Mr. Squires ability to have more advanced storage facilities, get his boat closer to the water, make it more secure and convenient, and other people who are looking to bring boats to the East Coast would probably do so if they had covered storage and ready access to the Banana and Indian Rivers. He stated there are not that many marine facilities; they like the family atmosphere at Island Marina; but there are only a certain number of boats that can be stored on the current property.

Commissioner Cook inquired if Mr. Squires objects to limiting it to marine use; with Mr. Squires responding no, just so he has full range of the marine perspective. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what does that mean; with Mr. Squires responding they want to do marine-related repairs and storage on the lot.

Chairman Voltz inquired about a 40-foot buffer; with Mr. Squires responding there is a breezeway act for property along the river that says there must be 30% of a breezeway through a piece of property; he has 100 feet x 325 feet, so 30 feet has to be the breezeway; and he would be more than happy to put the breezeway on the side of the property that abuts the Worley's property, and maintain a hedge or wall or fence between their property and his for as long as he owns the lot.

Commissioner O'Brien recommended a fence and 15-foot vegetative buffer that will grow to be six to eight feet tall and keep the noise and over spray from paint from getting on the Worleys' property. Mr. Squires inquired if the 15 feet can be part of the breezeway; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes; and suggested something thick and bushy that will grow up high and tall to obstruct the vision from the Worleys' property to protect the value of their property. Mr. Squires stated if it is part of the breezeway he would have no problem with that.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the 30-foot breezeway can be on one side with a fence and 15 feet of vegetation leaving 15 feet as breezeway; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes, because land storage of boats leaves the whole area as a breezeway. Commissioner Higgs advised the Code requires a 30-foot buffer and fence, and of the 30 feet, 15 feet will be an opaque vegetative buffer from the fence; with Mr. Squires responding he can do that. Commissioner O'Brien stated there will be nothing in the 15-foot of breezeway to allow the breeze to come off the River and across the street. Commissioner Higgs requested clarification of marine uses, as there are some uses that require being indoors; with Mr. Enos responding Mr. Squires is requesting boat storage and repair; it is not a marina; and there is a concrete block wall requirement between BU-2 and residential. Commissioner Higgs inquired what does boat repair mean; with Mr. Enos responding in BU-2, repairs have to be inside a structure, and it includes sanding and painting.

Ms. Worley stated Mr. Squires has done a beautiful job with the marina; they have no problem with that; however, they want some assurance that when it changes hands it will not open up the property to total BU-2 uses. Commissioner O'Brien stated it will not open the property to total BU-2 ever; and noted Ms. Worley came to see him and discussed the issues.

Commissioner Cook advised the Code requires a wall. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they want a wall; with Commissioner Higgs responding they do not have the option. Mr. Squires stated a wall is required if there is a permanent structure build, but if it is just for storage, then it is not required. Mr. Enos stated he thinks they will have to build a wall. Mr. Squires inquired if the 15 feet of vegetation will be required with the concrete wall; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the vegetation is a visual protector, noise reducer, and dust collector, and an environmentally simple way to keep things clean for the neighbors. Mr. Squires inquired if the Worleys would agree to five feet of vegetation on their side of the wall and ten feet on his side so both sides will be covered; with Ms. Worley responding they have plenty of vegetation. Chairman Voltz stated it all has to be on the Squires property. Mr. Squires inquired if 15 feet of vegetation will be required; with Commissioner Cook responding ten feet would be plenty.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 12 with specific uses for marine uses, specifically boat storage and repair and other marine-related uses and all BU-1 uses; the wall be required with a ten-foot vegetative buffer on Mr. Gilliam's property; approve a Future Land Use Map amendment from residential to mixed use; approve a small scale plan amendment; and approve a binding development plan for the buffer. Mr. Squires inquired if the Worleys would prefer a privacy fence instead of concrete wall; with Mr. Enos responding the Code requires the wall and the Landscape Regulations may require a 20-foot vegetative buffer. Commissioner O'Brien recommended ten feet since it is a boatyard; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board cannot do that if the Code requires something else. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the law allows a ten-foot buffer, he would agree to it, but if it requires 20 feet, then Mr. Squires will have to put in 20 feet.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PORT ST. JOHN SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD ZONING AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1998

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Port St. John Special District Board, made at its meeting of September 9, 1998, as follows:

Item 1. (PSJ80901) Robert J. Robertson and John Batson's request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 on 2.99 acres located on the south side of Kings Highway east of FEC Railroad right-of-way, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the Port St. John Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 62-2109, FENCES, WALLS AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Article VI, Section 62-2109, regarding fences, walls and other obstructions.

Doug Hambel advised he was under the impression that tonight the Board would vote on some definite rules and regulations for measuring the height of fences; it does not pertain to his case which has been going on for a year; but the most important thing is if the Board is going to adopt a new code, it has to be able to get Code Enforcement or the Building Division to enforce the code. He stated there are Codes right now, but they are not enforced; so it will not do any good to come up with a new code if they will not enforce what they already have. Commissioner Cook stated the County Manager needs to look into that; with Mr. Hambel responding he has; he received a letter from the County Manager stating the fences were not to be put into an easement; and three weeks later he got a letter saying they issued a permit for the neighbor to put the fence in the easement. Community Development Administrator Peggy Busacca inquired if the Board wants a report on that; with Commissioner Cook responding yes.

Commissioner Cook recommended Option 2, "The parcel's grade shall not be altered for the purpose of increasing the height of a fence"; and Option 4, "The height of the fence on property lines or parallel to the property lines shall be measured from the lowest grade on either side of the property line," be combined.

Chairman Voltz advised Lowe's property on Minton Road is required to put up a 12-foot fence; they filled the property three feet above the adjacent property; and if they put up a 12-foot fence, it will be 15 feet; and inquired if they are required to do that or put up a nine-foot fence which would be 12 feet with the fill. Mr. Hambel stated he thought there were different rules for residential and commercial fences; and his problem is with a residential fence. Chairman Voltz stated the ordinance deals with both fences.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he likes Option 2, deleting "purpose"; and gave a scenario of people changing grades to make fences higher. He stated Option 2 may not capture everything that needs to be said.

Chairman Voltz stated Lowe's bought the property, tore down the homes, and built a three-foot pad above adjacent property; and inquired if they have to put up a 12-foot fence or nine-foot fence. Commissioner Scarborough stated they would have to measure from the lower side. Commissioner Cook stated combining Options 2 and 4 will solve the problem.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article VI, Section 62-2109, "Fences, Walls and Other Obstructions," by amending provisions relating to the measurement of fence height and orientation of the fence to adjoining properties; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE VI, LAND ALTERATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, regarding land alterations conditional use permit. Charles Moehle advised he represents a great deal of property owners in Brevard County, but they do not have a particular issue with the ordinance; however, it makes no sense to change an Ordinance for the whole County to try and correct a problem in a particular area. He stated size has nothing to do with protecting residential areas; it is not the over-riding consideration; to protect them, would be to move land alteration operations away from residential areas; and reducing the size will not induce people to do that, but will promote little land alterations and borrow pits all over the place instead of by someone who is in the business and accountable for and can afford to do things to protect residential areas. He suggested land alterations be put in remote areas; and recommended the Board not reduce it from 50 acres, but increase it to 100 acres and keep them away from small operations that cannot afford to give the protection the Board wants. Mr. Moehle advised he asked for a listing of arterial and collector streets in the County so he can look at it and see what kind of impact it will make; Mr. Enos agreed there should be a list and it should be studied, but nobody has looked at a list and they do not know what streets are arterial and collector.

Commissioner Cook stated by plugging in arterial and collector streets, it will not get those operations into remote areas, and they would be in fairly dense areas where there are collector streets. Commissioner Scarborough stated major roadways run into and through very rural areas; and advised of his experience in locating a construction and demolition site. He stated with larger sites it may be able to keep them out of the areas where people do not want them; however, they could impact roads. He stated the road issue is important; and he is concerned about the cost to the County to maintain those roads.

Commissioner Cook advised of the borrow pit off Martin Road in Rockledge that operated for many years and was so remote nobody knew it was there; and Martin Road is not a collector road. Commissioner Scarborough gave a scenario of the TiCo Road situation.

Mr. Moehle stated he tries to help people get through the maze to use their properties in a good manner; the County Ordinances and Regulations are very thick and a maze to go through; and there is no one who has a complete and up-to-date set of them because they continue to change. He reiterated the need for a list of arterial and collector roads to make an intelligent critique; and stated the buffer is insufficient and should be 250 feet; if it is a rock operation or drilling, it should be 500 feet; but they do not know where they are talking about because they do not know which roads come under the classifications of arterial and collector. He stated the ordinance references access to residential areas; the "to" should be changed to "by" or "through" so it does not forbid a borrow pit in an area that the Board would want one or cause a controversy.

Commissioner Higgs advised there are a lot of good changes in the proposed ordinance; and if the problem is roads, there could be a phrase saying the Board shall annually or every "x" number of years establish a list of collector and arterial roads that may be applicable to different zoning classifications, as those roads will constantly change. She stated the size of a borrow pit is very important; it should go back to 30 acres; there are very few parcels or areas that can support a huge land alteration activity; and it may be better to have a variety of them. She stated she likes the provision of not having proposals going on at the same time or subsequent applications being submitted at the same time; this ordinance has been tabled several times; and if the Board has a problem with the roads, then it could delete that and get a consensus on everything else.

Commissioner Cook stated it is not a crisis situation; and he wants to see a list of the roads and where they are located, as that would have a significant impact. Commissioner Scarborough stated maybe the issue is not the classification of the road but what it goes through and what else is using the road; compared zoning requirements of distances for bars from churches and schools, etc.; and indicated the ordinance should be handled as one issue.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, to continue the public hearing on an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article VI, Land Alterations Conditional Use Permit until December 3, 1998.

Discussion ensued on doing it right or leaving it alone; amending Ordinances to take care of local issues; making people improve roads, enhance restoration, and buffer operations, creating more problems than solving them, the provisions in the ordinance not being parochial, and road definitions.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will second the motion if it includes requesting suggestions from Road and Bridge on how to handle the cost of road maintenance and repair, provide criteria that could include if it is a bus route, does it run through residential areas, etc., and come up with something that will make sense. Commissioner Cook accepted the amendment to the motion.

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

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.

ATTEST:
HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E AL)