November 6, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on November 6, 2003, at 5:33 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 Commissioner Sue Carlson.

Commissioner Truman Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairperson Colon advised the Government class from Florida Air Academy is present to observe the meeting.

REPORT, RE: GREATER ST. PAUL BAPTIST CHURCH VOLUNTEERS

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to acknowledge the Greater St. Paul Baptist Church, which is recognizing individuals who have contributed services to the church for over 30 years. He stated the Church is located on Stone Street in Cocoa; and read a list of volunteers consisting of Elmo Hill, Vivian Jefferson, Blanche Ervin, Sennie Baker, Alvin Blackmon Sr., Wilhemena Burns, Ned Jones, and Walter Jackson.

REPORT, RE: HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL PLAYOFFS

Commissioner Pritchard stated Cocoa Beach, Cocoa, and Merritt Island High Schools all made the playoff; and he thinks of it as the District 2 playoffs, since all of the schools happen to be in District 2. He congratulated the teams.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: NEW GRANDDAUGHTER

Commissioner Pritchard stated at the last Commission meeting he announced he would probably not be present at tonight’s meeting due to the scheduled birth of his first granddaughter; but she surprised them and decided to come a week early. He displayed a picture of his granddaughter, Emma; stated mother, father, and Emma are doing great; and granddad is doing the best he can.

Chairperson Colon inquired what about grandma; with Commissioner Pritchard responding grandma is buying frilly dresses because there are two grandsons, but now it is going to coloring books and frilly dresses, and she is thrilled. Chair Colon congratulated Commissioner Pritchard on his new grandchild.

REPORT, RE: LETTER FROM TAX COLLECTOR

Chairperson Colon stated she faxed to each Commissioner the letter from the Tax Collector regarding what is being returned to the Board; it goes automatically to the General Fund; and it occurs every year.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: CAMERON BARKLEY

Chairperson Colon stated last week she asked people to go to the blood drive for 12 year-old Cameron Barkley, but Cameron is now with the Lord. She stated they were not expecting that to happen; it is always hard to lose someone so young; she wants to let his family know their prayers are with them; and requested a moment of silence for Cameron.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING NATIONAL PHILANTHROPY DAY

Chairperson Colon read aloud a resolution proclaiming November 13, 2003 as National Philanthropy Day.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution proclaiming November 13, 2003 as National Philanthropy Day in Brevard County, in honor and recognition of the fundraising professionals and the critical role philanthropy plays in the well-being of the citizens and the community. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Resolution No. 03-288.)

An individual stated she is representing Martha Shultz; and thanked the Board for the honor. She stated they hope to continue their good work throughout the County and the State. Commissioner Pritchard presented the Resolution to Ms. Shultz’s representative.

APPROVAL, RE: STREAMLINING AGENDA FORMAT FOR MONTHLY REZONING PUBLIC
HEARINGS

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve combining two agendas into one agenda for use by both the Board and the citizens for the monthly zoning public hearings. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TEMPORARY USE AGREEMENT WITH MARVIN C. AND DOROTHY E. GRAY, RE:
TRANSFER SITE FOR DREDGED MATERIAL AND STORAGE OF ASSOCIATED HEAVY
EQUIPMENT

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to execute Temporary Use Agreement with Marvin C. and Dorothy E. Gray to allow a property zoned for single-family residential use to be temporarily used as a transfer site in conjunction with the dredging of the channels leading to the Banana River. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page for Agreement.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ITEMS REQUESTED FOR TABLING FROM THE
OCTOBER 13, 2003 PLANNING AND ZONING AND OCTOBER 16, 2003
NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD AGENDAS

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated there are a number of items requested for tabling; and they include IV.B.4 to the November 10, 2003 Planning and Zoning meeting and December 4, 2003 Board meeting; Item IV.B.13 to a November or December day meeting; Item IV.D.1 to the November 13, 2003 North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board meeting; Item IV.D.2 to the December 4, 2003 Board meeting; Item IV.D.9 to the December 4, 2003 Board meeting; and Item IV.E.39 to the November 10, 2003 Planning and Zoning Board meeting and the December 4, 2003 Board meeting.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he understands some of the tablings were created by his announcement that he would not be present tonight; once a tabling is requested it has to go forward; and apologized to those who got caught in the middle for muddling the process. He stated on IV.B.13, there is a bit of a problem if Mr. Amari and his client are not able to be scheduled to a day meeting, as the next meeting they would be able to attend would not be until February 2004; and they have requested to move the item to the meeting on November 18, 2003 with a time certain at 3:00 p.m. because they already have a vacating issue about an easement on the same property for which attendance would be necessary.

Chairperson Colon stated all of the time certains have been allocated. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they are all in the afternoon; with Chairperson Colon responding most of them are. Chairperson Colon stated she was were trying to get the business accomplished in the morning versus the time certains; if she gives a time certain, it would probably be in the afternoon; but she cannot guarantee it. Chairperson Colon noted she will not be chairing that meeting, and she is coordinating with Commissioner Higgs.

Mr. Enos advised he said Item IV.D.9, but should have said Item IV.D.9.c.

Item IV.B.4. (Z0310304) Charles R. Stack, Trustee and Gene Kubicki’s request for change from SR to EU-1 with an amendment to the existing BDP on 178.69 acres located on the northeast corner of Valkaria and Weber Roads, which was recommended by the P&Z Board to be tabled to the November 10, 2003 P&Z meeting and the December 4, 2003 Board meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item IV.B.4 to the November 11, 2003 P&Z meeting and the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.13. (Z0310201) FBC of Brevard, Inc.’s request for change from RU-2-15 and BU-1 to all RU-2-15 with a binding development plan on 6.60 acres located on the southwest corner of 20th Street and Orlando Avenue, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item IV.B.13 to the November 18, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.1. (NMI31001) Taylor Properties of Brevard County, Inc.’s request for Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages on Premises Consumption in a BU-2 zone on 5.51 acres located on the east side of North Courtenay Parkway, north of the Barge Canal, which was recommended to be tabled to the November 13, 2003 North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board meeting and the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item IV.D.1 to the November 13, 2003 North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board meeting and the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.2. (NMI31002) Estate of Caroline Wiggins’ request for change from AU to RU-1-7 with a binding development plan limiting density to four units per acre on 18.74 acres located on the east side of North Tropical Trail south of Hall Road and north of the Barge Canal, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item IV.D.2 to the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.9.c. Section 25, Township 36, Subdivision 77, Lots 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, Tracts A and B, and Parcels 757, 769 and 770, owned by James E. Stone, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of CUP Z-8423 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item IV.D.9.c to the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.E.39. Section 10, Township 26, Range 36, Subdivision 50, Lot 1, owned by Michael S. Stern, which was recommended for tabling by the P&Z Board to the November 13, 2003 P&Z meeting and the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item IV.E.39 to the November 13, 2003 P&Z meeting and the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEM FROM SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 PLANNING AND
ZONING AGENDA

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the item tabled from the September 8, 2003 Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board Agenda, as follows:

Item IV.A.1. (Z0309302) Larry E. and Susanne Chancey’s request for a CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a TU-1(7) zone on 1.532 acres located on the east side of Highway A1A, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Teresa Marquez, representing Larry and Susanne Chancey, stated the Chanceys wish to apologize for not being present tonight; Mr. Chancey was present last month; and at that time he tried to explain everything to the best of his ability and answer questions. She stated Commissioner Higgs asked if they would consider looking into a binding development plan, which they did; and the Commissioner should have a copy of that. She stated Mr. Chancey stated it is his sole purpose to be able to sell beer and wine in his sit-down restaurant; they do not and will not have a bar or lounge; and this is strictly a family restaurant. She stated they understand there are a few individuals in opposition; however, the area is looking forward to the sit-down restaurant. She stated there are a lot of patrons who live in Sunnyland who are in their late 60’s or early 70’s, some as old as 80; they like to drive very short distances; and their facility is within two miles of them. She requested approval of the item; and if for any reason the Board feels that the Chanceys need to be present, they would request the item be tabled.

Chairperson Colon stated they would only table if they needed more information.

Commissioner Higgs stated there was no discussion at the last meeting about outdoor music or special events; and inquired if it would be possible to include provision in the binding development plan to eliminate outdoor music. Ms. Marquez stated that is not a problem as there is no reason to have outdoor music; and the only time there could be outdoor music would be at a special event, which would be like Frank Sinatra music. Commissioner Higgs requested Ms. Marquez think about including a provision for no outdoor music or special events.

Victor Williams stated he is in opposition to the expansion of the motel and pizza parlor; it is nice that they will not have outdoor music; but there is another problem. He stated they have a good-sized motel there now; and he understands Mr. Chancey wants to expand it with more rooms and have a sit-down restaurant; but there is hardly any parking space. He stated he does not know how they are going to get the cars off A1A or stop the traffic from blocking traffic going into the restaurant as there is no deceleration lane or side to pull off. He stated it is a residential area with quiet families and children; the park, which is owned by the Melbourne Shores Property Owners’ Association, is right next to the pizza parlor, so there will be children going back and forth to the park; and with the added traffic, there may be a problem.

John Boltz stated he lives within 500 feet of the property; one of the Planning and Zoning staff comments, in response to Mr. Chancey, states, “the property shall enhance and improve property values in the neighborhood”; but no proof is shown of this. He stated Mr. Chancey has the burden of proof to show that the impact on property values will be enhanced; and the neighbor directly to the north, Valerie Amneus, has told him that she does not feel her property is going to be increased in value from granting of the CUP. He stated the staff comments indicate a six-foot high wood fence on the south property line; but that fence is the property of Melbourne Shores Property Owners Association; and if the CUP is granted, he assumes the applicant will be required to provide for and maintain a buffering fence. He noted he does not represent Melbourne Shores Property Owners Association although he is a member. He stated as for impact of off-street parking, according to the zoning, a CUP is needed for off-site parking; one cannot cross the right-of-way without a CUP; and presently it has been reported to him that employees are parking in the Melbourne Shores Association community parking lot and walking to work, which requires them to cross the right-of-way to get to the Surfcaster Motel even though it is on the same side of the street. He stated as to outside seating, he appreciates that the binding development plan will emphasize special events; but he sees no need for outside activities or outside patios as there is a family community park next door; and submitted photos to the Board, but not the Clerk. He stated the first photo board provides a look at the area, the proximity of the community park to the motel, and two views from the park pavilion onto the applicant’s property. He stated there is also a picture of the beach at the back of the applicant’s property showing Sargasso weed; the picture was taken a week ago; and all of the Sargasso weed is now up into the dune vegetation. He stated at high waters lately with the strong seas, the whole beach has been covered by waves and salt water; and he brings this up because of pollution. He stated approximately a third of the area claimed by Mr. Chancey is dune and beach for purposes of a drainfield; Vern Buchanan of Environmental Health Services advises the applicant is maxed out on sewage capacity; and it is outrageous that the beach that becomes covered in salt water is used for drainfield permitting. He stated the applicant has 1.53 acres; obviously that survey was done in the summer; and there are a couple of tenths less acreage to the mean high water line at the present time. He stated newspaper articles report there are nitrogen levels consistent with human waste in the surf, although not necessarily in Melbourne Shores; and he does not know where it is coming from.

Chairperson Colon inquired how much longer does Mr. Boltz need; with Mr. Boltz responding approximately two and one half minutes. The Board reached consensus to allow Mr. Boltz to continue.

Mr. Boltz stated the second photo board shows five photos of Floridana Beach, which has some nice signs and a yellow flashing light; but they have none of these warnings; and they are going to have more traffic problems than Floridana Beach. He stated there are 25 spaces at the business at the flashing light; there are 35 spaces at the motel presently; the ingress and egress at the yellow flashing light is much safer because there is a side road; but the only way out of the Surfcaster Motel is straight onto Highway A1A. He stated the third photo board shows how they store their garbage; Mr. Chancey said there will be no sanitary problems because they have a restaurant and know how to handle garbage; but they have trashcans without lids, pizza dough, garbage and organic matter on the ground around the cans, and the trash cans are placed curbside without the lids. He stated he called Waste Management, which said it was rather unorthodox for a restaurant to have trashcans as they usually have a dumpster and that it would take permission of the County for them to use trash cans. He stated he had an eyewitness report from Don Fisher that the sanitation workers on occasion go into the restaurant and come back out with pizza boxes; but he is sure they are paying for whatever they buy. He stated the last photo board has pictures of the mosquito breeding area; the pictures were taken on October 14; and there has been standing water there every day since October 14. He stated one day the pavement dried up but other than that, there has been water on the driveway entrance making it a hazardous entrance. He stated there are various violations; the dune has been mistreated; there is a pathway where people are walking right on the dune and not using the dune crossover; and they are driving onto the drainfield because the tire stops that were supposed to be there on the site plan are not there.

Barbara Van Dam stated she is also a resident of the community where the Surfcaster is; the owner already has permission to sell wine and beer in the take-out part of the restaurant; and she would like that extended to the sit-down part of the restaurant, if everything else passes. She stated she understood that was the question; he wanted permission to be able to serve beer and wine at the tables versus the take-out part; that should be included since there is really no other place to go; and it would be nice not to have to drive all the way to town to have a glass of beer or wine with dinner.

Teresa Marquez stated the hotel had six rooms, and has nine with the new addition; and they have expanded the parking lot. She stated someone may be parking at Melbourne Shores and walking to the restaurant, but none of the employees park in the Melbourne Shores lot. She stated they have a fence on the other side of the Melbourne Shores fence. She stated as far as the trash problem, Mr. Chancey has been looking into getting a dumpster for the restaurant; the pictures appear to have been taken the day before trash day; and there are raccoons in that area. She stated if she sees a problem around the trashcans, she cleans it up; and all the trash is in bags and covered. She stated as far as the traffic and danger to the people, on any given night New England Eatery has from 30 to 40 cars; sometimes the parking lot is full; and they have a full bar there. She inquired if that is not creating a problem as well; noted they will not have hard liquor at their restaurant; they do not want to have that kind of atmosphere; it is a family restaurant; and all they are asking is to serve beer and wine in the restaurant for the patrons who come to eat. She stated as far as the garbage men and the pizza boxes, they ask the workers to bring in the trashcans from the street and put them behind the restaurant; the workers are not required to do that; and they provide them pizza at a discounted price as a thank you.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the applicant is okay with no outdoor music or special events related to outdoor music; with Ms. Marquez responding definitely.

Commissioner Carlson stated a speaker mentioned septic tank capacity; and inquired if there is an issue with that. Commissioner Higgs stated staff could address the permitting issues. Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated the site plan was approved yesterday; and the septic tank issue was dealt with as part of that, so presumably it has been properly addressed. Commissioner Higgs stated a question was raised about a size of a lot in relationship to the possibility of a septic system; and inquired does it include square footage of the full lot that might include some of the beachfront. She stated there is no drainfield on the beach; and the drainfield is on the south side of the property as she saw it on the site plan. Mr. Enos stated the drainfields are located on the south side of the south building and on the north side of the north building; and he does not know the specific answer to Commissioner Higgs’ question about how the lot is figured for septic tank purposes, but for zoning purposes, it is whatever the lot is surveyed out to be.

Commissioner Carlson requested if the zoning is approved, it be for restaurant use only. Commissioner Higgs stated they covered that in number two of the binding development plan. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is sufficient to make sure it is used for restaurant use only; with Mr. Enos responding it is fine.

Commissioner Higgs stated this is an unusual situation; there are very few commercial parcels in that area; this is a piece with an existing alcoholic beverage sales ability; and they would expand that. She stated the binding development plan, if it includes the outdoor music provision, would seem to protect the neighborhood; she has heard from a number of residents, including the owners and some of the residents in opposition; and all of the comments are included in the written record she submitted. She stated given the existence of the alcohol sales at the site, the expansion to the restaurant with the binding development plan protects the neighborhood.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.A.1 with change to the Binding Development Plan for no outdoor music or special events. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Colon voted nay. (See page for Zoning Resolution.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
OCTOBER 13, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its October 13, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Item IV.B.1. (Z0310301) Athan P. and Joyce C. Kartsonis’ request for change from GU to EU with a BDP limited to one single-family homesite on 1.55 acres located on the west side of North Riverside Drive north of Watson Drive, which was recommended by the P&Z for approval with a BDP limited to one single-family homesite.

Attorney Tino Gonzalez, representing the applicants, stated they are seeking to have the property zoning changed from GU to EU; they desire to build a house there; and they have a

signed binding development plan, which says they will use it for one single-family residence. He presented the binding development plan to the Board. Mr. Gonzalez stated the request is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; the neighbor next door has the same zoning and is building a house; the request is proper; and the applicants would appreciate a positive vote for the zoning.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.B.1 as recommended by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan limited to one single-family homesite. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.2. (Z0310302) Walter Charles Askew, IV’s request for change from BU-1-A to RU-1-9 with a BDP on 0.58 acre located on the southwest corner of Highway A1A and Flamingo Drive, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval with a BDP with a minimum of 1,500 square feet of living area.

John Van Dam stated he is present to authorize Clayton Bennett to speak on his behalf.

Clayton Bennett, Fleis and Bennett Engineering, stated he is present tonight to request rezoning of two nonconforming lots of record from BU-1-A to RU-1-9 with a binding development plan limiting the development on each lot to one 1,500 square-foot single-family residence; single-family residences are permitted within BU-1-A zone; however, the request is for a reduction in setbacks to be consistent with the land use. He stated currently commercially-zoned property is required to have a 130-foot setback from the centerline of A1A, but residentially-zoned properties only require 100 feet. He stated the owner had submitted a variance request in February 2002 for relief from the setback from the Board of Adjustment to develop the property commercially; the variance request was to reduce the 130-foot setback 19 feet or to have it 111 feet from the centerline of A1A; and permitting the rezoning would reduce the setback from A1A 30 feet or 100 feet from the centerline. He stated the reason RU-1-9 zoning is requested is because of the zoning classifications for the lot width; if they went with RU-1-13 the zoning would not have been compatible with the existing lot width; and so they have requested RU-1-9 with the binding development plan for houses of 1,500 square feet. He stated both lots together are approximately .58 acre or just over one-quarter acre per lot; and they are relatively larger lots for the area.

Barbara Van Dam stated the two lots are cattycornered from the Surfcaster Motel in Melbourne Shores; and it would be a good thing to have the zoning approved from commercial to residential to lessen any future bigger developments going in there.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval with a binding development plan with a minimum 1,500 square feet; and this would not be an increase in residential density.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.B.2 as recommended by the P&Z Board with a Binding Development Plan with a minimum of 1,500 square feet of living area. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.3. (Z0310303) Pantelis Markogiannakis and Paul Van Pelt’s request for change from GU to SR with a BDP on 4.72± acres located on the west side of Highway A1A north of Sea Dunes Drive, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval with a BDP limited to no more than three single-family homesites, and a minimum of a 10-foot planted buffer along the south property line.

Brad Kinne stated he is the applicant and owner of 6.54 acres in Melbourne Beach, known as 400 Crete Lane; and he would like to change 4.72 acres from GU to SR with a binding development plan. He submitted the original survey to the Board; and stated the original application contained a discrepancy in who was the applicant. He stated it was shown that the applicant was Pentelis Markogiannakis and Paul Van Pelt, but he is the applicant; he has the property under agreement to possibly purchase from Mr. Markogiannakis and Mr. Van Pelt; and submitted paperwork to the Board. Mr. Kinne stated several months ago he met with Commissioner Higgs to try to figure out the best way to do what he wanted with his property; and on October 13, 2003, the P&Z Board voted unanimously to approve his request. He stated south of the property is a community called Sea Dunes Drive; initially a number of residents of Sea Dunes Drive had their doubts about whether they would like to see the property developed; he is asking for a total of three residential building lots; but he is only building on two of them at this time because of the impacts to the schools. He stated he met at length with the residents on Sea Dunes Drive; and he is doing his best to mitigate their concerns. He stated he has a signed agreement that he gave to a member of the Sea Dunes Drive group.

Wallace Harrison stated the residents of Sea Dunes Drive have been meeting with Mr. Kinne for the last couple of weeks trying to work out a way to mitigate the impact of his development on their community; they believe Mr. Kinne has done that; and they believe Mr. Kinne will do the best he can to make the development a plus for everyone.

Commissioner Higgs stated in looking at the number of units, it would seem if they went to three they would be increasing beyond the Board’s policy in regard to schools; with Mr. Enos advising that is correct. Commissioner Higgs stated the most the Board could give tonight, if it chose to do so, would be the two units to remain consistent with its school policy.

Mr. Kinne stated the binding development plan makes reference to the fact that it would be something in the future; and he is only dealing with the two residential lots at this time.

Commissioner Higgs stated the policy has been that the density and the zoning that the Board allows in the binding development plan would only provide for an increase of one when the schools were over capacity. Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley advised that is correct, the binding development plans have been addressing the current capacity and the density that would fit that capacity, and that is what is before the Board tonight. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board chooses to give the zoning being requested, the density would be the two and the applicant would have to come back at another time. Ms. Bentley stated there is a procedure for amending binding development plans.

Mr. Kinne inquired if that could be amended now; with Commissioner Higgs responding no.

Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the problems is the recital section has the substance, but the part where the parties hereby agree does not incorporate the language, even with the number of units; and recommended someone work with the applicant so that would be included because otherwise the binding development plan would not be enforceable.

Commissioner Higgs stated there are other things that have been incorporated in the agreement between the residents and the applicant that the Board should put in the binding development plan so it recognizes what the applicant has agreed to. She stated there are a couple of things that need to be clarified in the binding development plan; and if the Board chooses to give the zoning, it could be SR, but the binding development plan would have to be limited to two units. She stated she would want some further clarification on the buffer; Mr. Kinne indicated a ten-foot vegetated buffer; but she wants the verbiage to indicate that vegetation does not mean grass, but means an opaque buffer, so that should be further outlined in the binding development plan. She stated the minimum lot size would be one acre; that is established in the Comprehensive Plan; but it would be useful to put that in the binding development plan. She stated Mr. Kinne can work with staff to get the binding development plan; the Board can act tonight; and the binding development plan will come back at a regular meeting, which is the standard procedure. She stated the binding development plan needs to include the language Mr. Kinne has agreed to with the residents along with further clarification on the living units and the vegetative buffer; and if the Board is okay with that, she is willing to approve SR with the binding development plan.

Mr. Kinne stated he is confused; he has a second binding development plan; and inquired if he should disseminate it. Commissioner Higgs stated if it is not something the Board and the residents already have, then it should be distributed to the residents so they can read it; and it will come back to the Board at a regular meeting. She stated the Board does not want to agree to something at the meeting and not have an opportunity to have seen it in writing to be sure it is right. Mr. Kinne inquired about meeting with staff; with Commissioner Higgs advising Mr. Enos and his staff will meet with Mr. Kinne. Mr. Kinne inquired when is the next meeting; with Mr. Enos responding it would depend on how quickly Mr. Kinne can get the binding development back in a format that works; and normally once it is worked out, it comes back at a meeting approximately two weeks later. Mr. Enos advised the Code provides for within 60 days the binding development plan comes back to the Board; and if Mr. Kinne works quickly with staff within the next week or two, it can be done within the 60 days. Mr. Kinne inquired if there is any chance he can meet with staff now; with Mr. Enos responding no.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.B.3 as SR with a Binding Development Plan limiting to two single-family units, 10-foot opaque vegetative buffer, minimum lot size of one acre, and those things that were worked out with the residents. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.4. Tabled earlier in the meeting to the November 10, 2003 P&Z meeting and the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item IV.B.5. (Z0310401) Fred Boozer’s request for change from AU to EU on 5.89 acres located on the east side of US 1 north of Ruby Street, which was recommended by P&Z Board for approval.

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

Item IV.B.6. (Z0310501) Unity Church of Melbourne, Inc.’s request for a CUP for a Church in an RU-1-13 zone on 0.268 acre located on the west side of Lytton Road south of Trimble Road, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for denial.

Tom Lee submitted paperwork to the Board; and stated he is treasurer and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Unity Church. He stated the church is the applicant for a conditional use permit to use the property at 958 Lytton Road, which is adjacent to church property, as a church; but they will stipulate the church use will be limited through a binding development agreement. He requested everyone present in support of the application to stand; and approximately one half of the room’s occupants stood. He stated in the packet is a petition with 226 names of folks in support. He stated it is Unity Church’s desire to be a good neighbor; and they have made the binding development agreement a part of the application. He stated the binding development agreement will stipulate that if the CUP is approved, it will be binding upon all future ministers and boards of trustees of the church and that the property will never be used for meetings such as Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, and will never be used as a halfway house of any kind. He stated he will defer to Reverend Beth Head who is the minister of Unity Church of Melbourne; advised he has an illustrative site plan that will give the Board a better idea of what they are talking about; and submitted the plan to the Board.

Chairperson Colon requested Reverend Head focus on why there was a 9-2 denial by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Reverend Beth Head stated Unity Church of Melbourne is a relatively small church with 229 members; while the attendance has remained stable over the past years, demographic changes have made them a younger congregation with more children; and they are requesting to move their administrative offices to 958 Lytton Road, so they will have three rooms for the children. She stated Unity Church has been part of the neighborhood since 1982; in 2000, the previous owners of the property approached the church because of the difficulty in selling it as a residence; the house has a garage with no access; and there is an addition on the house with an outer wall that is only five feet tall, which limits the use of the addition. She stated those items appeared as problems to the general homebuyer, so before Unity’s purchase of the house, it had been used as rental property. Reverend Head stated it is the church’s desire to be a good neighbor; since they have owned the property, they have maintained its appearance as a residence; and there are pictures in the packet showing the building, which is not only adjacent to their church but also to the Freewill Baptist Church. She stated they have not installed lighting or signs that would be inconsistent with the neighborhood, and will not do so in the future; when they looked at the Property Appraiser’s record, they found that 958 Lytton Road had a use code of 7211, which is a church-owned educational building; and mistakenly they believed it was zoned appropriately, so they have used the property for offices, small group meetings, and storage without having a CUP. She stated when they were notified that they were not in compliance, they ceased to use the building and filed for a CUP; in January a group of congregants asked if they could start an AA meeting, and began meeting at 958 Lytton once a week; and a neighbor filed a complain with the Zoning staff about the meeting. She stated they have moved the meeting and will never move it back to 958 Lytton Road; attendance was never more than twelve people, but that included one person who came on a bicycle because his drivers license was revoked; and Unity understands that it offended the neighbors, and has stipulated it the binding development plan that it will never do that again. She stated someone said that the church would use the property as a halfway house, but that is not the intention; and they have stipulated that in the binding development plan. She stated even with a CUP the property would not be appropriate for public assemblage, and that is included in the binding development plan. She stated they are not asking for a change in zoning, just a CUP to allow them to use the building for church offices; and moving the offices will not affect traffic because they are already doing the same task at 1745 Trimble Road. She stated they have limited staff and limited office hours; she is a full-time minister and there are three part-time staff members; and the office hours are Tuesday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. She stated at the Planning and Zoning meeting, there was a question about parking; there is adequate shaded parking on the Unity Church property at 1745 Trimble Road; and there are pictures showing that in the packet. She stated the parking is immediately adjacent to 958 Lytton Road, within 100 feet; and visitors to the office will be instructed to access 958 Lytton Road through 1745 Trimble Road. She stated they do not believe that churches destroy neighborhoods; churches help to build and enhance neighborhoods; and they are not just another commercial enterprise. She stated churches are an integral part of the fabric of the country; and approval of the application will not adversely affect the neighborhood. She stated they have explained the need for the space for office and storage to free up space for the children; they have shown there is appropriate parking and that access will be through the main church property; and they have shown that this will not create additional traffic on Lytton Road. She stated they have listened to the neighbors and tried to address the concerns with a binding development plan, which will insure the neighbors that not only the current board of trustees and minister will abide by the agreement, but that future boards and future ministers will; and requested support of their application.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Reverend Head met with the residents of the area after the Planning and Zoning meeting; with Reverend Head responding they met with some residents and her husband met with the person who had the objection. Chairperson Colon requested those in opposition come forward and sit in front.

Bill Schultz stated he is representing every homeowner on Lytton Road; and they are all against this. He stated it was nice when everyone stood up in support; but inquired how many of the people who stood up live on Lytton Road, Trimble Road, Baker Road, Miller Road, Easy Street, or Tolley. He stated they do not live in the neighborhood, but use the neighborhood as access to their church; and the neighbors are vehemently against this. He stated they are not against AA or churches; this is not a church or AA issue; it is an issue of residential property; and this is strictly a residential area. He stated there are four churches within the one-quarter square mile area in the neighborhood; there are three streets in and out of the neighborhood; and they are being used as a church driveway and parking lot. He stated there is a Jehovah Witness Church, Korean Church, and Unity Church on Trimble Road, which is only one-quarter mile long; and there is a Freewill Baptist Church on Lytton Road. He stated they are inundated by traffic on Wednesdays and Sundays; his children and the residents cannot use the streets; and because of the traffic, they are not allowed to make use of their neighborhood. He stated he presented the Board with statements from every resident on Lytton Road; they would like the Board to deny the request; and it was actually a unanimous vote for denial at the Planning and Zoning meeting. He stated the P&Z Board saw the wisdom of what they are talking about and it was obvious to them that the neighborhood wanted to stay together integrally as a neighborhood. He stated he asked why the minister does not live in the neighborhood; they have no opposition to that; but they do not want them to take away the neighborhood. He stated this is a domino effect; six of the 18 pieces of property on Lytton Road are owned by churches, although not necessarily Unity Church; when they buy a residential piece of property it is then zoned CUP, which is non-revocable; and therefore a residential piece of property is lost because no one can live there if it is zoned institutional or CUP. He reiterated it is a domino effect; the church buys a property; the next house decides it does not want to be next to church property, so they put their home up for sale; and it just goes down the line. He stated they are buying the residential properties because it is cheaper and easier to buy than to go to an industrial or institutional piece of property; and their goal is to continue to purchase properties and grow. He stated churches do bring communities together; but when there is an overload in one tiny neighborhood, that is not beneficial.

Chairperson Colon inquired why they met with Reverend Head, what kind of dialogue did they have, and was there any consensus or was there nothing in common. Mr. Schultz stated there were some issues they did not agree on; and in speaking to the minister’s husband, he found they had no idea they were bringing people on bicycles into the neighborhood or that several of the people are now living behind the house at 915 Lytton Road in a homeless camp. He commented on parking at the Baptist Church without the permission of the church and setting precedents. He stated they are concerned that they are going to buy all the properties and the neighborhood will die; he has lived there 35 years; he grew up on that street; and he does not want to lose his neighborhood.

Gerald Head stated the minister is his wife; there seems to be an impression that the church wants the property to vastly expand its enterprise; but that is not true. He stated they need classroom space on Sunday morning for the children who are already coming to the church; and they want to use the building on Lytton Road for administrative offices. He stated they have a receptionist from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday; they have two volunteers and one full-time employee; and that is it, five hours a day, three days a week. He stated they got a copy of a letter that says the septic system is below grade and all kinds of stuff; the letter was circulated through the neighborhood with the intent of inflaming the residents; the residents were told they were going to open a halfway house; and that is not true. He stated he met with Mr. Schultz; they had a long discussion; and he felt that a binding development plan that would exclude all of the neighbors’ concerns would be sufficient. He stated he does not know what else the church can do; and they have taken every complaint and concern that has been brought to their attention and built a binding development plan to answer and resolve those issues. He stated some mistakes were made at the Planning and Zoning meeting; P&Z staff said that parking was 200 feet away from Lytton Road, but it is not; it is right at the back line of the property; and they have permitted and culverted the ditch that separated the properties so one can actually drive into the backyard, although they try not to let people do that because it would harm the grass. He stated parking is not a problem; they can accommodate 30 to 40 cars; but they are only talking about three people for five hours a day, three days a week. He stated he has been in touch with the minister of the Baptist Church; that church’s parking lot abuts the building under consideration; he asked if they could rent space from the Baptist Church; but it does not want to rent them space because it does not think they need it. He stated there are four slots in front of the house; there is a driveway that runs the entire length of the house; and there is the entire parking area around the church. He commented on his discussion with the minister of the Baptist Church and liability issues. He stated this is a red herring; the traffic load is going to be the same whether the office is on Trimble Road or Lytton Road; and they do not open their office on Sunday morning. He noted the traffic load on Wednesday night is not their fault as they do not have services on Wednesday or Sunday nights. He stated all they want to do is have people answering the phones in the office, counting the money, making up the tax receipts, and all of the other stuff that offices do; and this will allow them to open three rooms in their present building for the children. He stated they separate the children into different age groups; and the youth department has mushroomed over the last couple of years. He stated he called the Sheriff’s office to ask about speeding on Trimble Road and Easy Street, which are the two main streets; and he was told they gave out three tickets this year, and last year they gave out three warning tickets, so it is a non-issue. He reiterated their office hours, having nothing to do with traffic on Sunday or Wednesday nights, no tickets were issued on Sundays, and there were no reports of accidents with injuries on Trimble Road or Easy Street.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Head knew about the homeless people living there; with Mr. Head responding he did not know about that. Chairperson Colon inquired if that was not brought up in the discussion with Mr. Schultz. Mr. Head stated it was brought up as a concern; and he is right to be concerned; but it has nothing to do with the use of the building as an office.

Tina Smith stated she was born and raised at 915 Lytton Road, and her parents still live there; she has a four-year old daughter who she took back to her neighborhood for trick or treat; and it was impossible to walk the streets of the neighborhood due to church activities going on. She stated there are vacant lots on both sides of her parents’ house; and both sides were parking lots that evening as was the house across the street. She stated there was so much traffic in the neighborhood that evening due to church functions that it was impossible for the children of the neighborhood to trick or treat; and that was sad. She requested the Board oppose the CUP.

Lloyd Reiser stated the neighborhood surrounding 958 Lytton Road is not strictly residential; there are 149 different properties; churches own six of those; another property is a plant nursery and landscape company; five properties already have conditional use permits for various uses; and a large portion of the neighborhood is zoned AU. He stated for the last four years there has been a pig farm, goat farm, and riding stable in the neighborhood; some of the property is zoned BU-1; and the neighborhood is bounded by the businesses on Eau Gallie and Wickham Roads and the mobile home park. He stated the majority of the lots on the east side of Lytton Road back onto vacant commercial property which fronts on Wickham Road; many of the residences on the north side of Trimble Road have multiple buildings including mobile homes on them; and four churches have been part of the neighborhood for many decades. He stated the church at 1745 Trimble Road was built in 1967; Unity Church bought it more than 20 years ago from its previous congregation; and other churches have been in their buildings for a long period of time, since 1969, 1975, and 1982. He stated a claim was made at the Planning and Zoning meeting that the churches were gobbling up residential properties; but according to County records, only two residential properties have been purchased in the last 20 years. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board was also erroneously led to believe that the residential character of the neighborhood would be damaged by approval of a conditional use permit; Unity has been in its present location since 1982; in 1991 it purchased the AU-zoned property and building at 1765 Trimble Road; and since that time, the appearance and character of that building has remained consistent with that of a residential area. He stated Unity Church has no plans to alter the appearance or structure of the Lytton Road property; there is full access to drive from the church’s main building at 1745 Trimble and parking in the backyard of 958 Lytton Road; but the church members have refrained from parking in the backyard to retain the residential character of the house. He stated they have been instructed to park in the Unity parking lot; the minister has repeatedly requested anyone having business at the Lytton Road property should use the back door and not park in front; and many of the Church board members do not even have keys to the Lytton Road property. He recommended the Board approve the conditional use permit for the property since it will have no impact on the community.

Danielle Schultz stated she presently lives at the house she plans to live in for the rest of her life with her husband, children, and her parents; her neighborhood is small by today’s standards consisting of seven streets and approximately 160 homes; and in this small neighborhood they currently have four churches and no less than six additional residential pieces of property owned by the four churches. She stated if the churches continue to purchase residential property with the intent to utilize them for church functions, it will take the homes off the County tax rolls and diminish the number of families who can reside in and contribute to the neighborhood; and the impact of the churches on the communities is immense. She stated being an older neighborhood, they have none of the improvements and amenities associated with most neighborhoods; the streets have no sidewalks or curbs and some of the streets have fairly steep drainage culverts, which lack protective guardrails; and the traffic the churches bring into the neighborhood is great enough that they have become accustomed to not being able to use the streets for recreational purposes. She stated the churches have been in the neighborhood for decades; they are used to four small congregations; but it is evident the churches are growing and they need to use the residential properties for institutional purposes. She stated her children cannot ride their bicycles with or without adult supervision to her husband’s parents home, which is less than a quarter of a mile away; the traffic is impacted nearly every day of the week by parishioners going to church or attending meetings or other functions; and allowing more residential properties to become rezoned will further impact the situation as the churches grow and create more traffic in the neighborhood. She stated they have engaged in ongoing battles with traffic and speeding in the 25 mph zone; there have only been three tickets because the Sheriff’s office has more pressing jobs to do than sit and watch traffic; but she watches people speed by as she sits on her porch, and could catch 10 to 20 speeders a day. She stated if the churches have outgrown their facilities, it would be more appropriate for them to find a facility outside the residential area that will support their growth. She stated another issue is property values; a great number of residents have begun the process of renovating their homes; her family has put over $80,000 into their home in the past two years; and it would be a great shame if the neighborhood property values dropped due to the number of institutional properties in the neighborhood. She requested the Board deny the petitioners’ request for the CUP.

Robert New stated he would like to clear up a couple of arguments that were made against the permit at the Planning and Zoning meeting; there is going to be no impact on the traffic; they will continue the activities they are doing already on the property; and if the property were to go back to residential, it would increase the traffic because there would be tenants or residents of the property using the streets. He noted they are not requesting rezoning; and this is simply a conditional use permit. He stated Unity Church is doing its best to be a good neighbor; they are concerned about the speeding; and outlined positive actions taken to eliminate speeding, including reminders printed in the church bulletins and announcements from the pulpit about the speed limit. He stated the traffic patterns will not change if the permit is approved; denying the permit will not reduce traffic; and their church is not the source or cause of speeding in the area. He stated they support the community in creating the signage; they would love to see “children at play” signs put up; and recommended the existing speed limit signs be moved farther from the intersection so they can be seen after people turn the corner.

Kimberly Landry stated she is a single mom; and introduced her daughter and other children who live in her neighborhood. She stated she brings them to church with their parents; and there are two other girls who come with her almost every Sunday, but could not be here today. She stated the church is her family; she does not have any family in Florida; and when she found herself in a time of need of someone to support her and her daughter, Unity Church was there for them. She would like the Board to make space for the children in the church and make them feel welcome in God’s house; that is all they are asking for; and inquired if the people objecting believe in God. She stated the fact that there are six churches in the neighborhood is a blessing and an asset; and she does not understand why anyone would say they do not want a church in their neighborhood. She stated when she is shopping for a neighborhood, she looks for churches and good schools and a neighborhood where there are God-loving people; and all they are asking for is space for their children to love God. She introduced the children; and stated she and her daughter would not be together if it was not for the church.

Loraine Morris Crand stated Unity Church of Melbourne has been a good neighbor to the community since its inception in 1962 and in its present neighborhood since 1982; the neighborhood residents have held town meeting-type gatherings on Unity property; the residents routinely use Unity Park and Playground; Unity has projects annually to supply Christmas gifts to Hacienda Girls Ranch and the Sheriff’s Department Boys Ranch; and it has a teddy bear drive in October for teddy bears for law enforcement agencies to be given to any children who are going through some type of distress. She stated Unity Church actively supports the Brevard Sharing Center by collecting food and making monthly monetary gifts; it is an ecumenical partner with Ascension Catholic Church, which is her church; and with St. Timothy’s Lutheran Church and St. Joseph’s Catholic Church, they have built over five Habitat for Humanity houses. She stated that is just a little taste of what Unity Church is about.

Nicholas Schultz stated he is the owner of 915 Lytton Road; he has lived there for almost 40 years; and he listened to the two previous speakers talking about neighbors and neighborhoods. He stated he wonders why the church was not able to bring any of the people who live in the neighborhood to speak on its behalf; and of the people who stood up earlier, none live in the neighborhood. He stated they have no argument with the Unity Church; the church does good work; but they are against having the churches expand in their neighborhood at the expense of gobbling up residential property. He stated the Freewill Baptist Church is across the street from his home; the property in question is diagonally 500 feet from his home on his right is the Freewill Baptist Church vacant lot where they park; and on the left of his house, the Freewill Baptist Church just bought a residential property that it is going to use, and will at some point come to the Board and request a CUP for. He stated they are gobbling up the neighborhood; it is happening; and inquired if parking is not a problem, why were they talking to the other minister about utilizing part of their property for parking. He stated the church has been there for decades; and inquired why all of a sudden they need the additional property for administrative purposes. He stated they have no argument with the church growing; but they are against them growing in their neighborhood. He stated they are buying residential properties; then they come to the Board to request CUP’s; that is their plan; and they are doing it. He stated they did it on the right side of his property; they intend to do it on the left; and they just poured a basketball court there without permitting. He stated he is going to have a recreational facility next to his house; they talked about putting up a gymnasium on the property; but he told them they were not putting up a gymnasium as long as he had something to say about it. He stated they are against the continued expansion and gobbling up of property by the churches; as long as they stay within the properties that they presently have, they do not have any problem with them staying there; and the problem is the expansion because of the increased traffic.

Bill Cox stated the Board has a petition in the packet; and there are signatures from residents in the broader community, and not just on Trimble Road. He stated there was concern about sidewalks, sewers, curbs, etc.; when Unity Church tried to get water and sewer to the main church property, which would have included upgrading the neighborhood to municipal water and sewer, and adding curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, they could not get support from the residents of Trimble Road; and they tried to get sidewalks in there, but could not get support for that. He stated there was also mention at the P&Z meeting that the church is a detriment to the community; but it has a playground park on the property that is open to the neighbors for their use and is used by the neighbors.

Deborah Cox stated the lots beside Mr. Schultz’s house are not owned by Unity Church; she volunteers at the Church office every Thursday; and when she was at the Lytton Road property, she parked in the church’s main property on Trimble Road, and only had to walk approximately 100 feet to get to the back door, which is the main entrance for the administrative offices. She stated P&Z staff incorrectly reported the distance was 150 feet; that was some of the dissention among staff that it was too far to walk through the park; but they can park on the circular drive so it is not that far to walk at all. She reiterated the office hours; and stated the administrative staff consists of one full-time minister and two part-time employees; and when she worked on Thursdays, they had no more than two visitors a day, so the increase in traffic is a non-issue. She stated the Lytton Road property will only be used for office space, so there is no issue about public assemblage. She stated Mr. Schultz also inquired if they had no problem with parking, why did they have to go to the Freewill Baptist Church; but they decided to address that to make it clear to the P&Z Board that if they did not think they had enough parking, there was available parking very close if needed. She stated they do not need it; and even with the available parking, they will ask staff and visitors to park in the rear of the main property, which is adjacent to the Lytton Road property. She emphasized there is no lack of parking; and requested the Board vote in favor of the CUP for Unity Church.

Rebecca Cox stated she works with the youth at Unity Church; and she would like to address comments about the church growing and gobbling up property in the area. She stated for the last five years, the church membership has remained steady although there has been a change in the ratio of children in the church; and they have had to address trying to house the children as the schools have. She stated some of the biggest challenges children face in our society are single parents, violence, and increased substance abuse; and Unity teaches life skills, values, and compassion. She stated they need to be able to teach the children in age appropriate groups; and that is why they need the class space in the church. She stated the Lytton Road property would only be used for office space; that would free up three classrooms in the church; and she hopes the Board will vote favorably for this.

Alice Schultz stated she and her husband have lived at 915 Lytton Road for upwards of 40 years; and it is a residential family neighborhood. She stated she has nothing against the churches; she is a Christian woman who believes in God and the church’s good works; but in her neighborhood the churches are beginning to take over. She stated it is disheartening to see that children cannot ride their bicycles or play hopscotch or enjoy going trick or treating because the neighborhood is being impacted by people who do not live there; and the traffic is unbelievable. She stated this is a little neighborhood; as her husband said, they are gobbling up the houses; and they do not need all the churches, institutions, and people who do not live there not contributing to the neighborhood. She stated she hopes the Board understands where she is coming from.

Anne DuBois, president of the Board of Trustees of Unity Church, stated it is important that everyone understand they are willing to listen and work to understand the objections so they can retain the fabric of the neighborhood. She stated part of the challenge she is hearing is that the residents in speaking about their action are including the forecasted action of the Baptist Church; and she wants it to be clear that they are just talking about one property that is going to house offices. She stated if anything, it is going to reduce the normal traffic load; they are not proposing to build a gymnasium; they are just here for one property; and they have submitted a binding development plan for the use of the property. She stated they want to document how they will delineate the use of the building and eliminate speculation and fear of how it might be used; they have stated their plan clearly and succinctly; and they have no greater agenda. She stated it is their intention to use the building for administrative offices; and requested the Board approve the conditional use permit.

Donna Jacobson stated she is on staff at Unity Church of Melbourne, and works part-time along with two other part-time workers; and it is their sincere intention to be good neighbors. She stated the Board has already heard about all the good works they do; all they are asking for is to grant a little more room to do their work; and all they want to do is be able to walk the very short distance from the back door of the church to the back door of the house on Lytton Road three days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and do paperwork and make phone calls. She stated they will not use the house on Lytton Road for public assemblage, AA meetings, or as a halfway house; it will only be used for the reasons stated; and requested the Board grant the conditional use permit.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired are people using Lytton Road when going to work or are they going through the back of the property. Ms. Jacobson responded they drive down Trimble Road and park in the Unity Church parking lot. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if anyone is parking in front on Lytton Road; with Ms. Jacobson responding since they heard the neighbors’ concerns, they only use the parking at Unity Church.

Bette Dolson stated Unity Church of Melbourne had no Halloween activities going on; the church had its Halloween activities on Sunday when it had a picnic in the park in costume; so Unity Church contributed nothing to the problems on Halloween. She stated it seems that Mr. Schultz has a lot of complaints about other churches; but Unity cannot be held responsible for anything they do or do not do. She stated one reason there is a lot of traffic that comes through there is because people who do not live in the neighborhood cut through to Easy Street and down Trimble to hit Wickham Road as a shortcut; and that has nothing to do with any church in the community, but with the way the roads are laid out. She stated as to gobbling up homes, in the last 20 years there were only two residential dwellings purchased for church use; she would not consider that gobbling up properties or creating a domino effect; and if four churches bought two properties in 20 years, that is not a problem. Ms. Dolson stated people have talked about their children not having a place to play hopscotch or whatever else they do; but she did not know the streets were supposed to be playgrounds. She advised Unity Church of Melbourne has a very lovely park and a substantial playground; and no one in the neighborhood has ever been denied access to any of those facilities if they wanted a place to play. She stated the church has been a good neighbor in the past; and it intends to be a good neighbor. She stated she did not know that churches in general had the idea of not being good neighbors; she thought one purpose of the church was to be a good neighbor; and they have tried everything possible to handle all the issues that have been brought up to the satisfaction of the Board. She requested the Board grant the CUP.

Barbara Price stated this is not an emotional issue or about whether churches do good works or belong in neighborhoods; it is a zoning issue plain and simple; and as a resident of the neighborhood, she is affected by the churches. She stated there is no denying they are impacted; and requested the CUP be denied to reduce the impact further. She stated if they get offices in the home the church purchased, it will give them more room to grow the church; and she would like to see more churches grow, but not in her neighborhood.

Frank Price stated there comes a time when people have to stand up for what they think is right; if the request is approved, it sets a precedent for any other church in the neighborhood; and if they want to buy another house, it can just snowball and get worse.

The meeting recessed at 7:34 p.m. and reconvened at 7:50 p.m.

Alice Bering stated she lives across the street from the disputed property; she has nothing against churches; they do wonderful work; and she gets along well with the church across the street. She stated her concern is when they were having meetings there, she could not get out of her drive; and she has to be very careful at night trying to get in and out. She stated it is a very nice neighborhood; her parents built the house she moved into; and she likes the neighborhood. She stated the only thing she is concerned about is how the church will depreciate her property if it becomes like a business with an office; the building is a residence; and she does not think anyone would want that across from their house. She stated the church has another house next to it on Trimble Road; and inquired why they are not using that building. She stated the church is a good institution; but she likes her neighborhood the way it is; and that is why she moved there.

Chairperson Colon stated Ms. Bering said the church owns another home; with Ms. Bering responding yes, it owns the one next to it on Trimble Road.

Isabelle Schultz stated she lives on Trimble Road; and she may not be very big or old, but she is a person who lives there. She stated they have a gate in their yard; they had to put in a large amount of concrete so she could ride her bike in her backyard; and she cannot play, ride her bike on the road, or even go to her Nanny’s house, which is down Minton Road. She stated even for Halloween, she had to go to a different neighborhood to go trick or treating.

Tom Lee stated he and Reverend Beth did speak to Larry Gray and Lenny Watson who live in the neighborhood; they were concerned about traffic, but not church traffic; it is traffic going through the neighborhood to try to avoid the Wickham Road bottleneck at Aurora and Eau Gallie; and they acknowledged that clearly. He stated when neighbors were going around soliciting support against them, they misrepresented that Unity Church was going to be using the building for AA meetings and turning it into a halfway house; under those circumstances the neighbors would rightfully have some concerns; but the church is not going to do anything of that nature, and the binding development plan will stipulate exactly how they can use the building. He stated they are being made the victim of concerns about other churches more than any other issue; the Schultz family is concerned about what the Baptists are going to do; and he does not know how that relates to their intention to use the Lytton Road building as office space. He stated this is not a precedent-making decision; and there have been other CUP’s granted in the neighborhood. He stated they are not going to change the character and appearance of 958 Lytton Road; it will be maintained as a residential property; it will not appear to be a business or office space; and access off Lytton Road may be only for those who are handicapped and need closer access.

Chairperson Colon stated she does not know what the wishes of the Board will be; but she would want different wording in the second section of the binding development plan concerning employees using the Unity Church of Melbourne parking lot; and recommended the wording be “shall use.” Reverend Head advised she can change that. Chairperson Colon stated she would want the same thing regarding Trimble Road, “can access” changed to “shall use.” She stated it says, “since parking is available in the Unity Church of Melbourne parking lot on Trimble Road, no additional parking facilities or traffic load is expected”; and it should read “shall be permitted.” Reverend Head stated they were advised by Mr. Enos to use the words out of the Planning and Zoning Board recommendations; that is where they got the language; but they can certainly change it. She expressed concern that with the language, if a car parks there, which she cannot control, an angry neighbor could report them; and stated obviously there are people who will be trying to catch them on anything they do. Chairperson Colon inquired what does Reverend Head mean by being unable to control it; with Reverend Head responding if people come and park there, and they do not know the drivers, they cannot control that; but if it is people they know, they can tell the drivers they need to move their cars around to the back. Reverend Head stated there are several people who are handicapped; she would not ask them to drive around the back; there is a concrete pad with four spaces by the door; and she would see no problem with a handicapped person using that parking, which is why she did not put that there would never be a car there. She noted the neighbors have cars in their driveways. Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Enos has a suggestion for compromise wording. Mr. Enos responded he discussed the binding development plan with the applicant; and he suggested the items that are in the binding development plan, which were from staff review and their response to conditional use permit questions, be represented in the binding development plan. He stated the discussions were conceptual at that time; the language is somewhat permissive and needs to be tightened up; and if the Board is going to approve this with a binding development plan, there needs to be language that is specific so it can be enforceable. Reverend Head advised they would be glad to change that. Chairperson Colon stated she is not saying what the Board is going to do; she does not want to mislead Reverend Head; but she wanted to be sure the wording was correct for this type of binding development agreement.

Commissioner Scarborough stated saying “no additional parking facilities or traffic load is expected” is just speculation; it needs to be very explicit such as “there will be none” or “the parking will only be for”; if someone parks there who is not authorized to be there, they are trespassing on the property; and if the church cannot control that, nobody can. He stated it is incumbent on the church to have things explicitly set forward in the language. Reverend Head stated they will make changes. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board approves this, the binding development plan will need a lot of work; with Reverend Head responding they will be glad to do that.

Mr. Lee stated when they made the application, they talked to staff; and they were led to believe that this was not going to be a difficult issue to present to the P&Z Board and to the Commission, and that the likelihood of it being approved was high. He stated as a result, they did not mobilize a big neighborhood marketing initiative because they did not think it was needed or appropriate to do so; and they were shocked by the vote of the P&Z Board. He stated even though it says it was a unanimous vote, two people abstained from the vote because they did not feel they had enough information to vote at that time.

Chairperson Colon stated some of the concerns of the residents are very legitimate concerns; nobody wants folks parking on the streets; and the applicant says those things have been addressed. She stated no matter what happens with this issue this evening, she will be addressing the issue of the homeless people with Housing and Human Services. She stated in terms of speeding, the issue of cut-through traffic was brought to her attention; and that can be addressed with signage.

Mr. Lee stated they have offered the Sheriff’s Department the opportunity to sit in the parking lot to monitor traffic; and they have done that. Chairperson Colon stated that seems to be a huge problem that is being addressed. Reverend Head stated one of the neighbors asked if they would support speed bumps in the neighborhood; and they agreed to support if the neighbors ask for them. She stated they would even support no parking on Lytton Road if that would help the neighbors; and they would support additional speed bumps and children at play signs. Chairperson Colon stated that is something everyone needs to be very sensitive to; sometimes people do not realize they are doing something that is hurting the neighborhood; and the testimony of Isabelle Schultz needs to be taken seriously when she says she wants to be in a community where she is able to play. She stated she hopes that these things are being taken care of; Ms. Schultz was brave to come out and share some of the things she said; and inquired if there is anything Mr. Lee would like to add. Mr. Lee responded they would be glad to answer questions.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is currently signage that says the administrative offices are in the back of the church; with Mr. Lee responding there is a sign on the door. Reverend Head advised there was a sign but it was removed. Commissioner Carlson inquired if they would object to having a regular sign saying the church offices are in the back; with Reverend Head responding she would be glad to do that. Mr. Lee stated the location of the church offices will be publicized in the Sunday bulletins, in the newsletter, and in all promotional materials provided to the congregation, so it will be clearly known where the offices will be and how to access them.

Commissioner Scarborough advised there is another speaker.

John Catlow stated he has lived on Trimble Road for 15 years; they are not opposed to Unity Church or any of the other churches; and they are glad they are in the neighborhood. He stated the church has three acres of land; and inquired why it cannot build something on its own property for offices or use the building next door that is closer to the church. He stated he has grandchildren who come to visit; he had to sell their bicycles because they cannot ride on the street anymore; the traffic on the road is terrible; there is speeding all the time; and it is the people from the churches. He stated two nights ago he and his neighbor were walking and a car came out of Unity Church and almost ran them down; they were dressed in white clothing and had a flashlight; but the person never stopped when they came out of the church property. He stated he is not singling out Unity Church because they have had problems with the Jehovah Witness Church as well; and they approached them about the traffic, speeding, and people coming out of the driveway without stopping or looking. He stated they have the police there as much as possible for speeders; and the speeders are not only people who are cutting through the neighborhood but from the churches also. He stated on Sunday alone, they have from 600 to 800 cars in the neighborhood from the churches; and this is a traffic problem. He stated they also do not like the idea of the churches buying up the houses in the neighborhood; they are only a small neighborhood; and they do not want the value of their property to go down. He stated the majority of the neighborhood is opposed to the church using the property for council meetings or office space; and requested the Board take into consideration that the neighborhood has the right to make decisions on what goes on in the neighborhood.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the Board allows the CUP, what are the things that Mr. Schultz would like to see in the binding development plan to make sure the community is protected. Mr. Schultz stated it is a difficult question; their idea is that once a CUP is issued, only the property owner can revoke the CUP; and inquired if that is correct. Mr. Enos responded the Board can revoke a CUP under certain circumstances; if it were not being performed correctly, the Board could consider revoking the CUP; and the Board could revoke a CUP if it is no longer being used. He advised the CUP does not change the zoning; the underlying zoning is still residential; and if the church stopped using the building and wanted to sell it as a residence, it could. Mr. Schultz inquired can someone live in it while it has the CUP; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Mr. Schultz stated they do not have any intent of doing that; it is strictly for office space; and they are so opposed to this, it would be difficult to be reasonable. He stated having them promise not to park on the property is a big thing; they have already said if they do not get the CUP they are going to build on the property and increase traffic, so it is a difficult situation for the neighborhood because they want to be fair. He stated the church owns the property, but does not plan to use it for residential purposes; and that is unsatisfactory and severely impacts the neighborhood. He stated it is not just a single entity; it is necessary to look at the situation as a whole; there are four churches; and what one church does impacts everyone because there are so many other churches there. He stated one of the churches has several properties with CUP’s; but they do not follow the CUP in terms of parking. Chairperson Colon inquired if it is in their binding development plan; with Mr. Schultz responding they were cited by Code Enforcement and told if they park on it one more time, it would be $500; but it does not matter because Code Enforcement does not work on Sunday nights. Chairperson Colon stated they will soon; with Mr. Schultz responding he is pleased to hear that. He stated the Sheriff’s Department only comes out once in a while; and it is an issue for them because they live there. Chairperson Colon recommended focusing on the issue of what they would like to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Schultz stated this is an issue of property; they own the community and live there; and if Reverend Head and her congregation lived in the neighborhood, they might see it differently. He inquired if they would want this in their backyard; and stated the answer is no, they do not want it, but are willing to put it in their community; and it does not mesh.

Chairperson Colon inquired if there is anything Reverend Head would like to add.

Reverend Head stated they did buy the property; they have owned it since 2000; previously it was a rental property; and anyone having questions should go through the property so they will see why the owner had problems selling it as a residence. She stated their goal if they do not use the property would be to sell it as a residence or use it as a rental property, because that would be their only alternative.

Mr. Lee stated they are sensitive to the neighborhood, but this is an application submitted by Unity Church of Melbourne.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board has been fair to both sides; and she would like to get feedback from the other Commissioners.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired why was the vote unanimous to deny and what was the discussion; with Assistant Zoning Manager Robin Sobrino responding the issue of traffic was the major concern. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how will denying this solve the traffic problems; with Ms. Sobrino responding the P&Z Board felt this would encourage another point of access from Lytton Road instead of just from Trimble Road. Commissioner Pritchard stated that has been addressed; with Ms. Sobrino advising it has been discussed thoroughly.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he can support it with a binding development plan, but not in this format; it needs to keep complete residential character; the only parking that would be allowed would be cars marked for the handicapped; the property would be exclusively used from the other site; and the limitation would be strictly administrative use with no more than five people in the facility. He stated with something like that, the Board is giving as much assurance to the character as if it remained residential; it does not cause any more traffic, and there would be limitation of the activities in it; and the impact would be there, but this would not add to it.

Commissioner Carlson stated she agrees with Commissioner Scarborough’s conditions; and she would add the condition of the signage on the church property to make sure folks know here the administration building is.

Chairperson Colon stated she concurs with the conditions.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item IV.B.6 with a Binding Development Plan to be worked out with representatives of the church and representatives of the neighborhood and brought back to the December 2, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon requested Mr. Enos work closely with the church; with Mr. Enos responding yes. Chairperson Colon stated she has nothing against the church, but is sensitive to what the neighborhood is going through; the Board has tried to be fair; she has mixed emotions about approving the item; but assured the neighborhood, the County will be watching the CUP very closely as well as the other CUP’s in the neighborhood. She inquired when this will be coming back to the Board; with Mr. Enos responding it will be some time in the next two months depending largely on how long the process takes from this point forward. Mr. Enos advised they have a total of 120 days to get the binding development plan recorded; and typically the Board gets it back at around 60 days. Chairperson Colon inquired if people will be notified. Mr. Enos responded the public hearing is closed; but the binding development plan comes back at a public meeting, typically on the Consent Agenda.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the church understands all the things that have been put in regarding the handicapped parking, how many people can be there, and the signage from the church; and stated all of these things are needed to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Lee responded they can work with staff to hammer that out to the satisfaction of the Board. He stated once a month on Sundays, the Board of Trustees meets; and inquired if they can get Commissioner Scarborough’s approval to meet at the facility. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is not his approval, but Board approval. Chairperson Colon stated that is setting the wrong precedent; that was not the right thing to do because the Board could change its vote right now; and this is why folks are sensitive about whether the Board is going to be changing this. Mr. Lee stated there is no problem, and they will work with staff on the agreement.

Commissioner Carlson stated since the Board has already taken a vote and this item is going forward, some people may have seen that this was a unanimous decision to deny by the P&Z Board; and requested Ms. Bentley address the purpose of the P&Z Board in reviewing these things prior to them coming to the Commission. She stated the gentleman who was talking for the group was a little upset knowing that the Board went against a unanimous decision to deny. Ms. Bentley stated the Planning and Zoning Board is a recommending body to the Board of County Commissioners; it has the first shot at hearing everything from the public; and frequently after the public hearing, the applicant or the opposition comes up with some kind of resolution to the problem. She stated frequently the Board sees them in binding development plans; they may offer buffers or different access points to the property; so the facts being presented are somewhat different at the Board meeting than they are at the P&Z meeting. She advised the Board is the ultimate finder of fact as to the evidence that is presented; it hears it all and makes the decision; and the P&Z Board only makes recommendations.

Chairperson Colon stated it was already an uncomfortable decision. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Chairperson Colon is uncomfortable with the Board’s action, and would she prefer to table it to work on it more; with Chairperson Colon responding yes, because she wants it to be perfectly clear.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to move to Rule 13.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board should give the courtesy to the Commissioner of the District to let that Commissioner work any project they want.

Commissioner Higgs stated the binding development plan will come back and there will be input before it comes back. An audience member inquired if it will come back to a public meeting with the neighbors. Commissioner Higgs stated it will come to a public meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board will not necessarily be taking additional testimony as to what should be included in the binding development plan as it moves away from the substance to the form; and that is his problem. He stated if Commissioner Colon, representing that District, wants to work some of the issues further, the Board should allow her that opportunity.

Chairperson Colon stated she does not want to have everybody come back and waste time; up to the point of Mr. Lee’s comment, she was feeling comfortable that she was protecting the residents; but after the comment, he lost her trust. She stated she is trying to protect the neighborhood; Mr. Lee would want the Board to protect his neighborhood; and for Mr. Lee to make a comment about having a meeting with ten people makes her very uncomfortable. She stated she has never been in this position before.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Chairperson Colon wants to reconsider or take a break and talk to the people. Chairperson Colon stated she does not want to put the community through this again; and requested the Board allow her ten minutes.

The meeting recessed at 8:24 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m.

Chairperson Colon stated she spoke to folks from both sides; and she wants to thank both sides, especially Barbara Price and Reverend Head. She stated no matter what the Board does today, there is always going to be somebody who is not happy; but she is comfortable enough with what she heard to go forward with today’s decision on the binding development plan, which will come back by November 18 with no public comments, but with meetings between now and then. Mr. Enos expressed concern about doing it in such a short time period.

A member of the audience inquired how the Board could approve something that was denied unanimously by the P&Z Board. Chairperson Colon requested the gentleman be seated or leave the room. She inquired what is the next meeting in November; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding the next two regular meetings are December 2 and December 16, 2003. Chairperson Colon stated it is just a matter of typing something on the computer, and so the Board will get it back on November 18, 2003, so the pain will not continue in the community. She stated she knows exactly how that is because she has dealt with these issues before, so she will be meeting in her office with Barbara Price, who will be bringing four people, and Reverend Head who will bring four people. Ms. Busacca advised next Tuesday is a holiday so that gives one less day to get this done; and the last time something was tabled, it was for three weeks, and there still was not sufficient time. Chairperson Colon inquired what is the last meeting in November; with Ms. Busacca responding November 18, and the next meeting is December 2, 2003. Chairperson Colon stated December 2 is the best they can do; it will be back on the Agenda with no public comment; and next week in her office, they will hash out anything that might have been missed that the community wants. She stated the Board will get the binding development plan to read before the meeting; not everybody is going to be happy; but the best they can do is to try to protect the community.

Item IV.B.7. (Z0310502) Donna M. and David R. Fisher’s request for a CUP for Single-Family Residential Second Kitchen Facility in an RU-1-11 zone on 0.86 acre located on the west side of New York Street north of Milwaukee Avenue, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval.

Catherine Arsenault stated she is representing the Fishers who are her daughter and son-in-law; they own the property at 2400 New York Street in West Melbourne; and she and her husband reside there. She stated the Fishers could not be present because they are in Massachusetts.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.B.7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.8. Brandywine Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.’s request for an amendment to the PDP in a PUD zone on 1.896± acres located on the southwest corner of Sugar Creek Drive and Brandywine Lake, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for denial.

Chairperson Colon stated when there has been a recommendation of denial by the P&Z Board, the Board is interested in seeing if anything has been addressed.

Attorney James Beadle, representing Brandywine Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., stated they drafted a binding development plan for consideration; he has discussed it with Ms. Bentley; and the Board has to approve it; but conceptually Ms. Bentley has looked at it to deal with the over-55 issue that relates to the request they are making. He stated in the package they have also provided a map showing the subdivision; and the common areas were a concern to the P&Z Board, so they are going to be addressing those items. He stated the applicant seeks to amend the Brandywine Planned Unit Development by converting an empty lot, which is the blue lot on the cover page, into three buildable lots; the request is reducing the open area in the PUD; and based on Code, they have to come to the Board to request approval of the three lots. He stated the proposed resulting lots are all in excess of the requirements of both the Brandywine declaration and the requirements for lot size; and the County staff comments that were provided reflect that from a staff perspective, the primary concern had to do with the three buildable lots being requested running afoul of the County’s requirements regarding school capacity, which they are hopeful the binding development plan will address. He stated the president of the Brandywine Homeowners Association is present to provide the Board with insight as to why they are making the request.

Paul Mouritson, president of the Brandywine Homeowners Association, stated over the last three years that he has been president, the maintenance costs and other expenses and liabilities of the Association have caused them to look for ways to raise money; and one issue that has come back is the subject lot, which is not accessible from within the subdivision, but requires one to go to Brandywine Lane or Ranch Road to access it. He stated he is not sure why it was left as open space when Brandywine Estates was built; and he can find no historical justification for it. He stated the rest of the open space in the development is connected and used with the horses, stables, and pastures that run up the middle of the subdivision; the subdivision was created as a country horse setting; and the balance of open space is integrated with those facilities. He stated there are higher maintenance requirements because the empty lot is along the collector road, Brandywine Lane; there are maintenance problems inherent with its location; the board of the Homeowners Association discussed selling the lot; and it decided it was a win-win situation if the members agreed. He stated it would allow them to keep their reserve and would support them in their effort to keep the dues and cost of running the Association under control; it would also improve the lot with homes and landscaping including having a requirement for ten permanent trees. He stated they raised the issue with the homeowners, and it was overwhelmingly approved to proceed along this route rather than doing a special assessment to raise some of the money needed for the neighborhood. He stated they have 96 lots; 87 lot owners signed a petition; seven were opposed to it; but once they got the 90% required by the declarations, they stopped asking. He stated he is not sure why the Planning and Zoning Board recommended disapproval; he was there and made the same presentation, and listened to some of the discussion; but he did not understand any of the concerns. He stated the lot is predominantly open with pine trees, cabbage palms, and pepper trees; when developed, the setbacks will comply with or exceed all the County requirements; and they will require a minimum of ten shade trees ten feet in height when the landscaping is done. Mr. Mouritson stated Brandywine Estates is a well developed community with a lot of trees and vegetation; he knew Armando Rosal from other organizations, and knew he was in the development business; he asked him if he knew of anyone interested in purchasing the property; and he came back later and said his company would be interested in it if the rezoning could take place.

Armando Rosal stated Mr. Mouritsen contacted him regarding the vacant lot; he and Mr. Beadle dissected the questions at the P&Z meeting; and they realized they were confused as to where the vacant lot was. He stated the vacant lot is outside of the area where the pasture land and stables are; it is all connected; it is a huge amount of open space; and the lot in question sits at the corner of Ranch Road; and pointed out the lot on the map. He stated they are planning to develop, with the consent of the Homeowners Association, three homes that would be landscaped just as the homes in the pictures are; and advised he personally took the pictures seven to ten days ago. He stated the homes would be on a minimum of one-half acre, with the maximum approximately three-quarters of an acre. He stated the P&Z Board was confused about the over-55 issue; they were thinking the impact fee issue would have been resolved before they came to the Board; and they tried to explain that if they had passed this, they would have been happy to pay the impact fee; but that has not occurred, so what they have put in their binding development plan is that two of the lots would be restricted to over-55. He stated that would be binding and would be confirmed by Brandywine Homeowners Association; and the Association would monitor it because it has to approve everybody who purchases there and they would have to meet their architectural and landscaping requirements, which are quite stringent. He stated the requirements are more stringent than the County’s; they would have to have 30 shade trees; and they would have to be much bigger trees. He requested approval of the request; stated it would add to the community; and it would fit in with everything the Code allows and with what is already there.

Commissioner Higgs inquired about the current PUD; with Mr. Enos responding the gross density is closer to one unit an acre because of the open space, but the lots are half-acre lots.

Commissioner Higgs stated the density as it exists today and as it was approved in the PUD was one unit an acre; this is not consistent with that; but they are half-acre lots. Mr. Rosal advised almost all the lots there are half to three-quarters acre. Mr. Mouritsen advised the lots are all half-acre to approximately .55 acre; Florida Power and Light’s main line goes right through the development; and all of that counts against the one-acre limitation, but it is useless in terms of residences or anything. He advised that is where the horse pastures are.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has addressed the school capacity issue, subdivisions, and the over age 55 issue, but never in this scenario; and inquired if the Board would have to address the Brandywine Estates covenants so that this particular tract would be identified only as having the age 55 and older, if the Board desires to go in that direction. Ms. Bentley stated there can be an additional restriction through the binding development plan; there would be the covenants and then the binding development plan; and they would have to comply with both. Commissioner Carlson stated there is a preliminary development plan with the PUD; with Ms. Bentley advising this is an amendment to that. Commissioner Carlson stated she is trying to see how the 55 and older could be policed; it can be done in a subdivision; but this is existing single-family residential uses and then there are three oddball parcels. She inquired how can the County determine it will stay that way; with Ms. Bentley responding unless someone reports it, she does not think the County is going to. Commissioner Carlson stated the binding development plan is often ignored; it may not be ignored intentionally but it is part of the zoning process; and the covenants are something that is in front of the community board. Ms. Bentley stated they could amend their covenants and restrictions; but that would be a private issue. Commissioner Carlson inquired could the Board put in a provision to do that or is that not legal. Chairperson Colon stated Commissioner Carlson is right that it should coincide.

Mr. Beadle stated when someone buys the two lots that are designated as over-55, it will be recorded in the public record; and whether it is in the declaration as an amendment or in the public record, it is going to get picked up through the public records. He stated it will show up as an exception on the deed; and that is why the County requires all development plans to be recorded. He stated the law is that everyone is presumed to know what the law is; but it is easier to make people know the law when it shows up as an exception on the deed; and that is how it gets picked up.

Ms. Bentley stated the binding development plan does have a clause; it was an amendment to the PUD; and there is a fee associated with that. She stated they did include a paragraph that conceptually indicates the Board would waive the amendment to the PUD if they came back to amend the binding development plan just for the age issue. Mr. Beadle stated the problem is the applicant was required to pay the full freight for the amendment even though it applies to only three lots; and if somebody wants to come back in the future, they do not want them to pay $8,000 just to have this removed if conditions change to allow the property to be developed without the restriction involved. Mr. Enos stated that would not be an amendment to the preliminary development plan because it would not be changing the number of lots; it would be amending the binding development plan; and that can be an action separate and apart from the amendment of the preliminary development plan. Commissioner Higgs stated that is the same way the Board would handle all of those that have the same sort of provision, so they would still have to pay the fee, but not for amendment to the preliminary development plan so the Board would not want to have that in the binding development plan. Mr. Enos stated it is not necessary to have this language in the binding development plan. Mr. Beadle reiterated they were just concerned about it because of the fee they had to pay for the current application.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.B.8 with a binding development plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.9. Glenn D. Boyer’s request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1.6 acres located on the south side of Golden Shores Boulevard east of International Avenue, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for denial.

Chairperson Colon stated no one is here to speak to the item. Mr. Enos stated staff heard from Mr. Boyer that he may be interested in having RR-1 considered as an alternative to RRMH-1; the issue was mobile home zoning in the middle of a single-family residential neighborhood; but with Mr. Boyer not here, he is not sure how the Board wishes to approach it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated applicants need to be present or write a letter to staff.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item IV.B.9 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Scarborough would consider tabling the item; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated if he had called or written, the Board might have tabled it; but this could just be an indication that Mr. Boyer has abandoned it.

Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion for denial. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.10. Fern E. Smith’s request for change from GU to AU on 1.71 acres located on the northwest corner of Canaveral Groves Boulevard and Hartville Avenue, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval.

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

Item IV.B.11. Michael D. and Miriam E. Strote’s request for change from GU and SR to AU retaining the existing BDP on 8.61 acres located on the west side of Mildred Court north of Peroutka Lane, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the applicant is going to have anything more than horses; with Ms. Strote responding no. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Strote would mind limiting the approval to horses only; with Ms. Strote responding no. Mr. Enos stated the main concern was agricultural uses other than horses.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.B.11 with agricultural uses limited to horses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.B.12. Frank L. Brake, Sr.’s request for change from GU to AU on 3.66 acres located north of the western terminus of Broadway Boulevard west of the F.E.C.R.R., which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval.

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

Item IV.B.13. Tabled earlier in the meeting to the November 18, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item IV.B.14. Carlos J. Jones, Jr. and Johnny Jay Jones’s request for change from AU to ARR on 1 acre located on the west side of Cactus Place south of Breckenridge Avenue, which was recommended by the P&Z Board for approval.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard to approve Item IV.B.14 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PORT ST. JOHN DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS OF OCTOBER 15, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board at its October 15, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Item IV.C.1. Alice A. Johns’ request for change from AU to RU-1-13 on four acres located on the south side of Falcon Boulevard west of Marvin Avenue, which was recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for denial.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in his briefing he got some idea of what the problems were; and inquired if the problems have been addressed with the people who live there.

Rochelle Lawandales, Lawandales Planning Affiliates, representing Alice Johns, submitted documents to the Board. She stated Ken Ward with RCI attempted to meet with the two property owners to the west who were speaking in opposition to this matter at the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board hearing; but in spite of their best efforts, they have not changed any minds. She stated they have listened to the concerns and tried to address them within the binding development plan; and Mr. Ward went around the adjacent neighborhood on Marvin Avenue and spoke to many people who were in favor of the rezoning and those who were against the project at the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board meeting. She stated she does not know if any of those people are present tonight, but the neighbors on the AU lands are here. She stated if it pleases the Board, she can walk through the problems and how they have tried to solve them, although unsuccessfully.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the applicant gets a limited amount of time and can use it at the front or back end; and that is her call.

Chairperson Colon stated she would like to hear the concerns.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is a binding development plan other than what the Board has already gotten. Ms. Lawandales responded no, but they have some additions they would like to propose tonight. Commissioner Higgs requested to hear the additions to the binding development plan. Ms. Lawandales stated one of the concerns is that people moving into the area would complain about activities occurring on agricultural lands such as dogs barking or moving trailers at 4:00 a.m.; what they are proposing is to include in the binding development plan and in the homeowner documents a disclosure that there are agricultural lands to the west that have or could have agricultural pursuits; and that way people would know upfront what is happening around them and that way they can minimize potential complaints. Chairperson Colon inquired if there is anything else; with Ms. Lawandales responding that is one of the things they were going to add this evening.

Commissioner Carlson stated in their phone discussion, Ms. Lawandales mentioned a change to EU-2; and inquired if she is talking to that zoning or to RU-1-13. Ms. Lawandales responded it is included in the binding development plan that they are amending the zoning request from RU-1-13 that was part of the application to EU-2; they would restrict the lots to approximately 12,000 square feet with a 94-foot frontage; the homes would be restricted to between 1,500 and 1,800 square feet; both of those items exceed the EU requirements; and that was outlined in the binding development plan.

Commissioner Higgs stated she also spoke with Ms. Lawandales regarding this request. Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Lawandales came by his office with her clients and he met with them. Commissioner Pritchard stated he also talked to her. Chairperson Colon stated everyone talked to Ms. Lawandales.

Jay Shaw stated he lives on Amesbury Avenue, which is directly to the west of the property in question; the property he lives on has been in his family since 1947; and his biggest concern is drainage. He stated Mr. Ward stated at the previous meeting that the lots would only be 18 to 24 inches above grade; and that is not consistent with the other lots in the area. He stated there is a new house directly across the street that he would guess is approximately 38 to 40 inches above grade; the development would be on the west side; and he knows there is an engineering firm saying the water is going to flow to the east, but that is against the natural flow of the land. He stated water is trying to get to the St. Johns River; there is already a tremendous problem with flooding because of I-95; and the water cannot get through because the drainage pipes were not in the right place. He stated he was under the impression there was a precedent set by the Board in terms of zoning densities and capacity of schools; he knows there was some discrepancy about the numbers that were used; one of them said it was 124% capacity while the other said it was not; but that has been decided by the voters. He stated in terms of Space Coast High School, which is a new high school in Port St. John, School Board members Robert Jordan and Larry Hughes both stated if the one-cent sales tax was denied that some funding would be hard to come by; there are already special projects on tap for Space Coast High School; and they are already talking about moving in portables, even though the school does not even have a twelfth grade yet. He advised it is transitioning from a middle school to a high school. He stated Mr. Ward admitted at the previous meeting that there are 3,000 lots in Port St. John that are already zoned that can be built on; and there is nothing they can do about that. He stated the lots were never platted into Port St. John; and he sees no reason why they would overburden an already burdened school system.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are words that would make sense in terms of the grade and the drainage. Mr. Shaw stated he does not know, but Mr. Ward is saying they are only going to build 18 to 24 inches above grade. Commissioner Scarborough stated one guy builds at one level and the next guy builds at another level; and pretty soon the property of the one that built first becomes the drainage area. He stated that concerns everyone; but they can draft language so everyone knows about the grades. He inquired if that can be addressed or does it need further study before it can be addressed; and does the Board need to send someone out there to do some surveying before it knows what it is talking about. Mr. Shaw stated the older pre-1980 lots are at street level; he has lived on his property since 1977 and built his house in 1989; it is at a grade of 42 inches; and it is in the 500-year floodplain.

Louis Sylvia stated he lives on the south side of Mr. Shaw and shares his concerns. He stated he does not want to see 14 houses coming into an agricultural area; they have been back there for many years; and that is the way they like it. He stated they try to stay away from the sprawl of Port St. John; schools are an issue as Mr. Shaw mentioned; drainage is an issue; but the big concern is their lifestyle back there. He stated they like to be by themselves; the property, which is zoned agricultural, allows one residence; if it is rezoned to EU-2, it would be 14 homes; and that is quite a percentage jump.

Ms. Lawandales stated she would like the engineer for the project to speak to the drainage issue. She stated as far as the school issue, they have letters from the State indicating there is ample capacity at all the schools there. She advised there is very little available land for this new type of subdivision that will add taxable values to the area and help pay for improvements at the schools; the prices of the homes will be upwards of $150,000; and that certainly adds money to the coffers of the School District whereas 2,900 lots scattered throughout do not offer that kind of value.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Ms. Lawandales got her figures from the County or State; with Ms. Lawandales responding there was a letter from the Department of Education. Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised there was a letter from the State to all school boards in the State, which established school capacities; there was good school capacity after the School Board built some schools this past year; then the State came back and said because of the constitutional amendment, all the school capacities went down; but then it reversed itself again and said it did not go through the proper procedures for establishing those capacities. He stated for the time being, they are back to the previous capacities; so right now, the school district does not have a capacity problem. Commissioner Higgs inquired when did staff have the figures that gave no capacity at the site and when did it change; and Commissioner Scarborough inquired when will it change again. Ms. Sobrino advised on September 23, they were given the six-day counts and the reduced capacities; and they were told on October 17 to go back to the old student accommodation plan formation, which was based prior to the classroom amendment.

Commissioner Scarborough reiterated it is going to change again. Ms. Sobrino stated staff has been advised to expect another change in approximately four months, once it goes through property rulemaking. Commissioner Scarborough stated then they will be back to where they were before. Commissioner Higgs stated it is a temporary blip; with Ms. Lawandales advising it is a window.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not prepared to make a motion in favor of this; if he is going anywhere, it would be for denial; but he is willing to take it under advisement if there is an interest in pursuing it. He stated he will meet with all interested parties to see if there is something that can be resolved; but rather than belaboring at this late hour, he would prefer to table it.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Commissioner Scarborough tables it, would it be until the State decides what it is going to do; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would bring it back with full information dealing with all the issues; it is much easier to sit and deal with drainage issues; but there are some other things that are just not going to work.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item IV.C.1 to December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon returned the Mr. Shaw’s submittal to him.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not making any assurances that things are going to work out; but he is willing to give it a try.

Item IV.C.2. Section 13, Township 23, Range 35, Sub.01, Block A, Lots 4, 6 through 9, 11, 50, 50.01, and 51 through 61; Sub. RT, Tract A; Block A, Lots 1 through 7, Block B, Lots 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.XA, 2 through 7, owned by Andrew S. Wolter; Randall R. Wilhoit; John C. and Jo Ann Mattey; Melvyn R. Yusem, Trustee; Brevard County c/o Property Control; Stuart J. Edelman, Trustee; Horizon Partners 1.3 Land Trust; Brevard County c/o Property Control; T&M United Corporation; Melvyn R. Yusem, Trustee; Primary Charter Schools, Inc. d/b/a Campus Charter School; Allen C. Jacobson, Trustee; Kaufman & Shapiro Partnership; Port St. John Hardware, Inc.; Horizon Plaza One, LLC; and Horizon Commons Shopping Center Condominium Association, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-3594 for Storage of Explosives on all and Z-9352 for Towers and Antennae (280 ft.) on Sub. 01, Block A, Lots 6, 7, and retaining Z-9457 for Towers and Antennae (293 feet) on Lot 6 only.

Mr. Enos stated the rest of the IV.C Agenda is all conditional use permit removals in Port St. John; some of them have been withdrawn and those have been noted; but all can be approved.

He stated Item on IV.C.10 there was a letter from the Diocese of Orlando objecting to the removal of the conditional use permit for church; this is on vacant property; and the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board recommended removal of the approval.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are some indications the Diocese is not going to continue to use the property, so he thinks they were just preserving a right rather than actual utilization.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.2 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

IV.C.3. Section 13, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block C, Lots 23 through 30 east of FECRR and west of vacated Capron Road; Block 50, Lots 1 through 16 Ex. PB 18 Pg 16 & Part of east 1/2 of Capron Road and north 1/2 of Poinsetta Street on west and south sides; all of Block 51 and south 1/2 of Poinsetta Street, east 1/2 of Magnolia Street on northwest and south sides; Block 63, Lots 1 through 8 and south 1/2 of Magnolia Street and east 1/2 of Capron Road on north and west sides, owned by The Woods of Port St. John Property Owners Association, Inc, and School Board of Brevard County, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4881 for Private Club.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.3 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.4. Section 13, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 79, Lot 1, owned by Robert W. Sopocy, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7363 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.4 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.5. Section 13, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. BE, Tracts A and A.1, owned by Glenn E. Space and Matt Halbrook and Mark Halbrook, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z- 9169 for Child Care Center.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.5 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.6. Section 13, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. JZ, Block 369, Lot 7, owned by Brevard County, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7671 for Public Building.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.6 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.7. Section 15, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. JY, Block 251, Lot 14, owned by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6566 for Telephone Switching Center.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.7 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.8. Section 16, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 01, Tracts 81 and 107, owned by Jay Alan and Julie Ann Shaw and Dorothy A. Heider, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7208 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.8 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.9. Section 22, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block 157, Lots 1 and 1.01, owned by Charles E. Barham and Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7441 for Telephone Switching Center.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.9 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.10. Section 23, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. JM, Tract A, owned by the Diocese of Orlando, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8473 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.10 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.11. Section 23, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. JM, Block 81, Lots 1 and 2, owned by Dawn R. Rooker and Martin A. Azaban, which was withdrawn.

Item IV.C.12. Section 23, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. JM, Block 82, Lot 7.02, owned by Jim Messer, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8472 for Snack Bar & Restaurant.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.12 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.13. Section 23, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. JM, Block 81, Lot 12.01, owned by Brevard County, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7510 for Church.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.13 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.14. Section 23, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. JM, Block 82, Lot 7 (Ex. north 154.77 feet) and Lot 7.01 (east 150 feet only), owned by Jim Messer and William T. Huntley, Trustee, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-6585B for Gasoline Sales Accessory to a Convenience Store on both and Z-8586 for Snack Bar and Restaurant on Lot 7 only.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.14 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.15. Section 23, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. JM, Block 90, Lot 14, owned by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6565 for Telephone Switching Center.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.15 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.16. Section 23, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. JM, Block 93, Lot 32, owned by Fred A. and Sandra K. Parisi, which was withdrawn.

Item IV.C.17. Section 24, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 25, Block 34, Lot 8, owned by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7017 for Telephone Switching Center.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.17 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.18. Section 24, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 25, Block 35, Lot 1, owned by Gary K. and Carol Lynn Bartlett, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6890 for School.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.18 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.19. Section 18, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. BG, Block 18, Lot 1.03, owned by Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-5470 for Telephone Switching Center.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.19 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.20. Section 19, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lot 2.29, owned by Florida Power and Light Company, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7857 for Power Plant and Substations.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.20 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.21. Section 19, Township 23, Range 36, Sub.02, Lots 3.04 and 3.08 through 3.31, owned by Pentagon Mobile Homes Sales, Inc.; Ronald D. and Nancy L. Van Sweden, Stephen E. Miner; Georgia Anne Hofmann; Matthew C. Geoghean, Life Estate; Thad A. (Jr.) and Karen L. Terry; Lawrence Henderson and Ray J. Henderson; Ray J. and Evan Henderson; Marie P. Wagner; Steve E. and Jane E. Holt; Helen R. Wood, Life Estate; Robert B. Thomas, Jr.; John R. Weaver; Sandra K. Frankum; James A. Goforth; Samuel C. and Imogene C. Shaw; Julie A. Taylor and Michael R. Barone, Jr.; Pamela J. Chapman; Lauren Cottrell; Thomas J. and April D. Zrallack; Thad A. Terry; Tracie Biddle; Anna H. Adams; Kelly R. Barnes; and Leslie A. Callahan, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6201 for Sewage Treatment Plant.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.21 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.22. Section 19, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. BE, Block 2, Lot 13 (Units 6,7 & 15 through 18), owned by John F. Nicholas and Ferrell L. Nicholas, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8424 (Units 6 and 7) for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages and retaining Z-8425 (Units 15 through 18) for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.22 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.C.23. Section 19, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. BI, Block A, Lot 1; Sub. 02, Lot 4.12, owned by James P. and Colleen M. Conway and Frontenac Baptist Church Holding Corporation, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7189 for School on both, Z-7189 for Church on Lot 1, and retaining Z-7189 for Church on Lot 4.12.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.C.23 as recommended by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF OCTOBER 16, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board of October 16, 2003, as follows:

Zoning Manager Rick Enos advised the Board has already tabled items IV.D.1, IV.D.2, and IV.D.9.c; all other items are conditional use permit removals; and they can be approved as recommended.

Item IV.D.3. Section 22, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 3, 23, 23.1, 24, 25, 29, and 32, owned by Ronald E. Dimenna, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8613 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.3 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.4. Section 23, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 3 and 57 (east 700 feet only), owned by Julia B. Kunigan and Brevard County, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8341 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.4 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.5. Section 23, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 257, 257 (west of Judson Road only), 263, 264, and 265, owned by Bennie Crisafulli and Tony Crisafulli; Bud Crisafulli and Chuck Crisafulli; Brevard County c/o Property Control; Donald L. and Susan J. Freeman; and Spencer L. and Jane K. Freeman, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8014 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.5 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.6. Section 24, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 755, owned by Virginia H. George and Franklin C. George, Jr., Co-Trustees, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8559 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.6 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.7. Section 25, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 13 and 751, owned by Ronald E. Dimenna, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9259 for Land Alteration.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.7 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.8. Section 25, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 282 and 295, owned by Glenn E. and Donna L. Northcraft, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7768 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire. Parcel 295 was withdrawn.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.8 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, with Parcel 295 withdrawn. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.9. Section 25, Township 23, Range 36, Sub. 75, Lots 5 and 6; Sub. 77, Lots 1 through 20, Tracts A, and B, and Parcels 757, 760, 767, 769, and 770, owned by Robert E. and Theresa L. Curry; William T. and Carolyn L. Alvord; James E. Stone; Darryl and Brenda A. Dickenson; William L. Sawyer, Jr. and Michael J. Etchison; James R. and Kathy S. Marek; Richard S. Guastella; Charles R. Thompson and Gemma M. Levesque; Nanette Dowd; Donald L. Stowell and Mary Susan Stowell, Co-Trustees; Christopher H. and Sherri R. Fogarty; Roberto and Margaret E. Lopez; Kim C. and Wayne M. Mendel, Jr.; Eugene V. and Earlinda J. Meyer; Robert J. and Linda C. Serfozo; Wade R. and Kelly L. Stanton; Edwin A. and Teresa M. Johnson; Lewis J. Boyd and Carol Ann Dablow; and Guy and Karen Etheridge, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8423 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

Item IV.D.9.c was tabled earlier in the meeting to December 4, 2003.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.9 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, except for Item IV.D.9.c, which was tabled to the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.10. Section 26, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 774, 777 (south 400 feet only), 787, 791, and 794; Sub. 76, Lots 1, 2, 8, and 9, owned by James H. Becker and Cary A. Oliva; John R. and Lucy C. Legrande; John G. Szymkuc; Sam S. and Rebecca A. Talluto; Joseph J. and Joan M. Rubinchak; Stephen D. and Kristen L. Crisafulli; Robert P. (Jr.) and Brenda J. Brozman; Terence Patrick and Charlotte Jones Breen; and Daniel Molina, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8152 for Private Club.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.10 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.11. Section 34, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 750, owned by Unity Church of Central Brevard, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-6246 for Private Club and Alcoholic Beverages Accessory to a Private Club.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.11 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.12. Section 36, Township 23, Range 36, Parcel 4, 5, and 740 through 753, owned by Teen Missions International, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8935 for Tenant Dwelling Mobile Home.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.12 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.13. Section 02, Township 24, Range 376, Parcel 514, owned by Apollo and Felice Corapi, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8680 for Mini-warehouses.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.13 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.D.14. Section 11, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 254, owned by KNA Investment Corporation, for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8995 for Automobile Repairs.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item IV.D.14 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS OF OCTOBER 13, 2003
PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations for administrative rezonings of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its October 13, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Zoning Manager Rick Enos stated the remaining items are administrative rezonings to remove conditional use permits; and there are people in the audience who wish to speak to Items IV.E.7 and Item IV.E.15.b. Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Moehle would also like to speak on Item IV.E.36. Charles Moehle indicated he would be speaking for the denial of the item.

Item IV.E.1. Section 17, Township 28, Range 37, Parcel 11, owned by Sung Wuk and Hyun Sook Chung, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9550 for Child Care Center.

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

Item IV.E.2. Section 20, Township 28, Range 37, Parcel 14, owned by Alexandra Williamson, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10137 for Trailer and Truck Rental.

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

Item IV.E.3. Section 23, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 10, 11, and 47, owned by Eddie Harry and Eunice Gavin Clark; and Guy Everett Clark, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8362 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire.

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

Item IV.E.4. Section 26, Township 29, Range 37, Parcels 752, 773, 774, and 775, owned by Linda M. and Louis E. Benson, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7911 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire.

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

Item IV.E.5. Section 30, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 516, 4517, 518, and 519, owned by Florence A. Matheson, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9359 for boarding of Horses an Horses for Hire.

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

Item IV.E.6. Section 26, Township 29, Range 38, Parcel 1 (BU-1 zoned portion only), owned by Ronald Senne, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10273 for Alcoholic Beverages on Premise Consumption.

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

Item IV.E.8. Section 01, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 9; Section 06, Township 30, Range 39, Parcel 261, owned by Melvin J. and Phyllis J. Woodford, Trustees, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10446 for Aquaculture, Case II.

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

Item IV.E.9. Section 276, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 576, owned by Robert P. and Joanne L. Scaringe, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7593 for Truss Manufacturing and Assemblage Plant.

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

Item IV.E.10. Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 251 (AU zoned portion only), and Parcel 256, owned by Damron Auto Parts East, Inc. and Panchayat, LLC, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-9097 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire and Z-8327 for Towers and Antennae on Parcel 256.

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

Item IV.E.11. Section 02, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 331, owned by Dwight F. and Lindy S. Roberts, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7723 for Farm Animals and Fowl.

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

Item IV.E.12. Section 13, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 25, Lot 4, owned by Roy Everett Masters and Martha B. Masters, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9058 for Guest House.

Item IV.E. 12 was withdrawn.

Item IV.E.13. Section 13, Township 27, Range 37, Block 1.1, Lots 1, 1.XA, and 2 through 24, owned by Jeanne Barilla; Gardena Development, Inc.; Donald and Jeanette Gallagher; Brian D. and Holly De Caro; Charles B. and Patricia. Waffell, Life Estate; Jeanne Pantano and Samuel J. Pantano, Trustees; Irving Betrock and Bette Betrock; William and Tina A. Compton; Nabil Aziz and Amany Wassef; Thomas B. and Kelly A. Moran; Richard A. DeSimone and Mary E. McMickle; Jerry P. Strange; Victor L. and Maria C. Lebron; Daniel R. and Lynne B. Wines; Doris L. Primicerio; Terry W. and Charlotte S. Knowles; Ann Carlson Weeks; Jason M. Hendler; Billy E. and Sally Sheffield; Richard Parks L. Bland, Trustee; Stanley L. Adams, Trustee; Margaret D. Smith and Frank D. Smith; John Gontkof, III; and Richard E. Slater and Sara J. Sutton, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10208 for Additional Building Height.

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

Item IV.E.14. Section 15, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 24, owned by Conrad Thron and Anna Thron, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8611 for Horses.

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

Item IV.E.15. Section 10, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 75, west 25 feet of each 50 feet of Lots 1, 18 and 19; Section 15, Township 27, Range 36, Parcels 26 and 27, owned by Kelly A. Costa, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8610 for Horses.

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

Item IV.E.16. Section 22, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 1, owned by M-135, LLC, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10186 for Alcoholic Beverages on Premises Consumption.

Item IV.E.16 was withdrawn.

Item IV.E.17. Section 02, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub, AI, Block 7, Lot 3 (Tracts 3 and 4 only), and Lot 4.03, owned by Edward M. and Jean S. Zofko, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8704 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire.

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

Item IV.E.18. Section 23, Township 20G, Range 35, Sub. AI, Block 3, Lot, 7.01, owned by Richard Bartell and Mary Bartell, Life Estate, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7497 for Farm Animals and Fowl.

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

Item IV.E.19. Section 23, Township 20G, Range 34, Sub. AI, Block 3, Lot 7.02, owned by William H. Mayhew, Jr., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7394 for Farm Animals and Fowl (Limited to two goats, one calf, two turkeys with pullets, 20 chickens, 10 rabbits, two geese with goslings, and six ducks.)

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

Item IV.E.20. Section 02, Township 20G, Range 35, Block 1, Lot 2.04, owned by Margaret Flinchbaugh, Life Estate, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8545 for Pet Kennel.

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

Item IV.E.21. Section 40, Township 20G, Range 35, Sub. AC, Lots 20 and 20.01, owned by Burlen Darrell and Cecilia Ann Burke, and Robert W. and Shirley J. Walker, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9217 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire.

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

Item IV.E. 22. Section 18, Township 22, Range 35, Sub. AV, Lots 91, 92 except I-95 right-of-way and Lots 101, 102, 123, and 124 except I-95 right of way, owned by Atlantic Investments, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7635 for Commercial Borrow Pit.

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

Item IV.E.23. Section 12, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 02, Block 1, Lot 9 (BU-1 zoned portion only), owned by Harry J. and Kathryn F. May, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8806 for Alcoholic Beverages.

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

Item IV.E.24. Section 33, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block 4, Lot 5, owned by Leroy A. and Susan E. Berry, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8726 for Agricultural Pursuits (three horses.)

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

Item IV.E.25. Section 33, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block 17, Lot 14, owned by A. C. (Jr.) and Virginia Joyce Poole, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9331 for Agricultural Pursuits (two horses.)

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

Item IV.E.26. Section 02, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 01, Block 23, Lot 3, owned by David R. and Joan C. Cicirelli, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9438 for Agricultural Pursuits (the growing, harvesting and sale of sunflower sprouts, buckwheat, lettuce, and wheat grass).

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

Item IV.E.27. Section 02, Township 24, Range 35, Sub. 01, Block 29, Lot 5, owned by Michael E. and Judith A. Pitt, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9718 for Agricultural Pursuits (two horses and barn).

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.E.27 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.E.28. Section 15, Township 24, Range 35, Sub. 50, Lots 13, 14, 15, except the east 30 feet and south 35 feet of Lot 15, owned by Steven L. and Rebecca E. Vanhorn, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-7099 for Farm Animals and Fowl.

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

Item IV.E.29. Section 22, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 24, owned by William K. and Mary S. Kowalczyk, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9531 for Boarding of Horses and Horses for Hire.

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

Item IV.E.30. Section 22, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 36, owned by Douglas D. and Jamie B. Oldham, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9355 for Single-Family Second Kitchen Facility.

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

Item IV.E.31. Section 11, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 75, Lots 11 through 13 and part of Lot 14 except DB, 332 Pg. 267 and Adjacent Vac. Streets and Parcels 504 and 510, owned by Ray Industries, Inc. and Sea Ray Boats, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8924 for Boat Building Facility.

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

Item IV.E.32. Section 30, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. CA, Lots 13.01, 14, and 15.01, owned by O.J.W. and Jane Alyce Christ, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-4035 for Boarding of Horses.

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

Item IV.E.33. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 14, 253.1 (Units E1 through E-4, E17, E18, I10, I9, I8), 280, 296, and 556, owned by Merritt Square Office Investors, LLC; Bayview Malls, LLC; Sears Roebuck & Co.; and J. B. Ivey & Co., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-4628 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages/Consumption on Premises (Beer & Wine) on Parcel 253.1 (Units E1 through E4); Z-6329 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages on Parcel 253.1 (Units E17 and E18); Z-7489 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages on Parcel 253.1 (Units I8, I9, I10); Z-6693 for Sewer Facilities on all, and retaining Z-9241 for Alcoholic Beverages (on-premises consumption) on Parcel 253.1 (Units G15, G16, and G18).

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

Item IV.E.34. Section 26, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 50, Block C. Lots 3 through 7, except Highway right-of-way, owned by Riomar of Brevard, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10444 for Additional Building Height (60 feet above the first level of parking).

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

Item IV.E.35. Section 06, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. 03, Lots 1 through 4, 5.A. and 6, and Tract A (west of Tropical Trail), owned by David M. and Wendy J. Arteaga, and Jill S. Kraus, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-9551 for Horses on all, except for Tract A; and Z-9929 for Grazing of Animals on Lots 1 through 4, and 6 only, and Tract A.

Item IV.E.35 was withdrawn.

Item IV.E.36. Section 30, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. 01, Lots 20 and 21 (west of Milford Drive), and 21.01, owned by William B. and Suzanne H. Moore, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9339 for Aquaculture.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.E.36 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.E.37. Section 26, Township 25, Range 37, Sub. 50, Block C, Lots 15 and 16 and vac. St. on west, owned by Nicholas Earltinez and Michelle Earltinez, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9323 for Bed & Breakfast Inn & Professional Offices.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.E.37 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.E.38. Section 07, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. DQ, Lots 2.01, 2.07, and 3, owned by John W. and Lisa Schmidlin, Robert A. Casse, and Eugene L. Long, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-9175 for Horses (no more than 4) on Lot 3; Z-9263 for Barn on Lot 3; Z-9838 for Private Heliport on SEU on all; and Z-10127 for Goats (2) in SEU on all.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item IV.E.38 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.E.39 was tabled earlier in the meeting to the November 10, 2003 Planning and Zoning meeting and December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Item IV.E.7. Section 12, Township 30, Range 37, east 700 feet of the south 9424 feet of the AU-zoned portion of Parcel 500, owned by North Cypress Reserve, Inc., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10010 for Mulching Facility and Air Curtain Incinerator.

Henry Fischer, representing Thomas Fortson, president of North Cypress Reserve, stated the elimination of the conditional use permit may have some future effect on the operation; the North Cypress Reserve has been in continuous operation since it got the original CUP; and it will continue to operate in the future. He stated a structure housing an office, restroom facilities and a maintenance garage has been constructed at the site as a stipulation by the County when this was originally permitted, at considerable expense as well as a steel and concrete permit burn pit as a permit requirement. He stated the facility operates on a daily basis and has a large equipment inventory; and it also has all the required fire and safety equipment.

Mr. Enos stated these two conditional use permits for mulching facility and air curtain incinerators have been removed from the AU zoning classification, so even though it is under operation, they felt it was necessary to bring it forward because those CUP’s are no longer available in the AU zone. He stated it is already a nonconforming use; and this will not change the status of the use, which will continue to be nonconforming.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item IV.E.7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item IV.E.15. Section 10, Township 27, Range 36, Sub. 75, west 245 feet of east 50 feet of Lots 1, 18 and 19; Section 15, Township 27, Range 36, Parcels 26 and 27, owned by Kelly A. Costa and Dana Damont Ferrell, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-8610 for Horses.

Dana Ferrell stated he is representing himself and his wife, Kelly Costa Ferrell; they own over five acres of land, most of which is under the FP&L transmission lines just west of I-95 at Lake Washington Road; and most of their land is unusable for anything but horse pasture. He stated they have had horses grazing on the land for several years since there are no houses within several hundred feet; and he knows of no complaints or objections. He requested the Board allow them to continue to keep the horses on their property; and stated if the request is denied, they will be forced to board their horses costing $150 per month per horse or $450 a month. He requested the Board preserve their property rights by allowing them to keep their horses on their property.

Mr. Enos inquired about Kelly Costa; with Mr. Ferrell responding Kelly Costa Ferrell is his wife. Mr. Enos stated that is a different parcel than the one Mr. Ferrell owns, which is Parcel 27; with Mr. Ferrell responding he and his wife own adjoining parcels. Mr. Enos stated the conditional use permit is still a valid CUP in the SEU zone, but it is not being used, which is why it is on the agenda. He stated because it is a valid CUP, the Board can choose to leave it.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what Mr. Enos means by it not being used, as Mr. Ferrell said he has his horses on it. Mr. Enos responded horses are an accessory use to a house in SEU zoning; there is no house on the property; and so even though there may be horses there, Mr. Ferrell is not using the conditional use permit as intended in that zone. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that causes Mr. Ferrell to have to do something with his horses if there is no CUP on it. Mr. Enos advised technically it is a zoning violation; either way it is a zoning violation because there is no house there; right now he should not have horses there without a house even with the CUP; and if the CUP is removed, he cannot have horses at all.

Commissioner Scarborough stated apparently nobody feels strongly about it and Mr. Ferrell has the use; and inquired if there is any way it can work for him; with Mr. Enos responding he can build a house. Commissioner Scarborough inquired besides building a house; with Mr. Enos responding by going to agricultural zoning.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Mr. Ferrell is aware of this. Mr. Ferrell stated he intends to build a house, but it is a few years off; and as far as changing the zoning, he does not know why he would want to do that. He stated he has over five acres under power lines; and he just wants to keep his horses there. Chairperson Colon inquired how far off in the future in regard to building a home; with Mr. Ferrell responding three years.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if most of the area out there is agricultural; with Mr. Enos responding most is a combination of RR-1 and SEU to the south of Lake Washington Road; and there does appear to be some agricultural to the north of Lake Washington Road. Mr. Ferrell advised he has neighbors on both sides who have horses on their property. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is without homes on them; with Mr. Ferrell responding one neighbor has a home and the other does not. Commissioner Higgs suggested tabling the item to see if there is some way to deal with the issues.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to reconsider Item IV.E.15a. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated both can be included in the tabling.

Chairperson Colon stated Mr. Ferrell lives out of town; with Mr. Ferrell responding he does. Chairperson Colon stated the Board is trying to help Mr. Ferrell; and inquired what will happen from here. Mr. Enos stated if the Board wants to explore ways to make this kind of use legal, there are only two ways to do it, initiate administrative rezoning to AU or suggest the property owner make an application for AU.

Commissioner Higgs stated the property owner needs to understand what the issues are; and that cannot be done tonight. She recommended Mr. Ferrell confer with staff. She stated Mr. Ferrell has horses on the property, but he does not live here. Mr. Ferrell advised he does not live here full-time, but he does have a place in Palm Bay and spends time there and in Tennessee. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board tables the item, Mr. Ferrell can meet with the staff so he can understand all the issues.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board cannot do that administratively because it has to be publicly noticed and the neighbors have to be notified. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board does not usually do administrative rezonings just because someone does not like the use; and if he wants to change it, he needs to do it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated these things will be coming back; this is not the most pressing issue before the Board; and it will be left at status quo. He stated even with the CUP, it would not work because there is no house.

Mr. Ferrell inquired what is he doing wrong by having horses on vacant land. Commissioner Scarborough advised that is why it is being tabled, to find out fully what the problem is and discuss options. Chairperson Colon recommended Mr. Ferrell keep in touch with Mr. Enos.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item IV.E.15 to February 5, 2004. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: PREVIOUS ZONING ITEMS

Frank Brake stated the Board passed his item, E.12. Chairperson Colon stated Item E.12 was withdrawn. Mr. Moore stated his item was a rezoning in Port St. John. Discussion ensued to discover which item Mr. Moore is addressing. Mr. Enos advised Mr. Brake’s item was IV.B.12. Chairperson Colon advised Mr. Brake’s rezoning was approved.

Chairperson Colon stated Ryan Moore was here based on Consent Agenda, which the Board already passed; and inquired if Mr. Moore was present at the time. Ryan Moore responded he was present.

Ryan Moore stated he is not opposed to the dredging operation; it is about time the canal was dredged; but he has questions about the dredge specifications. He inquired if the canal is going to be taken back to Corps regulations and who is going to dredge it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the issue before the Board was to use a transfer site for the dredging material. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised she can get all his questions; and staff can call him tomorrow with the answers. Mr. Moore stated he just has some questions because he lives there and would like to use the canal.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.

_________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)