The Invocation was given by Commissioner Mark Cook.

Commissioner Nancy Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner Higgs advised homeowners associations have private parks that do not comply with the size requirement for a conditional use permit which requires half an acre; and requested staff look at private parks used by homeowners associations.

The Board instructed staff to review the conditional use permit requirement of a half acre for private parks which are used by homeowners associations

Chairman Voltz requested November 24, 1998 meeting be canceled as it is the week of Thanksgiving; and recommended the meeting of November 17, 1998 be changed from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. as she has to leave for Tallahassee that evening.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to cancel the November 24, 1998 Board meeting and change the time for the November 17, 1998 Board meeting to 6:00 p.m. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider items that were tabled from the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Agenda of May 4, 1998, as follows:

Item 7. (Z9805107) Port St. John Junior Chamber of Commerce, Inc., B. B. Nelson, and Jack Moore?s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment 98S.5 to change land use designation from residential to mixed use district on Future Land Use Map, change classification from GU and AU to BU-1, and CUP for towers and antennas on 7.97 acres located west of I-95 across the canal from the southern terminus of Homestead Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the CRG,

denial by the LPA, approval of CUP for 150-foot lattice tower by the P&Z, and denial of the small scale plan amendment and zoning change, and table of the CUP by the Board of County Commissioners.

B. B. Nelson advised the item was tabled for technical information; his objective is to present that data on both items; and it will show why the sites are required. He stated he works and has part interest in Communication Towers, Inc.; they want to serve any prospects coming into the County with 20 towers; presently they have five operational and four more that are planned, two of which are up for approval tonight; and that will get them half way to their goal of trying to serve the entire County. He noted if they could eliminate the sagging telephone lines and obnoxious looking poles with wireless service, which is their objective, it will benefit the County. Mr. Nelson advised he will present information for Items 7 and 8. Chairman Voltz inquired if they will be done separately; with Commissioner Cook responding they have to be done separately. Mr. Nelson stated No. 7 site is located at the intersection of the new Port St. John/Canaveral Groves interchange and I-95, well south of Space Coast Executive Airport; and the technical necessity is to provide uniform coverage throughout the County while not creating problems for any airport. He explained a County map showing the antennas throughout the County; and stated they are trying to build towers for any company to co-locate and not for any one company, and provide a tower network. He stated the tower with a six-mile radius will cover south Titusville, all of the Airport area, Windover Farms, Port St. John, Canaveral Groves, and the intersection of the Beeline coming into town and going north to Titusville or south to Cocoa. He stated the technical necessity is to cover the Airport without interfering with the runways or being close to the Airport. He explained a map of the proposed interchange, location of the tower adjacent to I-95 immediately north of the interchange and south of any houses; and stated it will be behind pine trees and has been reduced to 150 feet. He described a map depicting the towers they have in operation, the ones that are proposed, the two being considered tonight, and the circles that fit within a six-mile radius. He advised of working with NASA to locate the tower at the south gate of Kennedy Space Center with no interference with the Shuttle runway, and obtaining one-day approval; and described the 500-foot tower at Minton Road and I-95, lease of the top of the Villager Condominium for antennas, and the circles that interlace to give entire coverage without drop outs. Mr. Nelson stated their tower is outside the 400-foot height limitation of the Airport; it is not in line with any runway or proposed runway; he worked with the Airport people, including Bill Hutto, before choosing the location to apply for; and studies were made in each case to make certain it did not cause interference and problems for the Airport. He noted he understood the tower was approved subject to technical data being presented, and that is his technical presentation.

Commissioner Cook advised he met Mr. Nelson at the Government Center who mentioned he would be at the meeting tonight, but they did not talk about anything substantive. He inquired what was the previous Board action on Item 7; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding the Board tabled 7 and 8 because one of the requirements for the CUP and requesting a waiver is to show why there is a technical necessity for the site to be located in that location and no other location would work. Commissioner Cook advised on Item 7, the Board denied the small scale plan amendment and zoning; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct, but the CUP for the tower was independent of the zoning and could be considered with or without the BU-1 classification. Commissioner Cook inquired where the sites are located; with Mr. Nelson responding No. 7 is located in the northwest corner of

the new I-95/Port St. John interchange in Canaveral Groves, and 8 is at the Volusia County line.

Chairman Voltz advised the other circles on the map encompass everything the proposed tower radius would cover; with Mr. Nelson responding it does not cover SR 520, SR 524, and I-95, and there are drop outs in that area. Chairman Voltz inquired if Mr. Nelson has antennas to cover the entire County, nobody else would need an antenna and can co-locate; with Mr. Nelson responding some companies will not co-locate, but that is the plan that should have been initiated in the beginning. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Nelson has sold space on the towers; with Mr. Nelson responding he has leases on every one except the subject tower.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he appreciates Mr. Nelson addressing the Airport which was a big issue with Jack Kirschenbaum?s request for a tower in the area; however, in other presentations, he saw different levels of technical detail; that level of technical data is not here tonight; and when he tabled the items, he thought that was the information Mr. Nelson wold provide tonight. Mr. Nelson advised he asked Mr. Enos and other people exactly what the Board was looking for in terms of technical data; the different colors are antenna patterns which cannot be produced until the system is up; it can be projected, and they can do engineering guessing, but nothing he found from staff gave him the details of exactly what the Board wanted.

Commissioner Cook stated Mr. Nelson could pay someone to come back with a beautiful map, but he is not sure the Board would have more relevant information than the circles. Commissioner Scarborough stated the relevance is if the antenna can be placed in other areas with less impact on residential areas, less visual intrusion, and have the same coverage. He stated the applicants for an antenna in the south area of the County looked at other options, and the Board approved it because they proved with technical data that it was the place to locate the tower. He stated the proof Mr. Nelson provided are nice circles on a map which show where they will put the antenna to perform the service, but the Board does not want them to impact adjoining neighborhoods. Commissioner Cook stated the particular locations seem to have very little impact on adjoining neighborhoods. Commissioner Scarborough stated there were comments from the community about the impact. Mr. Nelson stated the interchange will impact the community more than the tower that would be adjacent to the right-of-way for the interchange. He stated if he knew exactly what the Board wanted, he would have that information tonight, but he did his best to provide the Board information on what they are trying to accomplish; and if the RF coverage is what it takes, he could do it, but it is not going to make a lot of difference.

Mary Tees, President of Port St. John Homeowners Association, commented on people in Port St. John having to travel 160 miles round trip rather than use the Viera facilities. Chairman Voltz advised the reason the Board decided in January to meet in Palm Bay is to have public participation from the south end of the County; it will have another meeting in the north end; and it is trying to get into the communities. Commissioner O?Brien stated he thought the Board agreed to have only items that pertain to the south end on the Agenda; and if it cannot do that, it should stay at Viera and not relocate its meetings again. Commissioner Higgs stated people in Micco and the south end drive an hour to Viera; and this time others are making the same level trip. Chairman Voltz stated the problem is it is a 72-mile long County.

Ms. Tees advised at the last meeting when this item was discussed, there were a lot of people opposed to it; a 150-foot tower will be clearly visible; even though there is a ditch between the homes and the site. She stated on July 7, 1998, the Port St. John Homeowners Association asked for an ad hoc committee to look at the property in the area because the Board has an opportunity to have good commercial development on I-95; and they have not even appointed the members or had the first meeting, but are now looking at a tower. She stated Mr. Nelson?s plan for 20 towers is like Melbourne Airport?s idea that if you build it, they will come; but that is not necessarily true; and the Board should determine if there is a definite need. She stated there are numerous companies coming in wanting towers; and inquired what will the County look like. She stated they have not had a chance to do a small area study on the interchange area; it is a multimillion dollar project; and this is the opportunity for the Board to say what it wants to do with the area before putting up towers. She stated people in Canaveral Groves were upset because of the short notice and distance they would have to drive to attend the meeting.

Commissioner Cook inquired how far is it from the nearest residence; with Ms. Tees responding less than 500 feet. She noted people always knew there was going to be an interchange; and it is the tower they have a problem with, not the interchange.

Commissioner O?Brien stated Melbourne Airport is a publicly-owned facility; the difference is private property owners have a right to use their properties; and if Mr. Nelson owns 24 parcels and wants to put up 24 convenience stores that bring in nothing, that is his problem for not doing his demographics. He stated it is not government?s responsibility to make business decisions for people. Ms. Tees stated when someone buys property knowing the zoning prior to purchase, and decides to change it to put something on it, people who live there have rights also.

Mr. Nelson advised notice was given on May 4, 1998 at the time the item was rescheduled to July 30, 1998; it is going in Canaveral Groves and not Port St. John; the nearest house is about 700 feet away because there is a 100-foot ditch, 200-foot easement, the house is 100 feet away on the north side, and the tower is 300 feet away on the south side, so it is not close to houses and is closer to the interchange. He stated they cannot put a tower north of Port St. John because of the Airport; it would be hazardous for students flying in and out and other aircraft. He stated the Airport is of major importance to the County?s economic growth; there were nine corporate jets there today; and he went to the Airport first, so they have no problem with his applications. He stated cell phones are low power and high frequency so they require more towers; but if the County does some planning and put towers in properly, it could cut down on the number of towers needed. He noted there are more light poles in the parking lot at Viera than towers in the County.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he is pleased that Mr. Nelson is sensitive to the Airport; at the meeting where the Board denied Jack Kirschenbaum?s request, he said he did not mind losing that one because he would not want to see anything happen that would cause the loss of an aircraft; but the Board cannot assume, because it does not interfere with an aircraft, that it should put a tower there. He stated the question is are there other options; a great number of people were concerned about this item; and any time there are a lot of people concerned, the Board needs to ask if the tower interferes with other people?s property rights. He stated he does not think Mr. Nelson brought forth sufficient information to justify affirmative action by the Board. Chairman Voltz inquired if it would make a difference to have a colored map; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes, as it may allow the Board to move it to a different location farther away from homes. He stated unless there is a site void of any opposition, it is incumbent on the Board to have all the information; he does not plan to ever vote for any tower based on the information Mr. Nelson presented tonight; there could be six-mile circles from other companies and they become meaningless circles; the Board went through an arduous task to get to this point; and if it takes action on this tower that has been protested, based on the information presented tonight, it will have to continue to do it elsewhere in the County and will regret it.

Commissioner Cook stated the Board has a strong Ordinance and has been tough on towers; it is new to everybody; Mr. Nelson did not understand what information was required; so he would not object to allowing him to do those studies with the colors, etc. and come back and present his case again and see if there are other areas that are more applicable.

Mr. Nelson asked Commissioner Scarborough to choose a location that is not underneath a runway and as far away from the runway as the proposed tower site and still cover the Airport. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know if there are better locations to place the tower within that interchange area. Mr. Nelson stated if it is moved east, there is a north/south runway; if it is moved west, it will be under the proposed runway; so there is no better location than the proposed site. He stated he does not care what kind of RF patterns are shown, projected, dreamed up, or plucked from the air, it is the best location to avoid any possibility of problems with the Airport and still give Airport coverage. He stated if they move farther south, it will not cover the Airport. He stated there are a lot of technical reasons for locating towers that may not necessarily be governed by the RF; they have very short coverage range because of the low power; there is a reason for locating them close together; and if there is a plan to develop 20 tower locations, that would be the smart way to go.

Commissioner O?Brien advised what is missing is a comprehensive look at all tower locations; telecommunication companies compete and do not share information so the Board has no idea what their plans are; the Board was adamant about co-locating on towers to stop the preponderance of towers; it is a growing industry; and the Board may have to implement a moratorium again to see what it has, where it is, and where it is going. Mr. Nelson stated he is trying to put it in the best location possible and not create a problem; and challenged the Board to show him a site that is better than the proposed location. Commissioner O?Brien stated the Board is lacking information to make a decision that affects the community; and it has to be careful what it does.

Commissioner Cook stated if the decision is going to be based on more information, and if that is going to be the standard from now on, Mr. Nelson should have the opportunity to submit the study. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Nelson said it cannot be moved east or west because it would interfere with air traffic; that is something Mr. Hutto should be asked; and if it can be moved

east or west and be in less proximity of residential property, that be part of the study as well. He requested Mr. Hutto come to the Board and answer that question.

Commissioner O?Brien recommended staff get all the circles of all the companies and see how much of the County is covered by an overlay of all the circles. Chairman Voltz indicated there was a problem trying to get that information before. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants someone to demonstrate the technical necessity in an appropriate manner and not narrow it down to one kind of frequency or display; and it should meet the criteria that it is technically necessary to be put where they are doing the rezoning and not in a six-mile radius. Commissioner Cook stated he would like to see an overall picture of the towers in the County. Mr. Enos advised staff can provide locations of existing towers; it has to map locations of the towers and can do that fairly quickly; but he is not sure they can provide the areas the companies serve, and would have to ask each company to give them their service areas, and he does not know if the companies would be willing to do that.

Mr. Nelson stated if the Board would develop the question, he could get it the answer; he does not know what the question is because it is so broad; and every antenna has a different pattern. Commissioner Scarborough stated the tower is in close proximity to residential areas compared to other towers; and if it can be moved away from homes, it would be less intrusive. Mr. Nelson stated it is in Canaveral Groves, well south of Port St. John and there are no residences there. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is in Canaveral Groves only because it is on the other side of the ditch. Chairman Voltz asked for an aerial map of the areas and that the item be tabled.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to continue the public hearing on Item 7 until August 27, 1998, for information showing the necessity to place the tower in the proposed location, and that it cannot be moved east, west or farther away from residential areas. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z9805108) B. B. Nelson?s request for small scale plan amendment 98S.7 that proposes to change the land use designation from residential to mixed use district on the Future Land Use Map, and change classification from AU to BU-1 with a CUP for towers and antennas on 8 acres located on the east side of I-95, approximately 1.21 miles north of the Service Area, which was recommended for approval by the CRG, LPA and P&Z; and the Board approved the small scale plan amendment and BU-1, and tabled the CUP for towers and antennas to July 30, 1998 at its May 21, 1998 meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough advised this tower will not impact residential areas; that was the primary reason to find alternate locations besides health, safety issues and airport proximity, so he has no objection to this request.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the CRG, LPA and P&Z. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. (Z9805302) River Grove Mobile Home Village I and II, Ltd.?s request for change from TR-3 with SUP for trailer sales to BU-1 on 1.2 acres located on the west side of U.S. 1, approximately 350 feet south of Garretts Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs advised she met with Michael Douglas on this item.

Michael Douglas advised they discussed the item and worked out primary concerns limiting, and agreed they will not put a gas or automobile service station, automobile repair, body work, or paint shop, sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages, grocery store, and quick stop or convenience store on the property. He stated the deceleration lane is not tied to this item.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 11, subject to agreement limiting use of the property to no gas or automobile service station, automobile repair, body work, or paint shop, sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages, grocery store, quick stop, or convenience store. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on July 6, 1998, as follows:

Item 1. (Z9807101) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by Debora Alderman, Paul L. Alderman, Jr., Melissa D. Alderman, and Amanda Alderman on which a development order had been submitted initiating a consideration of change in zoning classification on 5.15? acres located north of SR 46 and east of the Volusia County line, from AU with CUP for towers and antennas, to AGR retaining CUP for towers and antennas, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z9807102) 4 G?s of Brevard County, Inc.?s request for change from GU to ARR on 1 acre located on the north side of Missile Avenue, east of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 3. (Z9807103) 4 G?s of Brevard County, Inc.?s request for change from GU to ARR on 1 acre located on the south side of Soggy Bottom Avenue, east of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 4. (Z9807104) Dick Gregory?s request for change from GU to ARR on 1.4 acres located on the southeast corner of Doug Williams Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 5. (Z9807105) Aileen M. Hinkson?s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.10? acres located on the south side of Montgomery Road, east of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z9807106) Leonard and Lorie L. Palley?s request for change from AU to ARR on 1.1 acres located on the east side of Kristina Lane, north of Barcelona Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 7. (Z9807107) Jeffrey Losey and Tonya J. Arnold?s request for change from GU to AU on 6.5? acres located on the northeast corner of Cherven Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z9807108) James H. II and Babette P. Burke?s request for change from RU-1-7 to RR-1 on 1.09 acres located on the southwest corner of Kyzer Street and Kentucky Avenue, which was tabled to August 3, 1998 P&Z meeting as the applicant was not present.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table Item 8 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. (Z9807109) Jessie Geste?s request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 3.46 acres located on the west side of Railroad Street, north of Cross Road, which was tabled by the P&Z Board to its August 3, 1998 meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table Item 9 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. (Z9807301) Holiday Builders, Inc.?s request for change from AU to RR-1 on 1.5 acres located on the north side of Grant Road, west of Brabrook Avenue, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 12. (Z9807302) Peter T. Janulis and Gus Janulis, Trustee, et al?s request for change from RRMH-1 and BU-1 to AU with CUP for land alteration on 38 acres located east of Babcock Street, and north of Micco Road, which was approved with amended legal description containing 32.02 acres.

Attorney Richard Torpy, representing the applicants, advised the site is an 80-acre tract and only 32 acres is proposed for the borrow pit; environmental concerns were taken into consideration before starting the project; and the isolated wetlands are not part of the application. He stated there is a 250-foot buffer off Micco Road and a 200-foot buffer off Babcock Street; no ingress/egress on Micco Road; the adjacent land is a government purchase, so there will be no development there; and after the operation is completed, there will be a newly created wetland which will reduce impact on the site which could have had a small housing development.

Leigh Stewart, Engineer of Record, advised if the Board grants approval, it does not grant them approval to build the borrow pit because they have to get all the permits from Brevard County and the St. Johns River Water Management District; the land alteration permit has criteria that is very extensive; they cover hydrology, aquifer recharge, existing and future drainage patterns, mean water levels, and wetland issues to name a few; and they also regulate standards of operation such as haul routes, dewatering, erosion control, storage areas, hours of operation, and reclamation activities. Ms. Stewart advised the reclamation plan provides for stabilization of the banks and planting of wetland vegetation; they will have to post bond to cover the cost of reclamation to ensure it is completed; and the County, may, at its discretion, determine to place a bond for improvements and/or repairs to Babcock Street which is the only access point to the project. She stated they are reviewed by the St. Johns River Water Management District for much of the same criteria as the County, and the District regulates any adverse impacts they may create for adjacent property owners. She noted from an environmental standpoint, they are ideally suited for the intended use; Brevard County staff review indicated they are above the 100-year floodplain; there are no aquifer recharge soils on the site; there are no listed species present; and the only limiting factor is the isolated wetland which they have provided required buffers to protect and removed the CUP application. She noted St. Johns River Water Management District reviewed the wetland in the field.

Roy Pence advised the excavation is to replace the existing excavation two miles north of the site on Babcock Street on the east side right before the city limits of Palm Bay; it has been in existence for several years and is nearing completion; and if this is approved, that site will be closed when construction begins at this site, if approved. Chairman Voltz inquired if the trucks would go from the proposed site and replace the existing truck traffic; with Mr. Pence responding yes. He stated because of the limited material on that site, they are using another site on Micco Road west of I-95 so their trucks are going down Micco Road; but if this site is approved, that will stop as they would not be buying fill from someone else. He stated there will be no additional impact on the area; they will come on Babcock Street well north of Micco Road and stay out of the wetlands; and most of the trips will go to Palm Bay area.

Chairman Voltz inquired where is Deer Run Subdivision from the proposed site; with Mr. Pence responding it is on the west side of Babcock Street south of the site. Chairman Voltz advised of concerns about truck traffic, and inquired if the truck traffic will cease on Micco and Babcock once the excavation is operational; with Mr. Pence responding there will be 75 to 100 trucks a day; there are other borrow pits and mining operations in the area; their operation will be fill dirt and sand only and no rock blasting; and they will have a substantial buffer from the roadway. Chairman Voltz inquired what is the volume; with Mr. Pence responding it will be approximately the same but the trucks will not go down Micco Road.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how far from the property line will excavation take place; with Mr. Pence responding there will be a 200-foot buffer from Babcock Street and 250-foot buffer from Micco Road. Commissioner Higgs stated the property does not go all the way to Micco or Babcock; with Mr. Pence responding he owns all the property but is only applying for a small area. Commissioner Higgs inquired how long will it be operational; with Mr. Pence responding seven to eight years which is normal. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they will erect a berm; with Mr. Pence responding no, because they have buffers that will be left in their natural vegetated state. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the operation can be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and no operation on Sundays; with Mr. Pence responding yes as far as trucks are concerned, but people work on the site occasionally on Sundays. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the bond for road repairs has been discussed; with Mr. Pence responding no, because they have not yet submitted an application for a land alteration permit. Commissioner Higgs stated it will limit the haul route to Babcock Street, but they may have customers on Micco Road.

Chris Riesenbeck, President of Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association, advised they are happy with the 200-foot buffer west of Babcock Street and the condition of no trucks on Micco Road.

Chairman Voltz advised the Deer Run Homeowners Association objected, but she is not sure if they knew of the meeting tonight; with Mr. Torpy responding he had brief discussions with the Association President who was at the P&Z meeting, and addressed a lot of the concerns with him. He stated there will be no impact on the water table, there will be a bond for Babcock Street, and there will be less traffic impact as 99% of their trucks will go north not south.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is no buffer to the east; with Mr. Torpy responding there is a 50-foot buffer to the east that will not be touched. Commissioner Higgs stated there should be buffers on all sides of the pit. Mr. Pence advised they have more than 250 feet on the north, and there is GML land that will not be developed or used. Commissioner Higgs stated it is not shown on her map so she assumes it is part of the Micco Scrub; and it is important to have more than 500 feet to preserve the rights of citizens who may use it. Mr. Pence stated when it is completed, it will be an attractive lake on the site; they meet or exceed buffer requirements; and to add additional buffer to the east would be harsh. Commissioner Higgs stated it abuts County property that is in preservation, and it needs more than 50 feet to buffer the property. Mr. Torpy stated no one will be there to be impacted; with Commissioner Higgs responding people will use it for passive recreation. Mr. Torpy stated he was not aware of plans for a public park or access by people; by that time the operation may be done; Fiske and I-95 borrow pit is now a wildlife refuge; and requiring a buffer now for something not planned is asking more than they can agree to as they reduced the usable land from 80 acres to 30 acres. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board can set the conditions; the property will be enhanced by the County property; and when they are finished selling the dirt, they can sell the land for home sites. Mr. Torpy requested the Board not impose the additional buffer requirement. Chairman Voltz stated if the County wants the land, it should buy it. Commissioner Cook stated nobody will live there.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 12 with amended legal description containing 32.02 acres, and with 250-foot buffer on Micco Road and 200-foot buffer on Babcock Street. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to prohibit operations on Sundays.

Commissioner Cook stated they may have to access the property and do site work. Commissioner Higgs recommended no operation or excavation. Mr. Pence stated there could be a person with equipment moving dirt on Sundays. Commissioner Higgs suggested no trucks or excavation on Sundays; and Chairman Voltz suggested no loading of trucks or hauling of dirt on Sundays. Mr. Pence stated excavating is less intrusive.

Commissioner O?Brien removed his second to the motion. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to prohibit loading of trucks or hauling of materials on Sundays. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to set operation hours from dawn to dusk. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to authorize Road and Bridge to set bond for road repair to Babcock Street. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to limit access to the site from Babcock Street only. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to require 150-foot buffer on the east side. Motion died for lack of a second.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to require 50-foot buffer on the east side. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to require 600-foot buffer on the north side. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 7:18 p.m. and reconvened at 7:30 p.m.

Item 14. (Z9807304) Bonnie E. Douglas? request for change from GU to TR-2 with BDP on 5.06 acres located at the southern terminus of Pine Ridge Trail, which was approved by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 13. (Z9807303) Accounting Information Management Services, Inc.?s request for change from GU to AU with CUP for composting facility on 18 acres located on the north side of Willowbrook Street, east of Babcock Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board, subject to written proof that Babcock Street is an arterial road and no loud noise will be associated with the chipping process.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, representing the applicant, advised the request is for AU on land limited to agricultural use and a CUP for composting, and reduction of the setback from 300 to 100 feet. He stated they have a unanimous recommendation from the P&Z Board for approval; they have access to an arterial road; and Ms. Schmitz will address that. He stated Mr. Kerr, their ecologist, will speak to the composting issues. Mr. Spielvogel advised the plat reads, "This is an agricultural plat restricted to agriculture use only. All lots depicted are substandard for residential purposes." He noted agriculture is the only use they can make of the property; the lots are 60 feet wide and 650 feet deep; it was an orange grove, but all the trees died; the soil is substandard for agricultural purposes; and the plan his client adopted will do good for the property, recycle yard trash, and create compost to enrich the soil of his property. He stated they have to agree to a lot of other things; there are no residences in close proximity to the site; the closest home is 1.5 miles away; and Black Hawk Quarry is the make-up of the neighborhood. He advised they have no intention to allow the use of Micco Road by the people they contract with for truck service; and if they violate that intent, his client will cease doing business with them. He noted the business will be to the north and will come via Babcock Street.

Rhonda Pieper-Schmitz, Engineer, stated the Code requires access from the site to an arterial road; Babcock is classified as a collector; there is overlap between collector and arterial; and Babcock could be classified as a collector and an arterial road by the typical nature of the road. She stated the Traffic Engineering handbook identified typical sections and whether roads are arterial or collector; and identified roads in Central Florida considered arterial and collector; and read the definition of arterial road provided by Florida Department of Transportation. She stated the design of Babcock Street intended future widening; and it functions more as an arterial than a collector road.

Commissioner Higgs advised the access is not from Babcock but from Willowbrook; with Ms. Pieper-Schmitz responding staff advised her to address Babcock Street.

Bill Kerr advised mulching and composting are different; composting reduces material free of weeds for use as fertilizer; Mr. Bodiford intends to use the compost for his property; and it is a clean process. He stated there are things in place to make sure it is safe; there is a well so fire is not an issue; the piles will be maintained 15 feet apart; and there will not be pollution problems if the piles are turned regularly. He stated there are no outstanding environmental issues.

Chairman Voltz inquired how far away could the odor travel; with Mr. Kerr responding if the compost piles are not turned, they could smell, but it is easily corrected by turning the piles over.

Commissioner Higgs advised she talked to Mr. Kerr who explained it is an excellent location for composting; he explained the process of the yard waste and the consequences; the County has a 300-foot setback requirement; and Mr. Rabon feels it is reasonable because they will use heavy equipment and the noise and dust would be mitigated by the setback. She inquired if they could provide the 300-foot setback and if not, what could they do to take care of the visual and odor impacts to neighbors. Mr. Kerr explained an aerial map of the area; stated the property is 18 acres; there are no residences in the vicinity; and because the property is not square, the 300-foot buffer would not allow enough area to have compost piles. He stated they have 12 to 15 feet of vegetative

buffer; and in order to have the area to develop compost for one year, they need the entire acreage with the 100-foot buffer. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Kerr feels the 100-foot buffer on all sides and 12 to 15 feet high is the solution; with Mr. Kerr responding it is the only alternative they can plan for, as his client has not been able to purchase the out parcels. He stated since no house can be built in the area, the noise or smell would not be intrusive. Commissioner Higgs advised the plat is restricted to AU; there was some indication of plans for a home; and a house can be built in GU. Mr. Kerr advised the rezoning request is from GU to AU.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the natural vegetation will be undisturbed; with Mr. Kerr responding in addition, the 100-foot clear buffer will have no activity.

Mr. Spielvogel introduced Mr. and Mrs. Glen Bodiford, and advised they have an unusual situation with an inability to use the area for residential use.

Jeanne Osborne advised of concerns with combustion from composting; described a combustion accident; and stated there is a reason for the 300-foot buffer and a concern that it is being ignored. She inquired who will monitor the operation and if there will be proper means of buffering the combustion process and underground pipes for the gases.

Chris Riesenbeck, President of Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association, requested the Board include a condition that trucks will not use Micco Road; and noted all the other questions were addressed.

Chairman Voltz inquired who will check on the fire protection; with Mr. Kerr responding they have to file application with Department of Solid Waste, and file a site plan on the use and where there will be staging, fencing, screening, and recycling areas; and that Department will regulate and watch the process. He stated the County has a mulching and composting facility; he is not aware of explosions Ms. Osborne mentioned; there will be 15 feet between each compost pile; and they have a four-inch well with a pump, so if there is spontaneous combustion, they will pour water on it. He stated the site is surrounded by a 20-foot ditch with water; air circulation for composting is necessary; and if the debris is stacked on the ground and fumes go up in the air, it is a long process to have spontaneous combustion, and there will be smoke before that arises. He stated piping under ground would not relieve the situation, but maintenance of the piles will limit it.

Mr. Spielvogel advised it is a good project and good for the soil; and there is no reason why they should cause any problems. He stated it will not be a detriment, and will be a good neighbor.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 13, subject to operation hours being from dawn to dusk, and no operations on Sunday other than maintenance. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to require access be to Babcock Street from Willowbrook Road, and cease truck traffic on Micco Road. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to require 100-foot buffer with 12 to 15-foot high natural vegetation maintained as of today, and no activity in the 100-foot buffer. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to require meeting all Brevard County permitting conditions, including method of approved fire prevention system.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he cannot support that as the County does not have a fire prevention system at its facility; with Commissioner Higgs responding the County has a fire prevention system. Mr. Kerr stated as long as it is for the well and pump and 15-foot access lanes between the compost piles, they would have no objections. Commissioner Higgs stated the fire marshal may require more than that. Mr. Kerr stated as long as it does not exceed what they have to do in their negotiations.

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

Item 15. (Z9807401) Gomer and Victoria A. Mitchell?s request for change from AU to BU-1 on 1.85 acres located on both sides of U.S. 1, north of Bonaventure Drive, which was recommended for approval with a BDP stating there will be no access from the property to Rockledge Drive.

Gomer Mitchell advised he does not want the BDP if it can be approved without it.

Commissioner Cook advised he has no problem with BU-1 on the west side of U.S. 1, but the east side is a problem, as there is concern from residents of higher intense uses such as a retail outlet. He stated an antique shop can be done under BU-1-A. Mr. Mitchell stated he wants BU-1 on both sides as there is BU-1 to the north and south of his property. Commissioner Cook stated staff indicated it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4; and there was a similar request down the street which went with RP because it abutted residential property. He stated when they bring residential and commercial properties together it creates conflicts; and BU-1-A on the east side would alleviate that conflict with the neighbors. Mr. Mitchell advised the neighbors were concerned about a road from the property to Rockledge Drive; and he is willing to say he will not do that, but prefers BU-1 like the property to the south and north. He stated the road is not part of the property requested for rezoning. Commissioner Cook stated another concern is noise from certain uses in BU-1; and inquired if site work is going on right now; with Mr. Mitchell responding no.

Commissioner O?Brien advised there are ways to settle community conflicts; it would behoove Mr. Mitchell to meet with staff to understand all his options, then with the people and educate them on what he plans to do with the property. Mr. Mitchell stated the only thing they were concerned about was the road.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 15 as BU-1 on the west side, and table the east side until August 27, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O?Brien requested the County Attorney provide the Board with definitions of continuance and tabling of public hearing items.

Item 16. (Z9807402) Screaming Eagle Investments, Inc.?s request for change from RU-2-10 and BU-2 to TR-3 on 3.02? acres located on the south side of Lake Drive, west of Clearlake Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Ron Lovell, President of Screaming Eagle Investments, Inc ., requested approval of the change to TR-3. Commissioner Cook inquired what will it do for the park; with Mr. Lovell responding it will allow him to decrease the density of the park. He stated there is over one acre they cannot use because of the zoning classification; and they would be able to put more space between the units and bigger units on the lots, but not increase the number of units.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired about the average value of the mobile homes on the property; with Mr. Lovell responding not very much and top value would be $8,000. Commissioner O?Brien inquired about the value of the lots; with Mr. Lovell responding he pays $8,500 a year in property taxes; the spaces are rented at $200 a month; the park is 50 years old; there are drainfields under trailers; they want to put in sewer system; and unless they can use the park it does not make sense to put money into it. Commissioner O?Brien inquired how many children are in the park; with Mr. Lovell responding about 12. Commissioner O?Brien inquired about the poverty level of tenants which places a burden on the public. Mr. Lovell described his tenants and the effort he puts forth to help them.

Commissioner Cook stated Mr. Lovell has improved the park, and he wants him to continue to do that.

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

Commissioner O?Brien inquired if the Board is perpetuating a problem that exists by taking action like this evening and if not, would he have sold the park and moved on; with Chairman Voltz responding all people have to have a place to live and will have the same impact on society. Commissioner Cook stated if they were not in the park, they would be on the streets.

Item 17. (Z9807403) James B. Harvey, Trustee?s request for change from AU to EU on .932 acre located on both sides of Rockledge Drive, north of Coquina Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Cook inquired if they will build only one house; with James Harvey responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve Item 17 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

*Chairman Voltz passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Scarborough.

Item 18. (Z9807501) Stephen F. and Krisandra Berni?s request for change from GU to AU on 2.76 acres located on the north side of Willowbrook Street, west of Babcock Street which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

*Vice Chairman Scarborough passed the gavel to Chairman Voltz.

Item 19. (PSJ80503) Orlando Utilities Commission?s request for CUP for towers and antennas in GU zoning classification on 5.739 acres located on the north side of Ranch Road, west of I-95, which had no recommendation from the P&Z Board due to a 5:5 tie vote.

Mary Doty, legal counsel for APT, introduced Brian Milder, site acquisition person for APT, Keith Black, radio frequency engineer, and John Allen, aerospace consultant; and stated they will answer questions the Board may have about the request for a CUP for a tower under the new Ordinance. She stated Brian Milder will tell the Board about where the site is located, how it meets the zoning criteria, and what a great location it is for a tower; then Keith Black will tell the Board why they need that particular site. She noted they have a gap in coverage in that area; the site fills that gap perfectly; and Mr. Allen will tell the Board about FAA?s approval and how they are compatible with navigation and air space rights of the Space Coast Airport.

Brian Milder advised Aerial Communications launched their network service in Brevard County in November, 1997; they are relatively new in terms of wireless communication services; and they are seeking to complete basic design coverage for their network. He stated the site fills a critical gap in coverage along I-95 and in Port St. John; and they are looking to improve coverage for the people of Brevard County in that area. He stated wireless networks function properly with sites that are designed to provide a bridge from site to site; and if a piece is missing, it does not work, there will be dropped calls, and it will be useless to people. Mr. Milder advised in selecting or determining the need for a site, they rely on studies their radio frequency engineers perform and on customer complaints; if a customer continually drops calls or is unable to have coverage in a certain area, that customer will call and let them know; they keep strict tabs on where the call comes from; and that lets them know when it is time to look for a new site. He stated they are not out speculating; they do not put towers or sites in where they are not needed; and they wait until they are needed because they are expensive. He stated the County?s goal is to have efficient communications, minimize visual clutter, and maintain aesthetic view; and their goal is to have an efficient network and do so in an efficient way which means as few sites as possible; and the way they do that is to wait until they have customer complaints, then try to fill that need. Mr. Milder advised the first thing they do is look for opportunities to co-locate or utilize existing infrastructure; they did that in this case, but unfortunately there was nothing in the area that would satisfy their needs; so they had to look for another solution which meant a new site. He explained the site selection procedure, including looking for amenable locations at the P&Z Office, going into the field, satisfying RF requirements and zoning requirements, considering environmental impact, and getting FAA approval. He explained an aerial map depicting the OUC power corridor with 125-foot power poles, and described the site and surrounding property, including a wetland; and noted they did an environmental study, and the location is not in the wetland. He stated their tower is 165 feet in height and would be less visible next to the OUC corridor than it would be somewhere else.

Commissioner Cook inquired if there is technology that would allow antennas on top of power poles; with Mr. Milder responding it is a function of height and how the utility company views it; and advised of maintenance problems including shutting down the grid. Mr. Milder explained a photo simulation of what the site would look like with the tower and power corridor.

Commissioner Scarborough advised of a request from Jack Kirschenbaum which was denied and B. B. Nelson?s request which was tabled; stated three entities are talking about going up and down I-95 and locating towers in the same area where there is residential property and an airport; and everybody wants to create their own site. He inquired if Mr. Milder is working with Mr. Kirschenbaum to put up a joint tower; with Mr. Milder responding Sprint has different RF needs than they do, but they did discuss the towers with Sprint. He stated the locations are different; and if they located on Sprint?s tower, they would still need another site because they would have a coverage gap. He noted Sprint?s location is too far to the north for their coverage and would cause a coverage hole in the south. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is a way to have a combined consideration for towers and force a merger of content with Mr. Nelson, Mr. Kirschenbaum, and APT to meet the airport needs and not create multiple towers.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired how many towers is APT co-located on in Brevard County; with Mr. Milder responding if there is a hole in their system, they look for co-location opportunities; but there was not one in this instance. Keith Black, RF Engineer, advised over 70% of APT?s sites in Brevard County are co-locations. Commissioner O?Brien inquired why the other 30% cannot be co-located on Sprint?s towers which has a working system; with Mr. Black responding they actively seek co-locations, but they must meet their design criteria. Mr. Black advised each site has a set of objectives that has to be met; and they have different design criteria than other carriers. Commissioner O?Brien inquired if they can change their design criteria; with Mr. Milder responding the assumption is that one company is exactly the same as another and their deployment patterns are the same, but that is not the case. Mr. Milder stated Sprint?s towers may be in areas they already have coverage, so it would be pointless to go on those towers; no carrier is 100% co-located; and it is not possible to do that. Commissioner O?Brien stated it would be possible to do 100% on four or five different carriers? towers; with Mr. Milder responding if it was, they would do it because it would be more cost effective; and commented about trusting their business sense.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is three entities are looking at sites in a landing area for the airport; and the fact that they are headed in the same direction indicates there must be some commonality in bringing those towers together. He described the problem with a Division of Forestry aircraft barely missing an existing tower due to poor visibility from the smoke and fires and aircraft that were not deployed to fight fires because of the concern about accidents and the safety of the airport. Mr. Milder advised they are too far to the south for Sprint and Sprint is too far to the north for their needs; and if they co-located, they would end up with two or more sites to cover a certain area. He stated they are in the same vicinity in a broad spectrum, but they cannot meet their needs on the same tower with Sprint. He noted Mr. Nelson made his proposal for 20 towers, but that is an entirely different issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated it will cover the airport; with Mr. Milder reiterating his opening statements about customer complaints and need rather than speculation. Mr. Milder described the aerial map depicting the power corridor and airport; and noted if pilots are aware of the power poles, they would be cognizant of the tower and would miss it as well. He stated they did an FAA study and came up with a determination of no hazard; and Mr. Allen can speak to that issue. He stated they satisfied all the elements required, and selected a site that was well thought out, prudent, and best for the purpose. Commissioner Scarborough suggested consolidation of all sites rather than duplication of towers, as there may be other applicants who will come in requesting towers and antennas with the same merits. Mr. Milder stated the next person could find a site to co-locate on.

Chairman Voltz advised there must be a need in that area since several applications have been made for towers and antennas in that vicinity. She stated nobody has a tower there; and if they could put in one, then maybe they all could co-locate. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would be more inclined to agree if they came in together to create one tower.

Mary Doty pointed out the exact location of their site, Ranch Road, Frontage Road, the borrow pit, I-95, and Space Coast Executive Airport on the aerial map; stated it is a 165-foot lattice tower capable of carrying three to four carriers; and APT is open to new carriers that co-locate on a lot of other sites. She requested Keith Black, their electrical engineer with six years of experience in the RF field, explain to the Board their coverage gap and how the site meets their needs.

Chairman Voltz noted the applicant?s time is almost up. Commissioner Scarborough stated he asked them questions and took up some time so he will move for additional time.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to grant an additional five minutes to APT for its presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Keith Black advised they are PCS digital carrier transmitting frequencies at the 1,850 to 1,900 megahertz range; and that is a digital network as opposed to an analog network. He stated the higher the transmitting frequency, the lower the power; Sprint and BellSouth transmitting at 800 to 900 megahertz may need three sites to cover a 30-mile cluster area; and APT would need twice as many because of the low power. He stated Sprint?s output power is higher because they transmit at lower frequencies; and APT transmits at higher frequencies which creates lower output power and the need for more cell sites. Commissioner O?Brien inquired what is the advantage of having lower

output power with higher frequency; with Mr. Black responding it is a digital carrier; they are licensed at that spectrum; and if they were to go lower in frequency, they would create interference. Commissioner O?Brien stated the higher the frequency, the lower the output power, and the smaller the circle; and inquired if they can change their design; with Mr. Black responding not with this particular technology. Mr. Milder advised the license they purchased from FCC prohibits them from altering the frequency or enhancing output power. Commissioner O?Brien requested an explanation of the different shapes and circles; and Mr. Black explained the different cell sites, meters, and kilometers of coverage, noting it is an actual representation of the radius boundary of their cell site coverage. He stated different antennas create different patterns; the odd shape shrinks actual antenna propagation for more direct gain; and as they rotate the azimuth in the sector, it creates a different antenna pattern. Commissioner O?Brien inquired if they could trim it to the west to cover the area that is not covered; with Mr. Black responding they want to cover the roads along with the Beeline and Port St. John which is where they are getting a lot of drop calls. Mr. Black explained the coverage map in detail; and noted if the cell sites are too close, they can create interference with adjacent towers, and they designed the cell sites so they are high enough not to create interference and can change the azimuths because the output power is the same, but they cannot create more output power based on their license. Commissioner O?Brien suggested going to the maximum 200- foot height, making a trim, and providing coverage without another antenna; with Mr. Black responding if they made it a more directive gain antenna, the output power will still be the same; they need strong in-building coverage for I-95 and Port St. John area; and making it more of a directive gain will not accomplish that. Mr. Black stated if they shrink the antenna pattern, it has to meet all the criteria, and with more subscribers it becomes a capacity issue.

Commissioner Scarborough advised there are two large power plants in the area; and suggested co-locating on the smoke stacks and putting a tower at the intersection of SR 407 and SR 528 to move it away from the airport and homes, and use current sites.

Ms. Doty advised Mr. Allen will address the airport issue, but before he speaks, she would like to put in the record the determination of no hazard air navigation which is a determination by FAA that the tower is not an air navigation hazard. Ms. Doty advised John Allen is an aerospace consultant, former air traffic controller of 17 years, and spends his time doing aeronautical evaluations for airports and private property owners, and provides consultation on other technical matters relating to aviation safety. She requested Mr. Allen explain to the Board how FAA makes it?s determination of no hazard to air navigation and what is considered in that process.

John Allen advised of his prior experiences with FAA, the Air Force, and private business; and explained the process of the determination of no hazard that is submitted to FAA?s regional office in Atlanta and reviewed by four operation branches of the FAA. He stated FAA gives the sponsor an opportunity to resolve differences; if differences are not resolved, the FAA writes a determination of hazard; and in this instance, the FAA issued a determination of no hazard. He stated there was a question whether or not FAA used the current airport layout plan that shows the new runway 6/24, which is a 10,000-foot runway, and the answer is yes. He noted FAA used the airport layout plan that is on file with them dated May or June, 1996 when they did their analysis.

Commissioner Cook expressed concern that a federal agency in Atlanta, completely removed from the local community and unaware of incidents that have taken place, makes a determination on a safety situation in Brevard County, even though they look at maps and have the expertise and credentials.

Mr. Allen stated if they followed that philosophy, they would have 14,000 standards in the United States for aviation safety which would be pure chaos. He stated in 1958, Congress created the FAA to resolve that problem; and in the FAA Act of 1958, they were given two charges--(1) to develop aviation in the United States, and (2) to develop aviation safety. He stated they developed the Federal Aviation Regulations; one that deals with proposed structures and for airports is Part 77; it not only affects airports, but also towers and buildings, power lines, and a lot of other things; and the rules that a pilot operates under is Part 91. He noted both rules together create aviation safety. He stated there are two sides to aviation safety; their side is the tower; the FAA trusts they will build the tower at the location and at the height they said they would, and will mark and light it to ensure aviation safety; and the other side is the pilots who comply with the regulations to ensure aviation safety. Mr. Allen stated they can comply with the regulations no matter where they go and ensure aviation safety because they have one standard which is the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Ms. Doty advised all airports are required to file an airport layout plan or ALP with the FAA; the ALP represents the existing structures of that airport and proposed expansions; and the purpose is so air space around the airport is protected for future expansion. She stated the ALP on file with FAA for Space Coast Executive Airport shows a 10,000-foot runway; and Mr. Allen confirmed that the author of the no hazard determination did review the ALP showing that runway. She stated that is how FAA ensures continued growth of airports and compatible land uses around them, and that is how an airport protects its air space. She stated her law firm represents the Greater Orlando Authority, Orlando International Airport, and Orlando Executive Airport; they have ALP?s on file that show what their plans are for the next 20 years; and that is how they get protection.

Commissioner Cook stated the Space Coast Executive Airport Director has a different opinion. Ms. Doty stated his concerns are valid; inclement weather, human error, and safety are concerns; but they cannot stop development around an airport just because of a freak accident after the FAA says it is safe, because it is the only regulator of air space. She stated there are certain things that cannot be controlled; Mr. Allen explained the rules for safety and rules for pilots; there are rules for protection of air space; and what they are proposing is compatible with those rules. She stated they have met every legal, statutory, and federal requirement on the books for the tower; and what Mr. Hutto is asking the Board to do is apply some principle that is not in the FAA Regulations or Brevard County Code. Commissioner Cook stated he is not sure what Mr. Hutto is asking for, but the Board will hear from him.

Bill Hutto, Director of Space Coast Executive Airport, advised they do not have a problem with Sprint, BellSouth, APT, or any of them; however, they have an obligation to their customers who use the airport to ensure they are able to operate in a safe environment. He stated it is similar to the issue of the Sprint tower; it is in the OUC corridor as the other was proposed; and it comes with an FAA approval as the other did. He stated Part 77 does outline and give guidance to air space criteria,

but it does not have enforcement capabilities; FAA puts that on local authorities to come up with zoning regulations to enforce their guidance; and it only takes one freak accident to determine that it was a bad decision. He noted the air tanker referred to by Commissioner Scarborough could have been that freak accident during a time of crisis and poor visibility. He stated the issue was brought up that pilots know the power lines are there, they also know BellSouth tower is near the power lines and not in the corridor; but the air tanker pilot almost hit the tower due to poor visibility. Mr. Hutto advised the other issue is future development of the airport; and presented a picture of the ALP spruced up for marketing, depicting the proposed location of the tower and runway protection zone for the future runway. He stated if the proposed runway has to be shifted a degree or two because of wetlands, wildlife, or other reasons, that tower may be at the end of the runway which would prevent the development that would be good for Brevard County; and even if it is built as proposed, there is still a safety concern with it being in the proximity to the runway protection zone. He stated it will be a full instrument runway where aircraft will come in during all types of weather and poor visibility; and they are concerned about objects sticking out into the air space. He suggested APT co-locate on BellSouth?s tower and perhaps Mr. Nelson?s tower, so there would only be two towers in the Port St. John area along the I-95 corridor; and they would not cause safety concerns for the Airport Authority.

B. B. Nelson advised he is an aerial user; he has worked for aerial companies regarding locations; and he has been before the Board several times for antenna requests. He stated the original requests come down from a think tank of engineers and design people with a bunch of circles; people look for sites within those circles; and the think tanks do not give consideration to airports or other local problems. He advised of his tower on Merritt Island that met the requirements of NASA, work he has done with OPM USA, Sprint, and other companies, and the procedure he uses in selecting a site. Mr. Nelson advised the Board will consider a major purchase of Nextel units at its August 4, 1998 meeting; Nextel will need antennas because they do not have that kind of coverage; and he has talked to them about getting on their antennas. He noted Sprint and Aerial are on the Merritt Island tower; he has other co-locations; and he is trying to encourage properly located antennas that fulfill RF needs and take into consideration the local community and structures.

Mary Tees, President of Port St. John Homeowners Association, inquired why applicants bring their experts, views, and sites for towers and there is no one who speaks for Brevard County to say it is a good site; and suggested the Board get someone who knows what is going on and who will represent the County. She stated they plan to put the tower east of Frontage Road, north of Ranch Road; that area is for the west connector to move 2,500 children; there is something wrong when everybody decides they must have a tower and cannot co-locate; and they bring their experts to tell the Board why. She reiterated that the Board needs its own experts, otherwise there will be 80 towers in one place.

Ms. Doty advised APT has been extremely responsible in selection of the site; it meets all the criteria of the County Code and CUP requirements; it meets all the objective criteria and is compatible with the area; and it is out there in the middle of nowhere next to a retention pond and near an already

existing 125-foot power line corridor. She stated they do not have residential setback problems; it meets their coverage objectives; the APT has been extremely responsible in terms of airport safety;

they got an FAA determination of no hazard; and Mr. Hutto had a different avenue to express his concerns than to come to this Board. Ms. Doty advised the determination of no hazard was issued on May 21, 1998; it provided that any interested party could file a petition on or before June 20, 1998 to object to it; if an interested party or sponsor, which is an airport, objected to the no hazard determination, then unless the situation was resolved between the applicant and sponsor, a hazard determination would be issued. Mr. Hutto had that avenue of review with the agency that is charged to protect our Nation?s air space, and he chose not to pursue it, but now he is here appealing to the Board?s sense of safety when FAA has already approved the tower.

Commissioner Scarborough advised when Mr. Kirschenbaum came before the Board for a tower, the Board took testimony of Mr. Hutto and denied the request at that time; and since he was successful in one form which was more convenient, he probably opted to go with that form in his next appeal and not necessarily the longer route.

Commissioner Cook inquired why the Airport Authority did not send a letter objecting to the tower; with Mr. Hutto responding a letter was sent from the Airport and some concerned citizens also wrote to the FAA in early June, so why that is not reflected he cannot answer.

Commissioner O?Brien stated Mr. Hutto also brought the idea of future expansion of the airport being impacted; and FAA reviews what is existing and not what they will have. Mr. Hutto stated the FAA will look at what their future plans are, but the Board would give it more consideration.

Ms. Doty advised everything they have used tonight, she would like to put into the record and will give them to the Planning Department.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot move in favor, but it would be foolish to deny the request at this time; the Board continued Mr. Nelson?s request; Mr. Kirschenbaum will be coming back with another request; and somehow the Board needs to bring all of them together. He stated the Board needs to hire someone to give it directions on what needs to be done and what overall pattern would be best; it has an obligation to make sure the system works; the applicants are providing a service to the citizens; and he would not want those people on I-95 and in Port St. John not to have the service. He recommended the County Manager?s Office come back with a report as soon as possible on the feasibility of hiring an independent consultant on an as-needed basis when questions arise as to duplicate towers and other issues.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to table Item 19 and continue the public hearing until August 27, 1998, and direct the County Manager to return with a report on hiring an independent consultant with expertise in towers and antennas on an as-needed basis.

Discussion ensued on the time frame, and tabling the items again if necessary.

The meeting recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m.

Ms. Doty advised APT does not feel that the issues surrounding a master plan of towers in the County and trying to coordinate B. B. Nelson?s entrepreneurial efforts with their client?s needs and other carriers? needs is pertinent to their application, but they are willing to submit to a one-month continuance so the County may attempt to pull that information together. She stated they believe it should be voted up or down based on its merits and on the Code; but in the interest of cooperation, they will submit to a one-month continuance. Ms. Doty stated this is a public hearing; and inquired if the Board is continuing the public hearing or closing it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the motion is to table the item and continue the public hearing. Discussion ensued on the definition of tabling and continuing. Ms. Doty stated they would prefer to close the public hearing and table the item for discussion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board has never done that because there may be new information people may want to discuss.

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

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board, made at its meeting on July 6, 1998, as follows:

Item 1. (PSJ80701) P.S.J. Investments, Inc.?s request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 with BDP for mini-warehouses on 0.68 acre on the north side of Palm Street, west of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Board with BDP and buffer on the west property line.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff has the binding development agreement; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding she has a draft of the agreement.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to table Item 1 until August 27, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (PSJ80702) Mitchell S. Goldman, Trustee?s request for change from RU-1-9 to RR-1 on 17.17? acres located on the west side of Alcazar Avenue, south of Fay Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Board.

Rodney Honeycutt advised it is a down zoning from RU-1-9 to RR-1; there will be nine lots where they could have much more than that; and out of the nine lots, stables can only be on Lots 1, 3, 7 and 9 because the flag lots 2, 4, 6 and 8 do not have enough front yard and back yard setbacks. He stated Lots 2, 4, 6 and 8 are on Alcazar and could not have stables without a variance, so it would leave only those lots on the railroad track. He stated the rezoning will be less destruction to the vegetation; they could have 60 lots instead of nine; but the advantage is larger lots are better to market.

Mitch Goldman advised there were a few people who expressed interest in horses; not many places have that capability; he lives in Rockledge and has no problem with the horses in the area; and the down zoning will provide bigger lots rather than smaller lots like Port St. John.

Chairman Voltz inquired how many horses would be allowed; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding four per acre are allowed. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the applicant would be willing to provide a binding development plan limiting the number of horses to two per acre; with Mr. Goldman responding that would be fine.

Joel Stoves advised his property is less than 500 feet away from the request; the property is surrounded by residential use; all lots have homes and families living in them; and he is opposed to the rezoning. He presented a petition signed by 57 residents who live within 500 feet of the property opposing the rezoning; and stated Mr. Honeycutt said no horses were planned for the development; however, if it is zoned RR-1, nothing can be done to stop it. He stated they would be medium-size nice homes, but not too many people would purchase a home next to a railroad track without some incentive, and that is the horses.

Commissioner Cook inquired how will it degrade property in the area; with Mr. Stoves responding where the horses will be ridden, as FEC may not approve riding up and down their right-of-way and they would be on the streets.

Mary Tees, President of Port St. John Homeowners Association, advised she served on the Central Brevard Humane Society Board, and in the middle of a residential area is not where horses should be; RR-1 allows agriculture, group homes, guest homes, and towers and antennas; once it is changed, they could have animals with a CUP; and it will open the door for a lot of things. She stated it is commendable that people want to change Port St. John and make it less dense, but they knew the lots were RU-1-9 and next to the railroad tracks before they bought the property; and changing it will not do the residents a favor.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the applicant would be willing to do a binding development plan limiting the number of horses to two per acre.

Discussion ensued on limiting the number of horses, where they could ride horses, stables, barns, boarding of horses, flag lots, railroad tracks, and guidance from the Port St. John Board.

Mr. Honeycutt advised Mr. Goldman has agreed to no antennas, towers, group homes, and bed and breakfasts. Mr. Goldman advised he will agree to two horses per acre for Lots 1 through 8 and 4 horses for Lot 9.

Mary Tees stated Mr. Rodriguez abstained from voting, but went into a long dissertation about larger lots which she feels was not appropriate because he sells real estate. She stated 57 people signed a petition opposing the change; and they would prefer to have 60 homes.

Mr. Goldman advised he tried to come up with a concept that would not disturb much of the vegetation and would lower the density. Commissioner Higgs suggested building a horse trail around the whole development. Commissioner Cook suggested tabling the item for 30 days to determine what could happen to the horses if they get off the property, and to have a BDP limiting uses.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 2 until August 27, 1998 to determine a humane way to deal with horses. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (PSJ80703) Mitchell S. Goldman, Trustee?s request for change from RU-1-9 to BU-1-A with CUP for convenience store with gasoline sales on 4? acres located on the northwest corner of Corsica Boulevard and Duncan Avenue, which was recommended for denial by the Port St. John Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to deny Item 3 as recommended by the Port St. John Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (PSJ80704) Mitchell S. Goldman, Trustee?s request for change from GU to RU-1-7 on 0.343 acre located on the west side of Fecco Avenue, north of Hibiscus Street, which was recommended for approval as RU-1-9 by the Port St. John Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the Port St. John Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. (PSJ80705) Mitchell S. Goldman, Trustee?s request for change from GU to RU-1-7 on 2.16 acres located on the southeast corner of Hibiscus Street and Fecco Avenue and having frontage on the east side of Arabella Lane, north of Fay Boulevard, which was recommended for approval as RU-1-9 by the Port St. John Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Item 5 as recommended by the Port St. John Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board on administrative rezoning items, made at its public hearing on July 6, 1998, as follows:

Commissioner Higgs recommended Items 1(d), 4(a), and 9(b) be continued until October 29, 1998.

Susan Simoes, Chairman of BIPPA, advised the citizens of the South Beaches, County staff, and Commissioners created the South Beaches Small Area Plan which down zoned properties to one unit per acre south of Crystal Lakes; next week the Board will consider Comprehensive Plan amendments to double the density; and they feel it will devalue their property, and affect the public safety, quality of life, and unique nature of the South Beaches. She requested the Board be careful about setting a precedent that will affect every resident in the South Beaches.

Commissioner Higgs advised she spoke with Gary Coppola and Mr. Fulton and Mr. McClelland who may represent Mr. Coppola, and they requested the items be tabled. Chairman Voltz advised Mr. McClelland called her and she told him to call Commissioner Higgs.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to continue the public hearing on Items 1(d), 4(a), and 9(b) until October 29, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 1(a), (b), and (c), as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 2(a) and (b) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 4(b), (c), and (d), and table Item 4(a) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired why parcels are owned by the United States of American, State of Florida, and Brevard County; with Commissioner Higgs responding most of those are Archie Carr purchases.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 5 (a) through (f) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 6(a) through (h) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 7(a), (b) and (c), as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 8 (a) through (h), as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. Section 34, Township 28, Range 38, Subdivision #GM, Lot 14, and Section 10, Township 29, Range 38, Parcel 783, and Section 11, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 502 and 504, and Section 14, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 250, 257, 272 and 274, and Section 23, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 15, 18, 19, 30, 21, 22, and 23, and Section 25, Township 29, Range 38, Parcels 510.1, 517, 523, 524, 532, 533, 535, 561, 752, 758, 762, 764, and 765, owned by Richard King Mellon Foundation, Kenneth E. Fulton, Bruce E. Hilton and June L. Hilton, Michael Latterner Trustee, South Shore Associates, Gregory D. Iffla and Betty Iffla, George D. Guy, Linda and Anthony Loizzo, Ross Eames and Karen Batten, Kenneth Doherty and Cynthia Doherty Slattum et al, Ronald E. Coleman, Paula and David Hall, Gerd G. Munchow, R. Shirley Weaver and Barbara A. Coggins, Cheryl Pope, Tony and Fioralba DiGiorgio, Barbara Mejias, Charles and Karen Koegel, Community Chapel By The Sea, Inc., Theodore and Betty Dorsay, Barbara Coggins, Mary Tamayo, Donald and Therese Alexander, and Stuart and Sharan Miller, from RU-1-13, RU-2-4, RU-2-6, RU-2-8, and RU-2-10 to SR, which were recommended for approval by the P&Z Board except Parcel 783 which was tabled to October 5, 1998.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 9 (a) and (c) through (x) and table Item (b) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 10(a) through (l) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 11(a) and (b) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 12(a) and (b) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 13(a) through (d) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

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

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Items 15(a) through (c) as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Voltz called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Article VI, Section 62-1188, relating to nonconforming uses.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the ordinance amends Section 62-1188; he refers to it as the existing use ordinance; the Board struggled with this issue in the past; and since they are finished with the vacant lots in the South Beaches, they need the ordinance to give them direction on how to proceed on developed lots.

Commissioner Cook inquired if the intent of the ordinance is that if zoning is out of character with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan will come into compliance with the zoning; with Mr. Enos responding yes.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt ordinance amending Chapter 62, "Land Development Regulations," Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article VI, Section 62-1188, Nonconforming Uses, by creating a new paragraph (9); providing for administrative rezoning of parcels with existing uses for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Brevard County Code. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Voltz called for the first public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Land Development Regulations, Article VI, regarding land alterations.

There being no objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to forward the ordinance amending Chapter 62, "Land Development Regulations," Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida; amending Article VI, Division 5, Subdivision 3, specifically amending Section 1936, Land Alterations, to alter criteria and site plan requirements; amending Article VI, Division 5, Subdivision 3, specifically amending Section 62-1331(3), General Use (GU), to provide a maximum acreage for land alterations of 30 acres; specifically amending Section 62-1332(3), Productive Agriculture (PA), to provide a maximum acreage for land alterations of 30 acres; specifically amending Section 62-1333(3), Agriculture (AGR) to provide a maximum acreage for land alterations of 30 acres; specifically amending Section 62-1334(3), Agriculture Residential (AU), to provide a maximum acreage for land alterations of 30 acres; specifically amending Section 62-1334.5(3), Agriculture Rural Residential (ARR), to provide a maximum acreage for land alterations of 30 acres; specifically amending Section 621572(3), Government Managed Lands (GML), to provide a maximum acreage for land alterations of 30 acres; specifically amending Section 62-1335(3), Rural Estate Use (REU), to add land alterations to the list of available conditional uses; providing for conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; providing an effective date; and providing for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, to the final hearing on August 27, 1998. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the report relates to changing snack bar/restaurant seating from 30 to 49; and requested direction whether to proceed with advertising an ordinance.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has no objection to the ordinance, but recommended including that all snack bars and restaurants with seats up to 30 as of July 30, 1998, wishing to expand up to 49, shall comply with all applicable development regulations as reviewed by County staff. Chairman Voltz inquired what would that do; with Commissioner Higgs responding it would mean they can expand but would have a review to ensure they meet site plan requirements, have the right parking spaces, etc.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to authorize staff to advertise a public hearing to consider an ordinance amending seating requirements for snack bars and restaurants in BU-1-A zoning classification, including a condition that all snack bars and restaurants with up to 30 seats as of July 30, 1998, that want to expand to 49 seats, shall comply with applicable development regulations as reviewed by County staff to insure they meet the site plan requirements. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Cook suggested the next zoning meeting be conducted in Scottsmoor. Commissioner Higgs expressed appreciation to the Board for coming south for a meeting. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there are other zoning meetings scheduled outside of Viera; with Rick Enos responding no.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to continue holding zoning meetings at Viera until further direction. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________

HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

___________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK

(S E A L)