The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on May 25, 2000, at 5:38 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Sue Carlson, and Helen Voltz, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Truman Scarborough, District 1.

Commissioner Helen Voltz led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT

Commissioner O'Brien advised there is a portion of an orange grove that was administratively rezoned from AU to PIP; the property is being marketed as AU; and there are four or five parcels that should be administratively rezoned back to AU. He stated they presented their case to the LPA on May 15, 2000; and the LPA recommended an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to administratively rezone property on Merritt Island which is part of an orange grove from PIP back to AU, and to prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the 2000B amendment cycle. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING MEMORIAL DAY

Commissioner O'Brien read aloud a resolution proclaiming May 29, 2000 as Memorial Day in Brevard County.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution proclaiming May 29, 2000 as Memorial Day in Brevard County, and asking God to bless the souls of our departed servicemen and women and the Country they gave everything to serve. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS OF MARCH 6, 2000 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING

Chairman Higgs advised anyone who desires to speak on any of the items needs to complete a card in the back of the room and ensure the Agenda item number is correct, so they can be recognized. She requested the County Attorney advise the public of the procedure for addressing the Board on zoning items.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley advised on zoning items the Board acts in a quasi-judicial capacity; that means it has to use rules of law and apply it to the facts before the Board; so anyone requesting a rezoning needs to look at the Code criteria and develop the facts to show the application meets the Code criteria. She stated if a person is in opposition to an item, that person needs to look at the Code criteria, and show how the item does not meet the Code criteria. She stated they need to look at facts and evidence and not whether they like or do not like the rezoning; that would not be considered evidence by the court; some things typically require expert testimony such as traffic engineering; and even though most people drive cars, there are experts in that field. She advised the courts accept lay testimony regarding the nature and character of a neighborhood; however, sometimes it is preferable to have a planner develop that type of issue with more technical advice; but the public is able to give testimony regarding their neighborhoods. Ms. Bentley stated if the speakers would refrain from having people stand up and say there are so many people here in opposition to an item, that would be helpful; they need to bring facts and evidence regarding the Code criteria and not how many are opposed or in favor of an item; the court will be looking for facts; and if people want their items affirmed, they need to present the facts and evidence before this Board first. She advised the applicant will have 15 minutes and can reserve five minutes for rebuttal; and the other parties wishing to speak will have five minutes each.

Chairman Higgs explained the lighting system, and called for the public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on March 3, 2000, as follows:

Item 1, (Z0003501) Lawrence Frazier Johnson, Charlene R. Johnson, and Tania Louise Johnson's request for MUD boundary expansion and rezoning from RU-1-7 to BU-2 on 4.8 acres located on the southeast corner of U.S. 192 and Commodore Street. The LPA recommended denial of the MUD expansion unanimously; and the P&Z recommended approval of BU-1 on the existing 330 feet of the MUD only, restricted to retail and professional offices as offered by the applicant, and excluding dance halls, day care centers, muffler shops, pool rooms, bowling alleys, and gas stations.

John Armstrong, representing the applicants, presented drawings to the Board; and stated the area is known as a furniture/carpet area, and when people want furniture they go up U.S. 192, which is primarily existing and proposed by the County for BU-1 and BU-2. He stated it is a major highway from Melbourne Beach to Kissimmee proposed for four lanes in the next few years; the property was under a similar request five years ago; and he was against it because of standing water on the property, and because the applicant did not show up the final night and was not willing to give a binding site plan which the neighbors wanted. He stated the P&Z approved BU-1 on that. Mr. Armstrong stated he has produced a binding site plan for the County's review; there was some resistance on it; he made a mistake and produced a desire to have it all BU-1, but that is not a case; and he would like to withdraw the MUD application. He stated P&Z Board recommended BU-1 at 330-foot depth; and he requested a little bit more. He stated last year when he became interested in the property, he went through the brush and discovered two free-flowing artesian wells running wide open; and gave a detailed description of how the wells were turned off, the change in the high water table reading by an independent testing laboratory, meeting with the Health Department, and charts of the property and surrounding area. He stated the only house that would be affected by his project would be his son's house across the road; beyond the 330 feet, he has another 156 feet which he would leave as dry retention and for the septic system, and it would all be a buffer area. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the 156 feet would be left as RU-1-7; with Mr. Armstrong responding that is correct. Mr. Armstrong advised beyond the 156 feet are 200 more feet before the next neighbor; there are eight lots in there; to the east is a seven-acre parcel fronting U.S. 192 with no other access except by U.S. 192; and he was advised by a realtor the property is being offered at $1.3 million so it is unlikely any home would be built on the property. He stated to the north of U.S. 192 and straight across is existing BU-1 and BU-2; and presented and explained a map of the zoning and stores in the area. He stated the orange grove has not produced fruit for over ten years and is overgrown with brush and Brazilian pepper plants; it is a known haven for homeless people; the deputy sheriff who lives at the end of Commodore Street many times have thrown people off the property; and stopping that activity would be a good safety factor for the neighbors. He stated he does not want to run commercial into the residential area and wants to forego the MUD, but would like to have 156 feet beyond the 330 feet for dry retention, septic system, and landscaped buffer area. He stated the total area is less than the adjacent Lazy Boy and Kane's Furniture sites and several other parcels in the area; and requested the Board's consideration of approval.

Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. Armstrong identify the different colored areas on the map; and Mr. Armstrong explained each different colored area, including a house under construction, his property, and the proposed retention area.

Jenai Nielsen advised Mr. Armstrong is her dad; he built her house and her brother's house; they live across from and close to the property; the buffer is a great idea to separate commercial from residential and better than the overgrown mess that exists now; and her dad would not build anything that would be detrimental to her or her brother's properties, so she is in favor of the project.

Mark Menosky advised he entered into an agreement to purchase the back 200 feet of the Armstrong property which is zoned for residential use; his intention is to develop it in that manner; there are eight lots involved; and it is a good idea to have a buffer area abutting the property, so he would like to see the project approved, if enacted as shown with landscaped buffer bordering the residential lots.

Colleen Murphy advised when she purchased her property ten years ago, she knew it was in a commercial area and hoped that whatever would go in there would not be undesirable; she has become familiar with the project Mr. Armstrong is proposing and has seen it; he is offering to put a buffer area in which is a nice deal; so she is in favor of the project.

Keith Nielsen advised Mr. Armstrong is his father-in-law; he would like a buffer area landscaped instead of overgrown with pepper plants and mosquitoes; so he is in favor of the project.

Don Pepin advised he purchased land from Mr. Armstrong two years ago, did many favors for him, and permitted many buildings for him; and the rezoning upsets him because Mr. Armstrong bragged about stopping Sears from getting it zoned commercial. He stated it is a beautiful area, close to everything, and they love it there; and they do not have a problem with 330 feet, but if he is allowed to go further into the residential area, it would give the next person a chance to go further. He stated he bought six lots adjacent to the property Mr. Armstrong is trying to rezone; he should have his house done in the next month or so; and the buffer area is super, but he does not want commercial further back than 330 feet.

Randy Bennett advised he owns 1.4 acres on Commodore Street where he plans to build in the near future; what people on Knotty Pine Road see will not affect them on a daily basis as it would those on Commodore Street; there are several children who live on the short street; and it is a dead-end street. He stated he does not have a problem with the 330 feet, but has concerns about how deep the access onto Commodore Street will be. He stated it is a short street, and the farther back on the property the access is may present safety problems for people who live on the street; and requested the Board protect the residents who have property there and not allow it to go deeper than 330 feet. He reiterated his biggest concern is the entrance and exit on Commodore Street for safety reasons, and he would not be in favor of the project unless it can be closer to U.S. 192.

Mr. Armstrong stated there were good and valid points; there is only one child on the road, but that does not mean there are not going to be more; and he is conscious of children. He stated he wants to build something that is good because his daughter, son, and office manager live there; he has a lot of interest in the area and would not build anything that is bad; and he is not looking to extend the BU-1 into the residential area. He stated the Health Department said it is common to put septic and stormwater on the back and let it stay residential; it would become an easement contiguous with the land in question; and it will be in a binding site plan that commercial cannot go back any further than 330 feet without coming back to the Board to change something. He stated he heard comments against the buffer; in his opinion he would rather live next to a lawn with trees and shrubs than another house; and he is not looking for just any BU-1 use, but for something professional or retail. He stated his son lives across the street; they have agreed to go into a furniture business together; and the fact that it is a dead-end road adds to the safety of the children because people will not go down a dead-end road. He stated there is a canal at the end so it will never be a through street.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is a sign on the road saying it is a dead-end road; with Mr. Armstrong responding yes.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the intended use is a furniture store for Mr. Armstrong and his son; with Mr. Armstrong responding that is the intent, but they do not know how big the building will be, and whether they will use half of it and lease half of it. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not know about the parking and delivery arrangements as there is no concept plan; and she is curious about the turning radius for semi-trucks and intrusion of those trucks into residential areas behind the property. She inquired if Mr. Armstrong expects semi-trucks in there unloading things. Mr. Armstrong stated he would like to say no, but he does not know that yet, and believes there probably will be; he met with Richard Thompson, the head of the County's Traffic Division, who helped him lay it out; and that is why it is 89 feet with no parking spaces which is the minimum for a tractor/trailer to turn around. He stated they did that take into consideration and do not want a tractor/trailer backing onto the main road. Commissioner Voltz stated that is what makes this project more unique than the other one the Board recently considered.

Chairman Higgs stated the Board spent a lot of time on a project in the area and excluded an entry on a side street; so this project would be inconsistent with the decision the Board made. Commissioner O'Brien stated the difference is it is a dead-end road and not part of a network. Commissioner Voltz stated the one that was denied was inconsistent with what was done in the past because the Board always allowed side street entrances for projects. Chairman Higgs stated the information talks about a willingness to exclude certain uses; and inquired if there is a binding development plan with those exclusions; with Planner Robin Sobrino responding staff only has a letter from Mr. Armstrong. Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Armstrong would exclude adult entertainment establishments as well; with Mr. Armstrong responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to deny MUD extension and approve Item 1 as recommended by the P&Z Board with a binding development plan including no adult entertainment establishment and other restrictions offered by the applicant, and including buffer zone.

Commissioner Voltz inquired when does the applicant have to have the BDP in; with Ms. Sobrino responding within 120 days it has to be recorded. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is language in the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code that specifically deals with access onto side streets; with Ms. Sobrino responding there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code is silent on that as well. Ms. Sobrino stated staff looks at the overall traffic circulation, what suits the site, and what seems to be safe as far as adjacent roadways.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot support the motion with an entrance 253 feet back into the property; commercial activity should be kept to the front of the property as much as possible; and perhaps the Board needs to discuss commercial activity bringing in semi-trucks into the areas and residential streets. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the entrance from Commodore Street could be moved to the front of the building; with Mr. Armstrong responding Richard Thompson said it is an excellent design because when trucks turn around in the back they have a straight route onto the road. He stated he tried to put the entrance to the front because the P&Z Board mentioned it, and Mr. Thompson said he is adamantly against any driveways close to stop signs, but would entertain a one-way out only driveway; however, it cannot be enforced. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a dead-end street, but someone else will want the entrance 253 feet back and say the Board approved it on Commodore Street. He stated truck traffic should be kept close to U.S. 192; it seems to be the discussion at every zoning meeting; and to deviate from that long discussion will bring yet another discussion on the same issue.

Discussion ensued on entrances to commercial projects from residential streets, staff's recommendation on the proposed entranceway from Commodore Street, staff looking at problems from different perspectives, truck traffic on residential streets, and moving the driveway closer to U.S. 192.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Armstrong would be willing to move the driveway forward; with Mr. Armstrong responding he is not opposed to putting the driveway anywhere on the project. Commissioner O'Brien stated the adjacent property to the west is zoned BU-1 so it will be commercial as well; Mr. Armstrong's driveway is back 253 feet, but it is still adjacent to BU-1 property and not residential property; and more than likely that part of the street will be shared by both businesses once they are built; so it is a good plan and beneficial to everyone involved.

Chairman Higgs stated the Comprehensive Plan and policies state location of community commercial should be at intersections of minor/major arterial roads; Commodore Street and U.S. 192 is not a minor/major arterial intersection; and although the MUD goes all along the area, the language says, "Intrusion of these land uses into surrounding residential areas shall be limited." She stated she can agree with BU-1 with the BDP in terms of uses, but the Board should uphold that part of the Comprehensive Plan and preclude entrance from Commodore Street and intrusion into the surrounding residential area. Commissioner O'Brien stated the driveway is not intruding into residential and is directly adjacent to BU-1. Chairman Higgs stated once they start bringing cars on a residential street, it is intruding into a residential area. Ms. Sobrino stated the property to the west is zoned BU-1; and as part of its approval, there was a restriction placed on the placement of driveways on Commodore Street and Knotty Pine Road that limited it to the northern 75 feet of the property and no further south.

Commissioner Voltz amended the motion to include the driveway on Commodore Street cannot be greater than 75 feet back . Commissioner O'Brien accepted the amendment.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Voltz inquired about the buffer zone and what needs to be done to leave the 156 feet as an easement even though it is zoned RU-1-7; with Ms. Bentley responding Mr. Armstrong needs to incorporate that in the BDP as a buffer area.

Chairman Higgs stated as part of the motion and second the buffer area is not to include any structures.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAY 8, 2000

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on May 8, 2000, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0005101) Terry B. Roderick and Christi E. Costigan's request for change from GU to AGR on 2.23 acres located on the west side of Fishtail Palm Avenue, south of Date Palm Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 2. (Z0005102) Hodges and Carolyn Bilbo's request for change from GU to ARR on 1 acre located on the south side of Bear Trail, east of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 3. (Z0005103) Davis E. and Gavannah Crowley's request for change from AU to RRMH-1 on 1.19 acres located on the north side of Parrish Road, west of Hammock Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is a structure on the property; with Planner Robin Sobrino responding the aerial looks like there is a mobile home on the property. Gavannah Crowley advised there is a travel trailer and storage area without electricity on the property.

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

Item 4. (Z0005104) Dorothy Lou Calley's request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1 acre located on the north side of Harley Avenue, west of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 5. (Z0005105) Olga Rojas' request for change from GU to RR-1 on 2.07 acres located north of Camp Road and west of Burgess Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 6. (Z0005106) Barbara Beatteay's request for CUP for pet kennel in AU zoning classification on 2.423 acres located on the east side of Mangrove Street, south of Coral Avenue, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to deny Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0005107) David F. Moisdon and Brenda J. Crews' request for small scale plan amendment that proposes to change the land use designation from residential to mixed use district on the Future Land Use Map; and a change of classification from BU-1 to RU-2-10 to all BU-1 on 1.08 acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of Kings Highway. The LPA recommended approval of the MUD boundary to 350 feet, and the P&Z Board recommended approval of BU-1 on the westerly 350 feet.

Doug Robertson, representing the applicants, presented a handout to the Board, and advised the request is to extend the depth of BU-1 an additional 50 feet instead of 170 feet; and overlay 300 feet of the BU-1 with the MUD, because even though it is zoned BU-1, there is no MUD, so it is inconsistent. He stated the property is on the east side of U.S. 1 from the Orlando Utility plant; it is 900 feet deep from U.S. 1 to the Indian River; it has been used for commercial purposes for years; and the Property Appraiser has the use as a church, but there is no use of the building at this point. Mr. Robertson stated Mr. Moisdon bought the property with the understanding it could be used for commercial; it was zoned commercial; and it was advertised as commercial property. He stated he had a tenant lined up for a day care center and a lease; and in the process of working with County staff, he was informed he could not use it as a day care center because the FLU designation was not commercial. He stated the request is to make it right, with zoning and land use legitimate. He described other uses in the area; stated the CRG and P&Z recommended approval, and requested the Board do the same.

Pat Blaney advised she represents herself and her father, and understands it will only be 350 feet and not beyond that; and if that is right, they have no problem with the change.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Mr. Harris came to talk to him this afternoon on this item.

Attorney John Harris, representing Dr. and Mrs. James Glen, owners of adjacent property, advised his clients oppose the request because the rezoning cannot be considered without an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which is unnecessary for a one-acre parcel and inconsistent with the Future Land Use (FLU) Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the property is surrounded by residential properties or properties designated residential on the FLU Map on the east side of U.S. 1; the applicant is seeking the creation of a community or neighborhood commercial cluster, which is inconsistent with FLU Policy 4.4.A as it should be on a minor/major arterial intersection; the property fronts U.S. 1, but there is no minor or major roadway intersection; and the closest such intersection is more than 750 feet to the north. He stated it is inconsistent with the criteria that community commercial clusters should be located two miles apart, and neighborhood commercial should be at least one mile apart; the property is only 500 feet from the next community commercial cluster; so again it is an inconsistency. Mr. Harris stated Policy 4.8 addresses strip commercial development; there is an existing strip commercial area 500 feet to the north of the site; and Policy 4.8.E. provides that development in these established strip commercial areas is preferred over expanding into new strip commercial areas. He stated the applicant should locate his proposed commercial activity in the already established strip commercial area to the north rather than seek creation of a new strip commercial area; and that is another inconsistency with the Plan. He advised Policy 4.3 addresses locational criteria and provides that intrusion of commercial clusters into surrounding residential areas should be limited; this request would extend 460 feet into the surrounding residential areas; that depth far exceeds the 200 feet of the commercial area to the north; and that is inconsistent with the Plan as well. He stated for those reasons, it is their position that the locational criteria for community commercial development set forth in the FLU Element of the Comprehensive Plan render this property inappropriate for MUD designation; furthermore, even if the application was consistent with the FLU Element, this request should be denied because amending the Comprehensive Plan and the FLU map is too drastic a measure. Mr. Harris stated staff pointed out the applicant can achieve the same goals by seeking BU-1-A zoning and a CUP for the day care center; and staff concluded the lower intensity uses provided under BU-1-A may be more appropriate in this case, given the adjacent residential uses and the depth of the commercial zoning being requested. He stated because of the numerous inconsistencies with the FLU Policies and because a less severe alternative is available, this request should be denied.

Mr. Robertson stated, with regard to locational criteria, they are not talking about a new commercial cluster; they are talking about an existing BU-1 zoned area that has been zoned and used for commercial for years; and staff's report points out that this type of use is appropriate when commercial character has been established, which it has been on U.S. 1 to the north. He stated the owner to the south supports the request; the owners to the north and south are in the same situation; they have BU-1 zoning on the front part of their properties that is inconsistent; and his client is the first one to try and resolve that. Mr. Robertson stated the zoning district line would not be near the building to the south, which is owned by Dr. Glen who the previous speaker represents; that building is almost on the river, and his client's property is at least 500 feet from that building; so it would not impact that residential structure. He stated they are trying to make it right; and they have an inconsistent situation now, and would like to see it consistent again.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board often runs into difficulties on what is inconsistent with a neighborhood; there may be heavy industry on the west side of U.S. 1, and as it moves over it may be something lighter, and when it moves to the river there may be nicer homes; so he is not inclined to look to the west side of U.S. 1. He stated there was action in the courts; the Board may have hired Mr. Robertson to do a study; the study indicated it is not appropriate to look east to west, but north to south in consistency issues; so he will not consider the OUC plant with this item, but will look within the realm of north and south. He stated there is BU-1 to the north, but they are not to the depth being proposed with this item; and inquired if rather than moving to deny, is there a potential to accomplish the objective without a Comprehensive Plan amendment, such as a BU-1-A and CUP. He inquired if that is a viable option without moving the line back which would create a precedent up and down U.S. 1 that he does not want to do.

Mr. Robertson advised they asked for BU-1 because the child care center is the primary use; BU-1 allows child care centers as permitted uses; and that is what drove the BU-1 application. He stated his client understands that to get the child care center, there is another process he has to go through; however, he would prefer not to be denied and would accept the BU-1-A. Mr. Robertson inquired if the BU-1-A will go back to the additional 50 feet because the line goes between the building, and they are trying to resolve that issue also.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to deny the small scale plan amendment for Item 7, and approve BU-1-A to the additional 50 feet. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Robin Sobrino stated that is BU-1-A to the depth of 350 feet.

Item 8. (Z0005108) James T. Swann's request for CUP for towers and antennae in IU-1 zoning classification on 0.3 acre located on the north side of Cidco Road, west of E. Industry Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board contingent upon favorable consultant report.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the report from the consultant has been received; with Ms. Sobrino responding the report was received yesterday and indicated there was a demonstrated technical necessity.

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

Item 9. (Z0005109) Maria DeFillo's request for change from GU to RR-1 on 2.27 acres located north of Camp Road and west of Burgess Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 10. (Z0005110) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners, on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning of property owned by Interymer North, Inc. on which a development order had been submitted initiating a consideration of a change in zoning classification from AU to IU on 20.47 acres located north of Cidco Road, and west of Industry Road East, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 11. (Z0005201) Stephen N. DaCosta, Helen S. DaCosta, and Stephannie L. DaCosta's request for MUD boundary expansion and change from RU-2-15 to BU-1 on 3.63 acres located on the west side of Newfound Harbor Drive, south of SR 520, which had no recommendation from the LPA or the P&Z Board.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he spoke to Robert Beals on the phone, met with Mr. Watson, and spoke with John Daignault and Bob Hennig about this issue. Commissioner Voltz stated Dwayne Watson explained the project to her.

Attorney Robert Beals, representing the applicants, presented handouts to the Board; and stated a few weeks ago they went to the P&Z Board with staff's recommendation for this rezoning, which would change the RU-2-15 to the south of Mike Erdman Toyota to BU-1. He stated they had a proposed binding site plan which staff approved that would create a buffer against residential to the south and put other landscaping restrictions. He stated after their presentation to the P&Z Board, they did not anticipate or notice any opposition and discovered later that Mr. Hennig and other homeowners to the south of the property filed a petition objecting to the request. He stated the P&Z Board had a split vote of 5 to 5 on the issue; they contacted the homeowners association and Mr. Hennig; they met with Mr. Hennig and his attorney in Mr. Watson's Office; and they addressed every one of his concerns in the binding development plan. Mr. Beals advised the considerations include reducing the request for rezoning by 50 feet so that the buffer would remain RU-2-15, requesting a waiver of the six-foot masonry wall because Mr. Hennig desires a continuous buffer with a berm 50 feet from his property line, and eliminating all uses in BU-1 except automotive uses. He stated they met with the homeowners from Summers Creek which is to the south of the property; they have a letter from the President of the Association advising the P&Z Board that they were told the rezoning was for a junk yard; and they contacted all the members, most of whom are in favor of the request with the BDP, which they have seen and approved, except for Mr. Hennig and those who were not contacted and were on vacation. Mr. Beals advised Mr. Hennig agreed with the BDP on Monday, but on Tuesday he changed his mind; his attorney called and said he does not wish to support the rezoning; and he suspects Mr. Hennig fears a decrease in his property value, but Mr. Hennig would have to tell the Board why he opposes the rezoning. He stated in the Board's package is unanimous approval from MIRA, and a letter from Henry Minneboo to Dwayne Watson stating the proposed use based on the BDP is better than the RU-2-15 in terms of impact on surrounding areas, and would eliminate about 11,000 gallons a day of waste and sewer if it were to be developed as RU-2-15. He stated they have a letter from Realtor Mr. Rossi addressing two scenarios, (1) is that the property remain zoned as it is in which case Mr. Hennig's property would decline in value by $60 to $80,000, and (2) is to develop it as BU-1 with the limitations agreed upon and put in the BDP with no impact on value of property. He stated Property Appraiser Jim Ford wrote a letter which concluded that the current zoning is worse than the proposed zoning in terms of value. Mr. Beals stated the BU-1 proposed is with a 50-foot buffer; from that to the property line to the north will be storage of vehicles, new and used, from Mike Erdman's Toyota dealership; and any building would be built on the north half of the property which essentially extends the buffer even further. He stated the drawing presented to the Board would allow 54 units up to a height of three stories within ten feet of Mr. Hennig's property if it is developed as RU-2-15; and described development scenarios A and B. He stated the owners had site plans prepared for RU-2-15 development; there would be over 50 units and 75 cars making daily trips from Kessler Drive to Newfound Harbor Drive; the Villas at Newfound Harbor is across the street and accessed by Kessler Drive; and the President of the Villas said no one in their association asked to voice any objections to the proposed rezoning. Mr. Beals advised they went to the P&Z Board thinking they had a win/win situation; they solved the problems with the homeowners who thought it was going to be a junk yard; they thought they solved the problem with Mr. Hennig; and the BDP agrees to a berm of three to four feet along the entire 50 feet north of Mr. Hennig's property line, a landscaped buffer along the south end of the property, removal of BU-1 from the south 50 feet so it will be land that cannot be used for anything else, a 15-foot wide landscaped buffer around the boundary of the property, shielded lighting, and the only uses permitted being those in Section 62-1482.1.b. relating to automobiles and consistent with the operation of the Toyota dealership. He stated the primary use of the entire parcel will be for parking and storage of vehicles; and if it is rezoned to BU-1, the developer/owner will pursue acquiring a 30-foot strip that is owned by FDOT between the dealership and the subject property. He stated if they can acquire that 30-foot strip and make it one contiguous parcel, they would dedicate the south 50 feet as a perpetual conservation easement. Mr. Beals stated they have done everything possible to satisfy objections of every person with whom they met since the P&Z meeting; and noted there will be another speaker in addition to the documentary evidence he provided to the Board.

Commissioner O'Brien requested another explanation of the multifamily development; and Mr. Beals showed the draft plans and explained the possible development of multifamily use. Commissioner O'Brien stated they can build apartment buildings three stories high and put traffic on Newfound Harbor Drive; Mr. Erdman wants to change it to BU-1 for parking of cars with no increase in traffic or population; and inquired how many units can be built; with Mr. Beals responding approximately 57 units on 3.3 acres, depending on the configuration.

Commissioner Voltz stated if they get the easement, they would not put traffic on the street; with Mr. Beals responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that strip of land has been acquired yet; with Mr. Beals responding no, that is their next acquisition. Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the comments related to internal movement of vehicles as opposed to external by acquiring that strip; and it would lessen the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Beals stated it would eliminate any impact; but they have to negotiate with FDOT for that strip of land.

John Daignault advised he has been a real estate broker for 30 years; Mr. Hennig asked if he would speak for him; he is a friend of Mr. Hennig's and knows the property where his home is located; and he has a very nice home of approximately 2,600 square feet, worth about $250 to $275,000. He stated changing zoning from RU-2-15 to BU-1 will be detrimental to the value of Mr. Hennig's home; for over 30 years he has been involved with a lot of houses; and anyone looking for a home will pass up those located near BU-1 and ask to see something not located next to BU-1. He stated regardless of what is said, they can make changes; he has nothing against Mr. Erdman who is a fine businessman; however, he is looking to expand his business; and traffic will not all come from SR 520 if it is more convenient to come down Newfound Harbor Drive to the lube area or body shop. He stated over a period of time there will be entrances off Newfound Harbor Drive and traffic like multifamily residents would generate. Mr. Daignault advised the subject was brought up that they could build three-story apartment buildings; nobody would build three-story apartments because they would require elevators and the cost would be prohibitive; so the most they would build is two stories which does not require an elevator. He stated rezoning the property will be a detriment to his friend Bob Hennig; Policy 4.1 states, "Mixed use boundary shall not be expanded in such a manner that the district encroaches into established residential areas"; and anyone who owned that house would seriously object to having property currently zoned RU-2-15 changed to BU-1 right up against their property line or 50 feet from their property line. He strongly recommended the rezoning be denied.

Robert Hennig presented handouts to the Board; and stated he resides in a single-family waterfront home; and he and his wife are totally opposed to the BU-1 expansion, namely the additional 270 feet from the existing MUD depth of 800 feet from SR 520. He stated it would extend Mike Erdman's commercial auto business up to his northern property line; and the loudspeaker noise, overhead lighting, and doubling of the repair facility would greatly depreciate his property value for resale. He requested the Board not allow the added 270 feet of BU-1; and read an article from the Florida TODAY Newspaper dealing with the service department of Mike Erdman, stating, "The service department of Mike Erdman soon will be twice as large as it is now, according to Service Manager Sam Lopez. We are growing fast here at Mike Erdman Toyota, said Lopez. Because of that, we are looking to expand and make room for our new customers. The new expansion will include stretching out the present service department until it is going to be more than double what we have now, said Lopez. We'll build out from the back of our present building toward the back of the lot. The new service center addition will include a complete detailing center also, he added. While the current service center has ten bays, with the added space, the new service center will have more than 20 to 25 bays, Lopez said. The Mike Erdman Toyota Service Center now has 15 employees. When the new service center comes on line, there will be more than 20 employees. For customers it will mean less waiting and will still have the same convenient hours." Mr. Hennig stated he wanted to read that so the Board could get an idea of the plans. as it is not just a matter of parking and is more than that. He stated Policy 4.1.c. states, "Mixed use boundaries shall not be expanded in such a manner that the district encroaches into established residential areas"; and that is in the Comprehensive Plan which the Board is aware of.

Robert Leichtenberg advised he is an MAI appraiser and is familiar with the property as he has handled some DOT acquisitions in the past; the 30-foot strip is part of the Milliken property DOT acquired as it serviced an acre and a half to the west of where the Toyota dealership is now. He stated he looked at the property; and to say they would not build a three-story building is ludicrous; it is riverfront high-end property; and if it was his property, he would put parking underneath and units on the second and third stories so they would have a view of the river. He stated they would have to build to the max because it is expensive property; nobody would put a two-story building and less density on it; it does not make economic sense to do that; and it would make total economic sense to put in elevators. He noted it could be developed as condos. Mr. Leichtenberg stated if there is any impact to neighboring property based on the site plan, it would not be negative; it would be positive; he has been in the real estate business for 30 years and appraised properties for 20 years and studied those types of situations; and it is not easy to study because they cannot just fly over the property and take one look at it, and would have to look at potential uses, what could go in there, and things that cause economic obsolescence. He stated external obsolescence is a force outside of neighboring property such as things that are unsightly, create a lot of noise, or ruin privacy; a three-story building ten feet from the property line would ruin privacy and cause a lot of noise from 50-plus families; and the idea of a berm is something County staff came up with along U.S. 192. He stated U.S. 192 on the south side backs up to residential; one of the ways it was handled was to put in berms and leave 50-foot natural vegetative buffers; and the buffer that will be on this property will be far better than what is there now. He stated there are vehicle tracks, garbage, and mounds of dirt on the property now; and to say it would hurt the value of adjacent property by $70,000 would have taken several hundred hours of research, and still he does not think that could be proven. He advised of a doctor who bought property in Indialantic next to commercial property that was not affected, and stated the assessed values of property along U.S. 192 that have not been affected were taken into consideration by the Property Appraiser's Office. Mr. Leichtenberg advised everyone thinks property values are the most fragile things in the world; if the owner wanted to put a shopping center right up to the property line, that would affect the value; but the proposed use is the least intrusive use for that property. He stated Toyotas are not very tall and would hardly be seen; the landscaping around the dealership now is lovely; and he cannot see anything that would affect the property value negatively. He noted it will reduce noise and traffic and increase privacy because they would not have a three-story building ten feet from their property line.

Mr. Beals advised the article Mr. Hennig read pertains to an existing expansion project on Mr. Erdman's existing property and has nothing to do with the request for rezoning; and he confirmed that with Mr. Erdman who is here tonight. He stated Mr. Leichtenberg pointed out accurately the difference between BU-1 and RU-2-15 in terms of noise, lighting, and view; and to a layman, such as himself, he cannot conceive how such a strictly limited use can reduce value of adjoining property. He stated the request does extend the MUD in order to have BU-1 extend as far as they are; but because of the limitation on the use, it is irrelevant; and it is not going to change anything and is not a stepping stone to other uses because the BDP can never be changed.

Commissioner Voltz stated a gentleman mentioned loudspeakers; there is nothing in the plan regarding that; and it may be an issue if a loudspeaker is not far from Mr. Hennig's house. Mr. Beals stated this is the first time he heard about loudspeakers and has not had the opportunity to address it, but it could be dealt with by decibels or location, etc.; however, he anticipates there would not be speakers there because it is for parking and storage.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the applicants can agree as part of the BDP there would be nothing other than storage on the back and no speakers; with Mr. Beals responding the plan says there is only parking as the primary use; and those were the terms agreed upon by the parties. Chairman Higgs inquired if primary use is all Mr. Beals would agree to; with Mr. Beals responding yes because BU-1 requires a building unless they get the 30 feet, then they would not have to build a building. Chairman Higgs inquired if Mr. Beals would agree to the MUD expansion only if it can be connected to the existing property; with Mr. Beals responding if they are unsuccessful with FDOT the property would be landlocked and rendered useless; and he cannot predict what would happen with FDOT. Commissioner Voltz stated chances are it would not be an issue, and to tie their hands like that is a bit much. Mr. Beals stated half a million dollars is too much to risk.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no binding site plan attached to the BDP; with Mr. Beals responding they have not prepared a site plan as yet. Commissioner Scarborough stated the item should be tabled so the applicants can get everything. He stated it is an intrusion of the MUD beyond what the Comprehensive Plan recommends; when the Board deviates from the Plan, it needs to have a basis for the deviation; and making the approval contingent upon the acquisition of the 30-foot strip could make everyone a winner. Mr. Beals stated they would probably lose the property sale because it would take a long time to deal with FDOT; and the seller, who is here tonight, is prepared to take it to sale. Commissioner Scarborough stated the BDP does not say a lot; with Mr. Beals responding it has been revised about six times to address a lot of things. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not see a lot of planning in that document.

Chairman Higgs stated there is something to be gained for the neighborhood and property owners by changing the use of the property; but it is not a gain if it includes a lot of uses on the back part of the parcel and access onto Newfound Harbor Drive; so there are potential gains, but not enough at this point.

Commissioner O'Brien requested staff explain how many units would be built if the property is not rezoned and what effect it will have on surrounding properties. Planner Robin Sobrino responded considering the acreage and RU-2-15 zoning, they would get approximately 55 units. Commissioner O'Brien stated 55 units can be substantial; Newfound Harbor Drive at the traffic light at Wal-Mart and Mike Erdman's is a two-lane road; and with that many units there could be cars lined up all the way back to the mini-mart. He stated the 50-foot buffer is a good offer; the perpetual conservation easement is very important; the berm 50 feet from the adjacent property is significant; but he agrees the loudspeakers should not be placed within 270 feet of the adjacent property line. Mr. Beals stated that is acceptable. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is important that they have gone out and spoken to the homeowners in the area; and the Homeowners Association said there are no further problems and it is a benefit to them. He stated he has known Mr. Daignault for 20 years, and he is his appointee to the P&Z Board; he too would stand up for a friend, but Mr. Ford advised that multifamily development next to Mr. Hennig's property would substantially reduce the property value and have a detrimental effect on his property that would be unrecoverable; however, the change with a conservation easement would help him retain his present value and hopefully increase it in the future. He stated Mr. Leichtenberg is a certified MAI appraiser, realtor with more than 20 years experience, and had experience with this property in the past; he spoke to Mr. Hennig and had deep concerns about his property value and the impact that would be brought upon his property by the proposed project; but after hearing everyone tonight, those worries have been dispelled. He stated the preponderance of evidence shown this evening indicates there will be no adverse effect on Mr. Hennig's property, and it could enhance the value of his property, which is the opposite of what was said earlier. He stated he has a stake in this item as well, because he bought property on Newfound Harbor Drive about a mile south of this property; if he thought it would affect his property, he would not agree with it; but that is not going to happen because with the buffer, 15-foot setback from Newfound Harbor, landscaping, and no loudspeakers within 270 feet of Mr. Hennig's property line, there should be no problem with car storage, and he will move to approve it.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve MUD expansion and BU-1 for Item 11, with 15-foot landscaped buffer, berm located 50 feet from Mr. Hennig's property line, 50-foot buffer that would be dedicated as a perpetual conservation easement contingent upon FDOT's 30-foot strip of property being purchased, no loudspeakers within 270 feet of Mr. Hennig's property, lighting to not reflect on Newfound Harbor Drive and specifically on Mr. Hennig's property, and a binding development plan to be reviewed by staff.

Commissioner Voltz inquired about a temporary use easement to cross the 30 feet onto the subject property; with Mr. Beals responding they will move expeditiously to even temporarily make the properties contiguous which is in their best interest because they do not want to go to Kessler Drive to access the property. Commissioner Voltz inquired if FDOT would move quicker on a temporary use agreement until the purchase is negotiated; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the reality is when no one is looking they are going to drive the cars across the FDOT property anyhow. Commissioner Voltz stated the proposed use is better than condos; the Board constantly tries to downzone and reduce traffic and congestion on the roads; so this is consistent with past policies. She stated the letter from John Daignault has less validity than other testimony because he voted against the request and is a friend of Mr. Hennig; and while it is not illegal to do that, she would question that action.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if new vehicles will be parked on the property all the time, and is the intent to keep it lit at all times; with Mr. Beals responding for security purposes there will be lighting, but the lighting will be shielded. He stated they will work with staff to ensure the language in the BDP will protect residents east and south of the property from being distracted by the lighting. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the intensity of lighting is any different for an apartment complex than for minimal security of a parking lot; with Ms. Sobrino responding she would not be able to address that question. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca asked Mel Scott to describe the performance standards for lighting and if there would be a difference between BU-1 and residential; with Mr. Scott responding the applicant will provide a lighting plan and will be required to adhere to strict performance standards to contain the lighting at their property line; and there will be foot candle measurements that they will have to demonstrate at the site plan process. Ms. Busacca inquired if there is any difference for commercial and multifamily; with Mr. Scott responding it applies only to commercial and industrial uses. Mr. Scott stated theoretically the County could have a stricter performance standard and greater assurance against adverse lighting from a commercial property than a residential property; and staff does not receive lighting plans for residential development.

Chairman Higgs advised the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan talk about no commercial/ industrial development in wetlands; staff report indicates that the western part of the property is wetlands; and inquired how could commercial land use be put on that part of the property and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Scott stated the Board can potentially grant approval of a site in the entire MUD, but that does not guarantee they will be able to use commercial in the wetland footprint. Chairman Higgs stated she thought the changes made to the Comprehensive Plan talked about not putting new commercial/industrial in wetlands; with Mr. Scott responding that is correct; and there is a new Future Land Use Policy which prohibits that. Chairman Higgs stated if they were to get a different land use such as conservation, that could be put on the wetlands portion, and another appropriate land use could be put on the other portion. Commissioner Carlson stated there is also aquifer recharge and other environmental issues that have to be delineated. Chairman Higgs stated she thought the Comprehensive Plan said no new future land use of commercial/industrial in wetlands; so they would have to go back and do additional work to see if they can take care of those issues.

Commissioner Scarborough advised paragraph 3 indicates that 50 feet north of the south property line is being removed from the BU-1 application and will remain RU-2-15, and if successful with the acquisition of the FDOT property, that 50 feet will become a conservation easement; however, that 50 feet as RU-2-15 would be rendered useless anyhow. Mr. Beals stated that was Mr. Hennig's request. Ms. Sobrino stated the RU-2-15 requires a minimum 75-foot lot width. Commissioner O'Brien advised staff said if the 50-foot strip is zoned RU-2-15, a conservation easement cannot be put there because of the County's rules; but if it is zoned to the adjacent property line, then the conservation easement can be put in which is the opposite of what he thought it would be. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the project was intruding but was internalized and buffered, he could look favorably at it; and since the property is contiguous to the business, he would like to see it totally internalized and buffered all the way around. He stated the Board should not bring the MUD that deep and have an entrance into a SR 520-type activity as opposed to a 7-11 Store; so at this point he is not able to support the motion.

Chairman Higgs requested staff answer the question about the wetlands. Mr. Scott stated there are two considerations; there is consideration of whether or not the Board would apply the mixed use future land use designation to a property that contains wetlands; Objective 4 of the Future Land Use Element guides that debate and states, "Brevard County shall direct new commercial land use designations to areas which are determined to be appropriate based on suitability analysis, character of the area, compatibility with surrounding land uses, public facilities, etc. These uses shall be directed to sites where there are sufficient uplands for the intended use and for all other measures to ensure wetland function." Mr. Scott stated it is possible for the Board to still consider assigning the MUD future land use designation to properties that contain wetlands; and at site plan staff could go to the Conservation Element Policy 5.2, which states that commercial and industrial development activities shall be prohibited in wetlands. He stated as long as the applicant understands that he needs sufficient uplands when he applies for future land use designation, he can potentially move forward; but he also has to understand at site planning the commercial footprint is not able to go into the wetlands. Mr. Beals stated Mr. Leichtenberg advised him there are no wetlands on the property. Chairman Higgs stated it looks really wet and staff report does indicate that; however, they have not done a thorough analysis, and that is an issue which will be debated. She stated the report says, "It is estimated the western portion of the property contains submerged marsh wetland areas."

Ms. Bentley advised the BDP says, "The only uses to be made pursuant to zoning classification BU-1 will be as set forth in the Code, Section 62-1482.1.b. relating to automobiles"; it also says, "The primary use of the entire parcel will be for parking and storage of vehicles. Secondary uses are limited to those set forth above. Those uses are automobile hire, automobile parts if confined within a structure, automobile tires and mufflers sales and service, automobile washing, minor automobile repairs. . ." and a long list of repairs. She stated clarification is needed on what they consider primary use, as she can foresee some enforcement problems.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is not support for approval of this item this evening, so it is best to table it to resolve the questions.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item 11 until August 3, 2000 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 7:43 p.m., and reconvened at 8:01 p.m.

Item 12. (Z0005202) Richard J. and Marcia W. O'Halloran's request for change from BU-1-A with BCP and BU-1 to RU-2-12 with removal of the BCP, and a CUP for independent living facility on 3.95 acres located on the west side of North Courtenay Parkway, south of Skyline Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Attorney Van Catterton, representing the applicants, advised his clients own two contiguous parcels which are the subject of this application and have 3.95 acres they are applying to downzone from their business classifications to multifamily RU-2-12 to build and operate an independent living facility (ILF) for persons 55 years and older. He stated the Comprehensive Plan calls for a mixed use designation for the area so the proposed use is consistent with the Plan; maximum density in the Comprehensive Plan is 30 units per acre; the ILF Ordinance uses the multiplier for density of one and a half units for every unit for ILF's; and that would be over 200 units for the two parcels. He stated his client is proposing a 93-unit apartment complex; a need has been shown for that type of facility; and it will permit independent elderly persons who may require special accommodations but not the level of care provide by an ACLF or long-term nursing care facility to find housing and retain their independence. Mr. Catterton advised the facility will provide all the services required by the Ordinance; transportation for residents will be scheduled twice weekly to shops and medical facilities; meal service will be provided for residents twice daily; linen and housekeeping service will be provided at least weekly; and there will be 24-hour onsite management. He stated he does some guardianship and for every person he sees who requires long-term care, he sees at least one or two do not require long-term care or ACLF but something more like their private homes. He noted it is not available to the extent it needs to be in Brevard County; this facility will help to address that problem; staff is satisfied that the project meets all the requirements of the Ordinance; and the P&Z Board unanimously recommended approval. He urged the Board to give it positive consideration; and introduced Leigh Stewart, Engineer for the project.

Civil Engineer Leigh Stewart advised since they made application to the P&Z Board, they met with homeowners to the north, which is Island Village Condominium, and to the south and west, which is Carlton Groves; Island Village had no objections; and there is a letter in the record to that effect. She stated approximately six homeowners attended the meeting with Carlton Groves; their primary concern seemed to be the proximity of the structure to their property line which was 12 feet; and after that meeting, they revised the site plan and increased the setback to 40 feet. She stated they decreased the number of units from 98 to 93, decreased the amount of parking along the south property line to further reduce impacts to Carlton Groves; and complemented a six-foot high fence along the south and west property lines with a vegetative buffer of sufficient height to screen the facility from adjacent properties. She stated the building height shall not exceed 35 feet which is the maximum for RU-2-12 zoning; traffic will be reduced by approximately 60% over the existing use that is allowed; and they changed the original application to include a number of two-bedroom units in response to research that indicated two bedrooms were desired in that type of facility.

Barbara Whitley advised there is a need for independent living facilities; there is something called Medicaid waiver; so if a person needs to go into an ALF and does not have the money, Medicaid will pick up the cost between what the social security is and the ALF cost; but if people can live in an independent living facility early enough, they would not have to go into a facility that is costing the taxpayers and would have a better ability to age them in place which is cost effective. She stated she is on the board of Trinity Towers which is a 505 family, three building high-rise in Melbourne; anyone going by the facility will see cars parked because most of the people do not use their cars and use the transportation offered to them; there are City bus service, church buses that come by, and their vans that take people where they need to go; so those people do not want to drive if they have reliable transportation to take them places. She noted after awhile they are encouraged to sell their cars.

Mr. Catterton requested Ms. Whitley provide her credentials for the record.

Ms. Whitley advised she started as a supervisor for Brevard County in Social Services in 1972; she worked with the elderly and helped with a nursing home program that the Board set up to pay for nursing home drugs because Medicaid did not pay for those drugs at the time; and after that she was Director of Hospice for 12 years. She stated since 1989, she has been in business for herself; is a licensed clinical social worker, has a Masters Degree in education, and is a certified geriatric care manager.

Attorney Robert Beals, representing Courtenay Land Trust and David Hawks, stated they own the property to the north which is occupied by Coastal Bank; the site plan presented tonight is different than the site plan presented to the P&Z Board; specifically the traffic pattern was changed; and since they moved the ingress, it traverses their property over a legal easement, but the impact has not been determined because the drive-through for the bank has a stop sign and will come directly at incoming traffic proposed through that easement. He stated there is a real safety issue; and requested the Board table the item until they have a chance for an expert to analyze the dangers that configuration will pose to the bank customers. Mr. Beals explained the site plan, depicting ingress and egress, the easement, existing bank site, stop sign, and drive-throughs.

Mr. Catterton gave the Board a copy of the easement entered into by the property owners about twelve years ago; BCO, Inc. owned the property to the south and SunTrust owned the property to the north; and the easement provides a reciprocal ingress/egress for the owners of those two parcels. He stated the easement was in the public records when the current bank bought the property; the title search would have determined that; and it is frustrating to hear the bank complain now about his clients exercise of a right that was granted by the bank's predecessors over ten years ago. He stated the engineer addressed that because a side-by-side entrance for the bank and the parcel would most likely be rejected by DOT, so it was revised to show the ingress above the median and egress on the south side of the median. Mr. Catterton stated his clients and their engineer originally planned to put the entranceway on the south side of the parcel near Carlton Groves, but when they met with Carlton Groves homeowners a request was made to move the entrance to the north side of the parcel; and not having any reason to believe the easement agreement was less enforceable today than it was 12 years ago, they made that change to accommodate Carlton Groves. He stated as to traffic hazards, the project downzones from business to residential and reduces the density for the ILF; the Ordinance states facilities of this nature will reduce impact, and came up with half unit for every unit density calculation; so the traffic impact will be significantly reduced by this project from what it would be if the applicant built on it as currently zoned.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there is a legal problem between the bank and the property owners, so he will move to table the item to allow them to resolve it and come back without that problem. He stated it is a legal entanglement the Board does not want to get involved in; all property owners adjacent to the property have a right to work those problems out; and that should have been done before it came to the Board and before the plan was changed.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to table Item 12 until the August 3, 2000 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Commissioner Carlson inquired why did the P&Z Board not see this plan; with Commissioner O'Brien responding there is a motion to table which ends all discussion. Mr. Catterton requested permission to speak; and Chairman Higgs advised there is a motion and second to table the item.

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

Commissioner Scarborough recommended Ms. Bentley analyze the joint easement and look at traffic patterns as part of it with Mr. Dick Thompson.

Item 13. (Z0005301) Wallace W. and Ruby Z. Kramer's request for change from RU-1-7 to BU-1 on 0.25 acre located on the east side of U.S. 1, directly north of Rose Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 13 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. (Z0005302) Leonard D. and Desiree A. Hearndon's request for change from PUD with CUP for water treatment plant to AU with removal of CUP on 8.9 acres located south of Senne Road and west of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 14 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 15. (Z0005401) Jasper A. and Hazel M. Smith's request for change from RR-1 to AU on 1.259 acres located east of Marywood Road, north of Carolwood Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Carlos Schillinger inquired what kind of business can be on the property; with Planner Robin Sobrino responding packing and processing of commodities, farm animals, foul, beekeeping, plant nursery, and landscaping business with conditions.

Jasper Smith advised he owns four acres, and the 1.25 acres is landlocked and would be attached to the four acres, but no commercial use is planned. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Smith has animals; with Mr. Smith responding dogs and cats. Mr. Smith stated he has two letters from people who live by the property; he does not plan to have horses; and presented a handout to the Board.

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

Item 16. (Z0005402) Marjorie A. Beling and Ruth A. Doerr's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 3.34 acres located on the west side of Turtlemound Road, north of Lakebreeze Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 17. (Z0005403) Pineda Partners, LLC's request for amendment to existing BDP in RU-1-7 zoning classification to provide for the possibility of a linear park within the vegetative buffer located in the south 100 feet of the property located on the west side of Wickham Road and extending to the west and south approximately three square miles, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Carlson advised there was to be wetland conservation easement language as part of the binding development plan, but she does not see that. She stated there is a public easement with the County's ability to potentially put in a linear park system if the community is interested in that, which keeps the door open; and inquired how would that be incorporated. She stated there is verbal agreement with St. Johns River Water Management District, but no written agreement.

Roy Pence, representing the applicant, advised the conservation easement language is provided for in the St. Johns River Water Management District permit; and the easement has not been recorded yet, but it is part of the deed restrictions which have been approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Pence has a letter stating the easement or language was accepted by the St. Johns River Water Management District; with Mr. Pence responding the permit itself approves the deed restrictions which incorporate the conservation easement.

Commissioner Carlson stated #6 of the BDP says, "This walkway will be the responsibility of Brevard County to permit, construct, and maintain"; and inquired what portion of it is the County's responsibility to permit or is it included in the permitting process by the St. Johns River Water Management District for the development; with Mr. Pence responding the applicable portion of the conservation easement that relates to the issue states, "A public easement dedicated to Brevard County allowing for the placement of a meandering 14-foot wide pedestrian walkway; provided, however, that the walkway shall be elevated on pilings without the use of fill while traversing existing or manmade wetlands. Permitting of this walkway shall be coordinated with St. Johns River Water Management District in addition to all other agencies having jurisdiction over such activities." He noted that is the same language he provided earlier. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the County decides to construct the walkway, would it have to get a permit from St. Johns River Water Management District; with Mr. Pence responding their permit contemplates doing that. Ms. Bentley stated if the developer gets his permit, records the deed restrictions, and actually grant an easement in favor of Brevard County that would be fine, but right now the Board does not have that. Mr. Pence stated he has a permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District that includes the conservation easement; with Ms. Bentley responding that is right, but the Board has nothing in hand for a pedestrian walkway even though it has a commitment. Commissioner Carlson inquired how would the easement need to be recorded in order to prevent roadblocks; with Ms. Bentley responding Mr. Pence needs to give the Board an easement in favor of Brevard County. Mr. Pence stated that is the second step; the first step was to see if they could amend the BDP to accommodate that; and if they could not because of neighbors' concerns, then it would not make sense to grant the easement. Ms. Bentley advised the Board could make the BDP contingent upon an easement being provided within a certain time, or it can make the BDP and easement agreement as one document, which would be the efficient way to do it. Mr. Pence stated he has never seen an easement in a BDP; with Ms. Bentley responding it can be done; it is a flexible process; but if Mr. Pence has a problem with not having a surveyed legal description or not knowing exactly where he wants it, that would be a significant problem because the easement has to have a legal description. Commissioner Carlson stated the easement is 100 feet wide with 14 feet meandering for the walkway; and inquired if that is significant enough; with Ms. Bentley responding if the developer would give the County a blanket easement for the walkway over that Area, yes, it would be sufficient. Mr. Pence stated it would be not to exceed 14 feet in width; and inquired what the Board wants him to do. Commissioner Carlson presented a letter from Windover Farms of Melbourne noting out of 740 property owners there was only one objection.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 17 as recommended by the P&Z Board, with the conservation easement being part of the binding development plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 18. (Z0005404) Erick J. Rosenholm Jr., Lynn P. Rosenholm, and Neal Rosenholm's request for change from TR-1 to BU-1 on 0.95 acre located on the northwest corner of Roberts Road and U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 19. (Z0005405) Removed from the Agenda.

Item 20. (Z0005501) Felicia Bonner, Cynthia Termine Smith, and Jodi Ann Termine's request for change from RR-1 to AU on 4.99 acres located on the south side of Aurora Road, west of Anson Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 20 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS OF MAY 8, 2000

Chairman Higgs called for the public hearing to consider the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board's recommendations of May 8, 2000 on administrative rezonings as follows, then passed the gavel to Vice Chairman O'Brien:

Item 1. Subdivision #50, Lot 28, located on the west side of U.S. 1 and south of Valkaria Road, owned by Terry J. and Catherine A. Dickerson, and Parcel 505 located on the west side of U.S. 1 north of First Street, owned by Victoria F. Ludwig, from RU-1-9 to RU-1-11, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 2. Subdivision #50, Lot 30, located on the west side of U.S. 1, south of Valkaria Road, owned by CITA, Inc., from RU-2-10(6) to RU-2-4, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 3. Subdivision #50, Lot 31, located on the west side of U.S. 1, south of Valkaria Road, owned by James P. Sommers and Meredith H. Messmer; Parcel 19 owned by James P. Sommers and Meredith H. Messmer, and Parcels 7 and 10 owned by William Brownrigg, III, Trust, from BU-1 to BU-1-A, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 4. Parcel 277 located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway, south of Valkaria Road, owned by Pence South Brevard Sewer & Septic Tanks, Inc., from GU to IU which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 5. Parcel 505 located on the west side of U.S. 1 north of First Street, owned by William A. and Cassandra D. Moore, from TU-1(15) to TU-1(10), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 6. Parcel 274 located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway, south of Valkaria Road, owned by Audrey Y. Shackelford, Anita Shackelford, et al, and Parcel 510, located west of Old Dixie Highway and south of Valkaria Road, owned by Bruce W. Graham and Craig R. Graham, from GU to IU, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Attorney David Dyer representing Mr. Graham, stated they are in favor of the rezoning.

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

Item 7. Parcels 250 and 251, located on the south side of Valkaria Road, east of Babcock Street, owned by Brevard County, from BU-1 to GML-P, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 8. (Z0004103) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on its own motion, authorized administrative rezoning of 21.94 acres owned by Crown-Simplimatic, Inc. c/o Key Equity Capital Corp., from BU-1 and IU to PIP located on the northwest corner of U.S. 1 and Sunset Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Vice Chairman O'Brien returned the gavel to Chairman Higgs.

Item 9. (Z0004501) Brevard County Board of County Commissioners on its own motion authorized administrative rezoning of 238.957 acres owned by Roy Wayne Yates, located adjacent to the west side of Babcock Street, south of Deer Run Subdivision, from PUD to AGR, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Jack Little, resident of Deer Run Subdivision, stated he was advised that there is wastewater dumping on the property; he did an investigation to find out what restrictions Brevard County or the State of Florida puts on that dumping; and he found that Brevard County does not regulate it. He stated the wastewater is coming from a Vero Beach plant; the City of Vero Beach approved the permit to dump on that site; and Deer Run residents are very concerned because it smells and is disgusting. He stated they say it is treated; treated means wastewater that has been made less toxic and less pathogenic; Osceola, Orange and Volusia Counties regulate wastewater dumping; there are 17 sites approved by the State in Brevard County that are not regulated; and people from outside of the County are bringing in their wastewater to dump in this County. Mr. Little advised he understands Mr. Yates is trying to get AU because the PUD expired; that land is wetland; and there are restrictions the State imposes on dumping in wetlands. He stated Osceola County's regulations say, "The application and disposal of domestic wastewater residue, septage and sludges in unincorporated Osceola County is hereby declared to be a serious concern to the public health, safety and welfare because they may contain pathogenic organisms and toxins." He stated he is not a scientist and does not know what it means, but it sounds serious; it needs to be reviewed before anything is approved to rezone the property and hinder any opportunity to say how it will be handled; it needs more attention before it moves forward; and he has documents he would be glad to share with the County regarding wastewater dumping.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Little commented there are wetlands on the property; and inquired if that was his decision; with Mr. Little responding that is what he noticed when he was there at the property. Commissioner O'Brien stated unfortunately, a lot of people come before the Board and their best defense is a great offense by saying there are wetlands on properties; sometimes there are no wetlands at all; and to use the word "wetland" to stop something from occurring is bad. Mr. Little stated he did not mean to mislead anyone, but just shared his opinion.

Commissioner Carlson advised Indian River County has one public hearing regarding dumping of wastewater, and Brevard County does not; she asked why Indian River County does not dump in its own area, and was told because they have some place else they can dump it; and that is something the Board needs to address whether it is toxic or not.

Commissioner Voltz advised the rezoning has nothing to do with the dumping, but it is something the Board needs to address because there are quite a number of sites in Brevard County. She stated she has a meeting next week with the Homeowners Association to discuss this issue; it is not toxic waste and is 3% solids which is like reuse water used to water medians of roads; however, at times it smells, and next to a residential neighborhood could be a problem. She recommended staff bring back language to the Board to look at regulating dumping of wastewater, and to review other counties that are doing it. Commissioner Carlson stated staff should find out why other counties are regulating it and Brevard County does not; and if it had a public hearing on it, that may be all that is needed. Mr. Little stated Osceola County has a lot of regulations; and it regulates the trucks, posting of signs, 14 days notice, sealing off, etc. Chairman Higgs asked Mr. Little to give the documents to staff for research.

Commissioner Scarborough advised Titusville has been putting dry sludge in an area north of town in the County; and staff had assurances from the State that it is not a health problem, but it stinks. He stated the Board talked about noise and odor during discussion on performance standards; and nothing can be more offensive than living next to something that constantly stinks. Commissioner Voltz stated the river stinks. Commissioner Scarborough stated if a person decides to live by the river where seagrasses wash up and rot, that is a personal election; but if a person buys a home and someone decides to dump that stuff next to his home, it is a different matter.

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

*County Attorney Scott Knox's presence was noted at this time.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the rezoning grants the owners any rights since the County does not regulate wastewater dumping; with Mr. Knox responding the zoning will not do that. Commissioner Scarborough stated they would not have vested rights and the County could subsequently regulate it; with Mr. Knox responding the Board can regulate it.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated she knew this issue would come up and sent copies of Ordinances from Osceola, Orange and Volusia Counties to the Commissioners a few days ago. She stated she spoke to Mr. Little on the odor issue; Code Enforcement will be going out there to do an investigation; the County has performance standards and staff is moving forward on that; and if there are any other areas the Commissioners want to investigate, Code Enforcement can go out to those areas.

Discussion ensued on what the State regulates and dredging by F.I.N.D.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to research dumping of wastewater, look at what other counties are doing to regulate it, and bring back a report and language to the Board for further consideration. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs instructed Ms. Busacca to give Mr. Little an idea of when it will come back to the Board and send him a copy of the report. Ms. Busacca stated it would probably be in August as July will be a busy month; however, the report should be completed in June.

Commissioner Voltz requested Ms. Busacca attend the meeting with the Homeowners Association next week to get their input.

DISCUSSION, RE: TEMPORARY LOCATION OF VALKARIA/GRANT FIRE STATION

Chief Bill Farmer advised they have been trying to find a permanent location for the Valkaria/Grant Fire Station; and rather than delay services, they are requesting an interim site on Valkaria Airport at the Mosquito Control Complex. Chairman Higgs requested an explanation of why staff is recommending the Mosquito Control site rather than the FBO site. Chief Farmer advised they looked at all possible options and options that would provide the quickest site location; for those reasons they looked at the FBO and the Mosquito Control site; at that time the FBO site offered a quicker and less expensive set up for the operation compared to the Mosquito Control site; but that is no longer accurate. He stated at the Mosquito Control site, they could set up in 60 to 75 days; whereas, the FBO site would require an additional 30 days. He stated there is a $4,000 difference in cost for the Mosquito Control site; however, the reason why the FBO site is less expensive is because of the electrical gate they would not need, but they would have to run a dual operation and allow the airport manager and possibly the pilots access to the single-wide trailer. He stated a single-wide trailer is cramped for the crews, and it would reduce their operational space even greater; additionally they would be on the trafficking line, which means the aircraft will taxi in and either tie up at that location or continue approximately 15 to 20 feet pass the trailer, fuel, and take off again; and for those two reasons staff recommended the Mosquito Control complex.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the MSTU funding is from the Valkaria/Grant area; with Chief Farmer responding it is a countywide MSTU, so it will impact the entire MSTU budget. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how much funding is generated from the Valkaria/Grant area for the fire station; with Chief Farmer responding they do not look at a single area for funding and look at the entire system because they back each other up. He stated Valkaria/Grant station will back up Micco and West Melbourne; and a great example of that was yesterday when they mobilized units all the way from Titusville and Mims to fight the fires in the Palm Bay/Grant location. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is there no fire station in Snug Harbor south of Cocoa Beach. He stated every year he has been told it is because funding from that tax base cannot afford to pay for a fire station. Chief Farmer stated it is not that; and they are trying to work on an auto-aid agreement with Cocoa Beach which would be less of a fiscal impact than placing a station there where the call volume does not warrant a full-time station. Commissioner O'Brien stated staff has tried for six years to work with Cocoa Beach and has not succeeded; with Chief Farmer responding with the present management of Cocoa Beach Fire Department, and the commitments he has seen so far from them, while he cannot assure it will happen, he has a lot more hope than he had in the past. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the population of Valkaria is more or less than Snug Harbor; with Chief Farmer responding the greater issue is that they only have two career fire fighters 24 hours a day, 7 days a week south of Malabar; the next two career fire fighters/medic personnel are located at Station 86 in Barefoot Bay; so while he is not sure of the comparison of population, the call volume and response times to answer 911 calls are greater in the Valkaria area. Commissioner Voltz stated the fire potential is greater also because there is a lot of brush in Valkaria. Chief Farmer stated it may be for wild fires, but he is not sure the structural commercial would be greater. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not getting a direct answer to his question about the population comparison and tax base comparison; the County is making a substantial investment to go to Valkaria Airport, which he is not against, but the citizens south of Cocoa Beach and north of Patrick Air Force Base have been ill-served for years; and the solution is still not on the table. He stated the Board is discussing a solution for Valkaria while the people in Snug Harbor, who have been asking for a station for years, received an answer that there is insufficient tax base in their area to pay for fire fighters and a fire station. Chief Farmer stated there is less of a call volume in the Snug Harbor area; the Valkaria/Grant project was approved in 1999 at the same time the Scottsmoor Fire Station was approved; and they have been working on it for quite some time. Commissioner O'Brien stated that is still not an answer; he does not care when or how it was approved; his concern is having fire fighting and EMT personnel for property south of Cocoa Beach; the answer has always been insufficient tax base to pay for it; but the Board is going to another area that has the same insufficient tax base to put a fire station; and that is unequal service.

Chairman Higgs requested staff do a thorough analysis and report on the Snug Harbor issue and bring it back to the Board for discussion. Commissioner O'Brien stated that will be fine because the Board needs to address that situation and make it fair for all citizens.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize temporary location of a fire station for the Valkaria/Grant area at the Valkaria Airport Mosquito Control Complex.

Arthur Levine, President of Valkaria Aviation Association, presented a handout to the Board; and stated before he makes his remarks, he will make a presentation that the Board will not hear from the Homeowners Association members. "Good evening Commissioners. I'm a resident of Valkaria/Grant. I live on a three-acre parcel with my family and all what little I've been able to acquire through a life of hard work. My lot is heavily treed and in a mostly natural state. Right now I'm as at risk as anyone in this area to losing my home to wild fire. In addition, I'm charged a premium for my homeowners insurance because I live too far from a fire station. I'm here to tell you in no uncertain terms that I do not care where you put a fire station. I want the benefits of a fire station, and I want them now. Nothing else matters to me. Now I find out this fire station was originally supposed to be up and running the first of this year, but delays were caused because someone did not like the location. I want to know who inspired the delay, if their reasons had merit, and who in a position of responsibility allowed that delay to go forward if the reasons proved to have been bogus. Thank you for your time." Mr. Levine stated the Valkaria Aviation Association has always supported the use of airport property for the benefit of the surrounding community and has done nothing to slow the installation of a fire station; and the only decision they would be unhappy about is a decision to delay a decision. He requested the Board get the fire station up and running as soon as possible; stated delays were inspired when the leadership of the Valkaria Homeowners Association objected to the placement of the fire station on the airport property; and much time and effort has been expended trying to find a location off airport property. He stated the reasons voiced were and remain without merit; the motivation was simply to deny any benefit, real or imagined, to Valkaria Airport; however, the responsibility for delay rests with the entity that has the power and responsibility to see the objections for what they are and not allow them to take root. Mr. Levine stated they could not find a suitable site off the Airport property for the fire station; there are two locations on the Airport with utilities and septic systems in place; and the Association contends the best choice on all counts is the location of the former FBO site. He stated they want the fire station on the ramp to provide a 24-hour presence as an enhancement to security; an $80,000 plus aircraft was recently stolen off the ramp; and if fire fighters had been on duty 25 yards away, it would have given the thieves something to think about. He stated they also see it as an opportunity to get rid of an old ugly trailer that has been virtually unused since Cannon Aviation left; it is an eyesore; so as the host for their guest, they have a preference for where the Board should set up shop on their property. He gave a scenario of helping out an unfortunate friend, taking him into his home, selecting a seat at the table, and providing food that the guest rejects, so that friend is considered rude and unappreciative; and stated to place a fire station, without just cause, at a place that the host of the Airport does not prefer, is being rude and unappreciative.

Robert Varley stated a fire station will improve the quality of life and safety of the people in Grant/Valkaria area; he lives 12 miles from the nearest County EMT services; and that is too far for the amount of taxes he pays to Brevard County. He stated he disagrees with Mr. Irvine that the Aviation Association is the host for the Airport; it is not the host, the Board is the host; and although he opposes the fire station at the Airport, given the urgency, he is willing to agree to a temporary facility as soon as possible at the Mosquito Control location. He stated the FBO site would escalate liability involved with operating EMT and fire vehicles in the same area that aircraft will come in and out of primarily for fueling; and it will degrade the public safety by using additional time to be cautious while getting out of the area to avoid aircraft. Mr. Varley stated the fact that the aviation lobby is here today supports some of their fears of how the Association could use this situation to benefit the advancement of uses at the Airport that in general have been opposed to by the residents; but the Board needs to accelerate the decision and get the facility in and operational. He mentioned delays trying to acquire property together with the Bueller acquisition that fell through; stated there is property available, but insufficient funds; they could locate on government property if it is in the right location; and they are looking for uniform response time across that area that does not penalize one extreme for the other. He requested the temporary station be put at the Mosquito Control complex and the Board approve funding for a permanent facility.

Curt Lorenc presented pictures to the Board; stated Mr. Irvine tried to blame the Valkaria homeowners for holding up the project, but supplied no facts, figures, or documents; so what he said is not credible. He stated there were many efforts going on, but Chief Farmer did not have enough money to buy the property; and requested the Board address that issue this evening. He stated 670 acres burned in the area so there is a need for a fire station; there are two facility sites, the Mosquito Control and the FBO sites; and explained the pictures he presented earlier of those sites. He stated the Mosquito Control site is fairly large, well paved, and fenced; it is well suited for a temporary fire station; and it is quieter than the FBO facility, so fire fighters can rest. He stated there is a liability of putting aircraft and fire trucks in the FBO area; and the safer location is the Mosquito Control complex. He mentioned Lynn Walters behavior with throwing nails; and stated behavior like that from some pilots runs the risk of them saying the fire truck damaged their aircraft. Mr. Lorenc stated he met with Messrs. Parker and Farmer and discussed the two sites; they assured him it would be temporary; they will try to purchase property by November for the permanent site; and suggested they report to the County Manager once a month on the status of the purchase. He noted staff is looking at a one-year time frame to be in the permanent facility; and requested the Board approve the temporary fire station at the Mosquito Control site, look for land funds, and have staff check back once a month.

Commissioner O'Brien amended the motion to include authorization for Chief Farmer or his designee to continue stronger negotiations with the City of Cocoa Beach for response to the Snug Harbor area, place it on the agenda bi-monthly to update the Board on the status of negotiations, and return in six months with positive results. He stated he is not concerned about a 670-acre fire, and is more concerned about a fire that burned a house to the ground in Snug Harbor because the response time was more than 8 to 12 minutes. Chairman Higgs accepted the amendment to the motion.

Chairman Higgs advised staff has concerns about completing the acquisition in six months; her commitment is to have permanent arrangements in six months; and her goal is to get that done as quickly as possible and have the contract back to the Board in six months. She stated they tried to combine a project with Surface Water Management, EEL's and Public Safety, but it did not work; so if there was a delay, she will take responsibility for it. Commissioner O'Brien stated there is a permanent fire station at Merritt Island Airport that services a large area, so staff may want to look at putting a permanent fire station at Valkaria Airport.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there will be bi-monthly agenda reports about Snug Harbor and Valkaria/Grant fire stations; and at the end of six months, there should be positive results on both those issues.

Commissioners Carlson, Higgs, Voltz and O'Brien expressed appreciation to Chief Farmer and all the fire fighters who are doing a great job on fire control. Chief Farmer stated the response to the fire in Grant/Palm Bay was phenomenal; the logistics section and support from cities to have 20 engines and more than 20 brush trucks down there in less than an hour was an absolute show that they learned a lot from the 1998 fires; and that speaks well for the Division of Forestry as well. He stated if they do not get rain shortly, there are going to be problems; and they are actually in a worse case now than they were in 1998.

APPROVAL, RE: ALTERED AND ADDED PRECINCT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the reason the Board is considering the issue is because it is required by law to approve any amendment to precincts that are suggested by the Supervisor of Elections; the issue the Board asked him to look into was whether there was an impact that would implicate the Civil Rights Act or any Constitutional issues; and as far as the precinct issue is concerned, there is no issue of that type. He stated the School Board redrafted its district boundaries subsequent to the Charter amendment last year; in doing so, it went through various existing precincts and chopped them in pieces in a few locations; Mr. Galey provided a summary to the Board of where that happened; and in some areas of Melbourne there were districts that were cut out where the demographics of the district changed, such as Precinct 26 where there are predominantly black voters changed to a majority of white voters in the new precinct. He stated that does not have implications as far as the precinct itself is concerned; however, he did not look at the issue of district boundaries because that is an issue beyond what the Board has to concern itself with; however, its concern is the approval of precincts. He stated it is his conclusion there is no issue of legal status that would stop the Board from approving the precincts as changed; however, once the precincts are changed because of the action by the School Board, it carries forward to the next time the Board has to redistrict and also the Legislative redistricting because precincts will be changed when it comes time for the Board to do that. He stated it will be a big challenge for everybody to coordinate the redistricting at the School Board level, Legislative level, and County Commission level.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is anything statutorily that would require the School Board to comply with the County Commission boundaries; with Mr. Knox responding no.

Commissioner Voltz stated in the spirit of cooperation and making sure taxpayers' monies are saved and everyone knows where they are going to vote, the Board should work with the School Board on having the same boundary lines; it is confusing to be in Commission District 5 and School Board District 3; and it is ridiculous to put residents through that. Chairman Higgs stated the School Board made the decision to move forward with the 1998 data; the Board has to do its redistricting by the Charter next year; and it will not only have to look at population in the Census, but also where the new districts and precincts are.

Mr. Knox stated the Board does not have to look at the School Board districts so much, but it has to look at its precincts because that will determine where and how they are elected. Commissioner Carlson inquired if redistricting is based on population; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the School Board has to divide the number of schools per district; with Mr. Knox responding he thinks its requirement is population based also. Commissioner Voltz stated if the School Board and Board of County Commissioners criteria are based on population, there is no reason why they have to be different district boundaries.

Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey advised it would be his hope that the Board of County Commissioners and School Board districts could be the same; it would make his job much easier because of what he has to do to comply with the law and get people in precincts they can vote in; and there would be less precincts, less mailing required, and less cost. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is a financial number that can be put on the difference; with Mr. Galey responding this particular change by the School Board will cost about $200,000; they have to mail out new voter ID cards to 280,000 voters at a cost of about $85,000; 14 additional precincts at $2,000 a precinct times 3 elections is about $84,000; and that could lead to more voting booths and tabulation equipment, which can get to $200,000 quickly. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the School Board had to redistrict; with Mr. Galey responding no, and he asked that Board to wait until after the census came out, but it wanted to do it. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the School Board had to redo the districts because of the single-member districts; with Mr. Galey responding it adjusted the population which caused the problem, then it redrew the district lines which went through Precinct 26, took part of Precinct 145 and put it in District 3. Commissioner Voltz stated it sounds like gerrymandering. Mr. Galey described in detail the School Board district boundaries which affected Precincts 30 and 103; and advised of having to redistrict for House Districts 29, 30, 31 and 32 and Senate Districts. He stated School Board Districts 1, 2 and 3 have 53,000 to 54,000 registered voters; District 4 has 60,000 registered voters; and District 5 has 47,000; and the traffic analysis zone balance may have been a little different, but he has to go by registered voters.

Chairman Higgs advised people are concerned about the divisions of School Board Districts 2 and 4 and 3 and 5 in predominantly minority areas; and inquired if Mr. Galey can explain that. Mr. Galey advised there are very small changes in District 2; the biggest change is Precinct 26 because it was split in half; and after reviewing it, he may have two precincts vote at Lipscomb instead of putting one at Front Street because he did not realize how many people had to walk to the precincts in that area. He stated it will be less than adequate and crowded, but they can do that for a few years until they get all the districts redrawn.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if dividing the precinct into two districts breaks down the strength of the vote in that area; with Mr. Galey responding only in relationship to the School Board. Commissioner Voltz stated it will not matter what physical facility they vote in, the power of the vote has been split, and that is wrong. Mr. Galey stated he concurs with that, but the School Board did it; and he objected, but has no control over redistricting.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what will happen if the Board does not approve the precinct boundaries; with Mr. Galey responding as a matter of courtesy, the boards throughout the State always approved the precinct boundaries recommended by the supervisors of elections; if it is not approved, he may have to call them Precinct 26 and Precinct 26A; and unless the School Board redraws its lines, he has no choice but to have two different ballot styles at one location.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board is paying the bill; so when the census comes out and the Board redistricts, it should communicate with the School Board to have the same lines. Mr. Galey stated statutorily there is no requirement for that, but hopefully it can be negotiated to have the same district lines.

Commissioner Voltz inquired, if the basis is population, why would the School Board's district lines be different than the County Commission District lines; with Mr. Galey responding if common sense ruled, they would be identical; and he will do what he can to help the Board and the School Board, because it is confusing to voters. He stated 30% of voters move every year; it is illegal; and he has been less than successful in getting those who vote in the wrong precincts prosecuted.

Commissioner Carlson suggested a letter to the School Board stating the Board's concerns about its redistricting, and asking them to work together when the census information comes out. Commissioner O'Brien suggested the County Attorney or his designee work with Mr. Galey and coordinate with the School Board, and advise the School Board of the real cost to the taxpayers. He noted the School Board may want to wait on the census and work with the Board on redistricting, because to do it now is inappropriate. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board could say it cannot afford $200,000 and ask the School Board to wait until 2001.

Chairman Higgs stated there are two issues--(1) precinct boundaries and how they are drawn, and (2) district boundaries.

Gertrude Montgomery requested the Board not approve the change in precincts. She stated anybody can draw up districts; during the last reapportionment, Delta Sigma Beta designed districting for Brevard County and submitted it to the Legislature; and they said it was one of the best in the State. She stated this Board and the Supervisor of Elections are the ones who alter, create, or delete precincts; the School Board can design its own districts, but it cannot design precincts; and that is what has happened. She stated it is ridiculous that people directly across the street from a polling place have to go to Monroe, U.S. 1, New Haven and to Front Street; most of those people are in the projects, so it presents a problem; and the Board should preserve the municipalities geographically and the cohesive racial or ethnic minority communities from fragmentation. She stated it is not only Precinct 26, but also Precincts 17, 55 and a few others. She stated she does not know if it was intentional that the School Board picked the precincts with the highest minority registration; the District cuts down the middle of the highway in Precinct 26 and goes across Babcock Street to pick up some voters in Precinct 145; that is ridiculous; and that is gerrymandering. She stated those expenses are unnecessary; she cannot see why the School Board cannot have the same districts as the County Commission; someone told her because of the number of schools; but when it redistricts, it is done by population and not buildings. She requested the Board not approve the districting of the School Board, as this Board has the power to alter or create precincts.

Julius Montgomery stated the County Attorney can tell the School Board where to go because it does not have the authority to draw precinct lines; that authority only lies with the Board of County Commissioners on a recommendation from the Supervisor of Elections; and the School Board has no right to draw any lines except school district lines. He stated the Charter is silent on that issue; the census will be completed by the end of 2000 or before; and once completed, in the first odd number year, the Board has to do it all over again. He read the law stating, "The Board of County Commissioners shall cause the County to be divided into County Commission districts of contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. Redistricting shall be the responsibility of a committee appointed in the same manner as the Charter Review Commission. The recommendation of the committee shall be made directly to the Board of County Commissioners from the Supervisor of Elections." Mr. Montgomery repeated that the School Board cannot redraw precincts; stated it is a hidden agenda that they happen to be in the black districts; one man said he would not walk to Front Street to vote; so the upcoming election is already being affected and destroyed. He inquired if it is correct that the School Board has no right to draw precinct lines; with Mr. Knox responding that is correct, but it does have the right to draw its district boundaries, and that determines where everyone votes and who they vote for, not the precinct lines. Mr. Montgomery stated it did not say that; with Mr. Knox responding Florida Statute 230.061 provides for it; he thinks they are confusing district boundaries with precinct boundaries; and district boundaries determine who will vote for what candidates, not precinct boundaries. Mr. Montgomery repeated previous statements about responsibilities; and inquired why is the School Board getting into the game; with Mr. Knox responding Precinct 26 had a portion cut out; those registered voters will vote for School Board District 3 or 5 candidates; changing the precinct boundaries one way or another does not make any difference in who they will vote for; and where the precinct is does not make any difference because that is how they will have to vote. He stated Mr. Galey has to send ballots on one side of the line to people to vote for District 3 and on the other side of the line to people to vote for District 5; the precinct line, whether it is 26, 26A, and 26B or 26 and 154 is not going to change the vote; and those people still have to vote for District 3 candidates and other people have to vote for District 5 candidates. He stated whether that is good or bad, he does not know, but that is something the Board of County Commissioners has no control over. Commissioner Voltz stated the precinct boundary line did not cause it to happen, but what caused it was the School Board drawing its district boundary lines. Mr. Montgomery again repeated the School Board had no right to drawing precinct boundary lines.

Clarence Rowe, President of the Central Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, asked the Board to disapprove the request from the School Board. He stated on December 14, 1999, according to Florida Statutes, Section 130.061, the School Board commenced its project; however, certain things have been brought to the surface in reference to cost and timing. He stated the census is just around the corner; these lines are based on population; and if they are doing anything based on population, they need to get the true figures of the districts or the different flexibility of the census numbers. He stated the current districts of the School Board are not impacted as to create a problem; what it has done creates a problem for the taxpayers in terms of cost to accommodate the School Board; but because we are all of one people, the County and School Board should work as a team to benefit all the citizens. Mr. Rowe stated it is wrong for the Scholl Board to draw its lines in such a way that it adversely impacts the black precincts; there are only about three in all of Brevard County which are strongly populated black precincts; he does not care if it is Precincts 26A and B, it still divided that strength; and the same applies to Precinct 55. He stated the black precincts are outnumbered about 20 to 1; and to dilute that little bit of political strength is insulting. He stated if they have a black candidate to run for the School Board, that precinct can have something to do with other sympathetic voters for that candidate; to dilute that strength is like a hidden agenda; and whether it is or is not, it appears that way. He strongly recommended the Board disapprove the precinct boundaries until the census count comes in; and stated there is nothing to gain from it, but a lot of financial loss and headaches for the Supervisor of Elections. Mr. Rowe suggested the County Attorney, along with the Supervisor and School Board, get together and come up with something that would make the School Board districts the same as the County Commission districts; and stated it will save money, and the population would be equitable. He stated he would like to see those lines stay whole, especially that part that deals with the County Charter that would not directly impact those ethnic groups in reference to their minor little political power; but more importantly, he requests this item be denied. He stated the School Board cannot do anything if the Board decides to deny this and comes to some team working effort that will benefit the County and the School Board.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the School Board held a public hearing on the district boundaries; with Mr. Rowe responding it did in 1999. He stated he asked its attorney, Mr. Bistline, if they did any surveys in reference to the possible adverse impact that it could have on the County; Mr. Bistline said he did not think there was any impact; he told Mr. Bistline he was not interested in what he thought and was interested in what he knew; and to understand what is happening, they have to have a scenario of evaluation of the type of impact it can have on the overall community. Commissioner O'Brien stated if they held public hearings, everyone had an opportunity to speak to the School Board; this Board is not happy with the results; but if they held public hearings and disagreed with the public, there is little, if anything, this Board can do. Mr. Rowe stated the Board has the authority to deny or approve the precinct boundaries.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Rowe's remedy may be at the School Board level. Mr. Rowe stated that may be right, but he would appreciate the Board denying the item; and if necessary, they will take legal action in reference to this issue.

Commissioner Voltz stated even if the Board does not split the precincts, the votes have already been split because of the district boundary lines; it does not matter where they vote; what the Board is considering has no effect on what was done; and that is the dilution of the power of the black community.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the County Attorney researched the legal responsibility the Board would assume by affirming this action; with Mr. Knox responding the Board has no responsibility; the School Board made its decision; and there is nothing the Board can do to undo that decision. Commissioner Scarborough stated the School Board drew the district boundaries; and this Board can say it will not restructure the precinct where someone who could walk across the street has to go to Front Street. He stated that is foolish, inconvenient, and confusing to vote for District 3 and District 5 at the same precinct; but having people walk all the way to Front Street is disenfranchising; and it is the precinct reclassification that is going to cause the movement of people which will make it harder for them to vote. Mr. Knox stated the Board has no way of knowing that; if it does not approve the precinct boundaries, Mr. Galey will have to figure out a way to get the ballot split in such a way that people on one side of the street will get to vote for one candidate and people on the other side of the street will get to vote for another candidate; and nothing the Board does in the way of approving or disapproving the precinct boundaries is going to change that. He stated Mr. Galey has to come up with the location of polling places; he has to put the people and voting machines out there in places where people can get to them; and nothing the Board does about changing the precinct boundaries is going to change that either. Mr. Galey stated he will put two precincts at Lipscomb so all they have to do is have different ballots in the same building instead of Front Street. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there was any basis for changing the precinct; with Mr. Galey responding the School Board cut it in half so he has to have different numbers on the ballot stubs. Chairman Higgs stated the School Board did not touch the precinct lines. Mr. Galey stated the district went through an existing precinct, so he has to renumber one side of the street to have the proper ballot; the School Board did not change any precinct lines, but redrew its district lines through the center of that precinct; and in effect it split the precinct.

Chairman Higgs inquired if Precincts 55 and 130 were split by the district lines; with Mr. Galey responding Precincts 55 and 167 were but he does not see 55 and 130. Chairman Higgs stated the map from 1996 shows Precinct 55 dissected by SR 520 which is the new line for the School Board districts. Mr. Galey stated Precinct 55 will be south of SR 520 and Precinct 167 will be north of SR 520; they are going to vote in the same place; but Precinct 55 will have a ballot that contains District 3 and Precinct 167 will have a ballot with District 1. He noted that is the only way he can accommodate the way the School Board drew its lines.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what would make Precinct 26 overcrowded; with Mr. Galey responding in addition to it being two precincts, Precinct 145 was split also, and 544 people will come there to vote.

Dolores Kane stated it is a done deal as far as the School Board is concerned, but it is strange that they changed it with single-member districts; the population is the same; and inquired if they changed it because of job security of one member of the School Board. She stated it was bad to dilute the black community, but nothing can be done about it; and evidently the Board of County Commissioners has no control over the School Board. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the impetus was the single-member district; with Ms. Kane responding they could have been elected in the same districts and did not have to do this right before the census is coming out.

Commissioner O'Brien stated there must be a reason why the Board is receiving this; so someone made a rule or law that said the School Board is going to redistrict and it has to go back to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Knox stated it does not say that; the reason the Board is looking at this is an accommodation to Mr. Galey; the School Board has done what it has done; in de facto it cut precincts in half; and as a convenience to Mr. Galey, he wants to renumber one precinct for District 3 so he can send cards to people who are in that precinct and say they will vote for the District 3 candidate. He stated if he does not renumber the precinct, he will have two parts voting for different candidates in precinct 26; and it will be confusing. He stated the Board can turn it down and let Mr. Galey fend for himself and try to figure out how to do that.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what would be the appropriate action for the Board; with Commissioner Voltz responding the Board has to approve the item. Mr. Knox stated the Board has two choices, it can approve it or deny it and let Mr. Galey fend for himself. Commissioner O'Brien asked Mr. Galey what he wants the Board to do; with Mr. Galey responding approve it so he can assign people to precincts where they are allowed to vote. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is anything else the Board can do; with Mr. Galey responding he will talk to the School Board about the problems; they were trying to rebalance the population based on traffic analysis zones; and repeated previous statements about waiting for the census count. Commissioner O'Brien stated if he thought there was any action the Board could take to remedy the situation, he would take it; but what he heard is there is nothing it can do; and it can approve the precincts or deny it and create havoc and extra costs.

Commissioner Carlson suggested sending the School Board a bill for $200,000, which is the cost Mr. Galey will have because of its redistricting.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to send a bill to the School Board for the costs incurred because of its redistricting.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the School Board is doing something that will cost the taxpayers over $200,000 when it does not need to do it, then a bill should be sent to it. Chairman Higgs inquired if the cost is $200,000; with Mr. Galey responding it is close to that. Chairman Higgs requested Mr. Galey itemize the bill for the Board; with Mr. Galey responding he will send the bill. Chairman Higgs stated no motion is required since Mr. Galey will send the bill.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board can go to the Legislature and ask to combine the School Board and County Commission districts. Chairman Higgs requested Commissioner Voltz bring that up at another time.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this should be handled through a Charter amendment; and requested Mr. Rowe be allowed to speak.

Mr. Rowe stated he supports Mr. Galey and does not want to create problems for him; however, he would appreciate it if the Board and Mr. Galey could come up with the cost to the taxpayers because that could prove to be extremely embarrassing to the School Board if the cost could be avoided. He stated if the only thing the Board can do is approve it, then it should approve it, but show the big picture; if there is another way they can deal with it from a legal aspect, they will do that; but his concern is to move in such a way that the citizens are aware it is costing a pretty penny whether it is for job security or whatever.

Commissioner Carlson agreed it should be handled through a Charter amendment to be put on the ballot to take both district lines and make them one.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct the County Attorney to prepare a proposed Charter amendment referendum asking voters if they wish to make the School Board districts the same as the County Commission districts.

Chairman Higgs stated Florida Statute Section 101.001 states the Board of County Commissioners in each county, upon recommendation and approval of the supervisor, shall alter or create precincts for voting in the county." She stated the reason it is before the Board is to give it the option to approve or disapprove it. She stated there may be numbers she does not see, and she has not had time to fully comprehend the issue; numbers are the essence of this item and what the effects of it is; so she will not vote for it.

Commissioner Voltz stated she does not agree with what is happening, but the School Board made this dilemma that will cost the taxpayers $200,000; and noted it is this Board's responsibility to make amends and put it together. She stated she does not want Mr. Galey or the citizens confused about where they are supposed to vote and who they are supposed to vote for; and not approving this will cause a lot of confusion for the people in the precincts that were split by the School Board's redistricting. Chairman Higgs stated more confusion will be caused by approving it.

Commissioner Scarborough offered an amendment to the motion to provide that no person in the black communities is required to vote at any place other than where he or she has historically voted. Commissioner Voltz accepted the amendment.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the numbers are not the issue; when people are moved around that is when they do not vote; and suggested Mr. Galey send a nice letter to the people about their precinct being at the same place. Chairman Higgs stated there are 293 voters in Precinct 26 that are being separated between Districts 3 and 5; and some elections are determined by 300 to 400 votes. She stated schools are significant parts of the community; and moving 300 voters around has a potential to dilute the effect of a community.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Carlson and Higgs voted nay.

ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, RE: EAST MIMS 2020 VISIONING PROJECT

Assistant County Manager Don Lusk requested $4,000 to assist the group with its visioning plan; and noted CBO funding is available.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve an allocation of $4,000 from the Community Based Organizations (CBO) funding for East Mims 2020 Visioning Plan. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: REPORT ON BREAKERS CONDOMINIUM SEAWALL PROPOSAL

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised staff looked at the Breakers Condominium seawall project, analyzed the plans, and provided a report and suggestions for the Board's consideration. He stated the State is soliciting comments from anyone who cares to comment and from adjacent property owners; and Brevard County is an adjacent property owner so it has status in the permitting process. He stated staff prepared some issues that are relevant to the project and made suggestions of what those comments may be styled like, should the Board wish to formally comment to the State agency.

Marie Keffer, President of the Breakers Condominium Association, advised she represents 96 homeowners who want to protect their homes and property; and the project is an underground building protection. She stated the newspaper had an article that the Breakers wanted to erect a 14-foot high steel structure; there is a lot of misunderstanding in the local community that may have been caused by the article; so their coastal engineer Michael Walther is here to answer technical questions about the project.

Mike Walther, Coastal Engineer with Coastal Tech and engineer of record for the proposed structure at the breakers Condominium in Melbourne Beach, advised the structure is a steel sheet pile wall that will be built within and buried beneath the existing dune, which was recently restored in concert with FEMA funds obtained by the Town of Melbourne Beach through a cooperative effort with the county and facilitation by the County to restore and maintain that dune. He stated the top of the wall will be 154 feet above sea level; the top of the dune is 18 to 20 feet above sea level; so the wall would be below ground, buried, and out of sight, and would be the last line of defense for protection of the building. He stated the wall would be designed to keep the building from becoming undermined in a storm event; in that scenario, the sand that the wall will hold under the building would be deprived from the beach; and that may have some minor impact upon the County's property at Spessard Holland Park. Mr. Walther advised the greater potential for impact would be if the beach migrated landward such that the wall protruded into the ocean, and functioned as a jetty causing downdrift erosion; however, the shoreline in that area is fairly stable so that likelihood is very small. He stated the County obtained federal authorization for a beach and riverfront project in that location; the prospect for shoreline recession is very small; and the construction of the beach would provide tremendous protection to the property. He stated the potential for impact is associated with storms that may occur that would otherwise damage the building; and in that scenario, the building may collapse and have a similar impact on the County's property to the south. He stated the specific impact that might occur could be additional recession of the dune, not the shoreline; in an extreme storm event, an impact may occur by the construction of the proposed project, but he would also contend that the same impact might occur if nothing was done.

Chairman Higgs inquired if there is a possibility of bringing the structure closer to the building; with Mr. Walther responding the wall is sited so it can act independently of the building; if they move it in, it will have the potential to interact with the building as there is a wedge of soil behind the wall that would be immediately seaward of the building; and they can move it further in which will result in additional cost and modifications to the design.

Commissioner Carlson stated it is a cantilever steel sheet pile bulkhead not attached to the foundation of the building; and inquired how will they keep erosion from occurring behind the structure; with Mr. Walther responding the wall is designed for the cap elevation of 14 feet above sea level that is expected to resist a 25-year storm event; and the waves will not go over the top in a 25-year storm event. He stated for more severe storms it could go over the top, but their economic analysis concluded a 25-year storm event was a more cost-effective design. Commissioner Carlson inquired how would they prevent water from going around the ends of the structure; and Mr. Walther explained how the bulkhead would be installed.

Commissioner O'Brien described a cofferdam with geo-textile that prevents erosion and lets water through; with Mr. Walther responding the project is very similar to a cofferdam. Commissioner O'Brien described the proposed construction for this project and what they can o after a storm even to replace erosion.

Chairman Higgs recommended a letter to the Department of Environmental Protection expressing the Board's concerns as an adjacent property owner, including the report in the Agenda package, and asking D.E.P. to strongly consider the County's abutting property and include consideration of the permit conditions for a bond which would apply to repair adjacent property and include recovering the dune at the Breakers should they decide to permit it. She stated it should include a monitoring program with a control site outside the area so the County will be able to monitor whether or not its property is affected. She read part of Rule 62B- 33.0051(1) about multiple eligible structures in close proximity to each other being vulnerable; and recommended that be included in the letter requesting D.E.P. to respond to that.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to authorize staff and the Chairman to draft a letter to the regulatory agency, including portions of Rule 62B-33.0051(1), and asking D.E.P. to respond to that, expressing the Board's concern about its property adjacent to the Breakers, attaching a copy of staff's report to the letter, requesting D.E.P. to strongly consider including conditions in the permit requiring a bond which would apply to repair of adjacent property and recovery of the dune at the Breakers, and include a monitoring program with a control site outside the area.

Discussion ensued on the proposed project, exposure of the bulkhead after a storm event, a bond to protect County property, and sea turtle activity not being compromised.

Mr. Walther offered a compromise regarding the bond, suggesting the County convey to D.E.P. its interest in protecting its property and that the Department of Environmental Protection include measures within the permit that assure protection of the property and restoration of any damages that may occur as a result of the permitted construction project. He stated bonds can be vague and uncertain; he is certain the Association is receptive to providing assurances and measures to mitigate any effect upon the County's property attributable to the proposed project; but the probability of that is very small. He suggested the Board seek to have the Department provide measures such as a bond, but not limited to that.

Chairman Higgs recommended the motion be amended to include appropriate measures which may include a bond but not exclusive of a bond; and insuring they reestablish the dune, should it be washed away and eroded, in a reasonable time frame. There was no objection to the recommended amendment to the motion.

Mr. Walther stated Ms. Keffer and the Association are prepared to embrace that.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is a way to ensure damage to County property is related to the project; with Chairman Higgs responding that is why she asked for a monitoring site that would ensure that and gauge whether or not the project had an impact.

Mr. Keffer stated they have turtle nests in front of the Breakers; if they receive the permit to go forward with the project, it would only be during the non-nesting period of November 1 through March 1; and there will be absolutely no construction during the turtle nesting season.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs stated she will draft the letter on conjunction with staff.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - VICTOR AND JEANETTE BARRETT, RE: FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS PROGRAM

Victor Barrett advised the County approved them for the First Time Homebuyers Program; and they would not have been able to get a home without the approval. He advised of his illnesses, disabilities, military service, and past financial status; stated they were impressed with the area and made contact with the agency in Viera; and that is where the comedy of errors began. He stated they were made to run back and forth from Broward County at least six times; they waited and were set aside; they got a lot of double talk; so they opted to talk to Mr. Jenkins who intervened on their behalf, and spoke to Sam Detra. Mr. Barrett stated he was accused by members of the agency of being biased and prejudiced and a lot of other things; and because of Mr. Jenkins intervention and Mr. Detra's perseverance, they attended a class, received a certificate, and were eligible for the First Time Homebuyers Program. He stated they looked for a house and found one they liked which was under foreclosure; and because he used to buy houses, refurbish them, and sell them, he knew what had to be done to put a house in livable condition. Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Barrett his time was up and she would give him a minute to bring it to closure. Mr. Barrett stated there is an absolute need to have a complete investigation of the agency because it has gone outside of its propriety of protecting him and others like him from deposing their private communications between them and the agency and the confidentiality that is to be realized. He advised the Florida Administrative Codes prohibit anyone from divulging anything about a person who seeks assistance from the government; 7CFR of the Federal Codes, Title 18 and Title 5, Section 552 and the Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits divulging privileged information; and it is jail time for anyone in a governmental agency who divulges any private, personal, confidential information about any recipient of government grants. Mr. Barrett stated he brought that to the attention of various people in the agency and to the attention of various members of the County hierarchy and the County Attorney's Office; and something has to be done because there were several people in the agency who wanted his property, but they were named first. Mr. Barrett requested more time; with Chairman Higgs responding she has given him more time and would be happy to have staff meet with him and get a written report so the Board can review it. She recommended Mr. Barrett give the Board a written report because there are a lot of ins and outs to what is happening; and she would be happy to meet with him. Mr. Barrett stated it would be his pleasure to meet with Commissioner Higgs. Mr. Barrett stated the important issue that is paramount is that several members of the agency violated his rights by holding private meetings with an outsider that he employed to finish the job in his house; and now they are in trouble because the County refused to pay and said he had to pay for the work out of his pocket. He stated they went to court and the judge rules against them.

Commissioner Voltz advised her office has been dealing with Mr. Barrett and has all the information; her staff has been trying to help him; and they are in the process of getting al the information together and will have a meeting. Chairman Higgs stated the Board will get the information from Commissioner Voltz and she will be happy to meet with the Barretts to try and work out the problems. Mr. Barrett stated if all else fails, he wishes someone would get him an attorney because he cannot afford one; with Chairman Higgs responding the Board cannot do that, but it can look into the problems and get a report to see if it can take care of the problems.

Commissioner Carlson suggested Mr. and Mrs. Barrett go to Legal Aid for an attorney; with Mr. Barrett responding he has stories he can tell about Legal Aid. Mr. Barrett stated he was attacked by a judge because of his religious beliefs.

Jeanette Barrett advised they live about 160 miles away; they did get a house and hired a handyman to do the work in the home; he worked about ix days and quit before Christmas; and her aunt and uncle told her not to have him back because there is something wrong with him. She stated when they returned to Brevard County the handyman called and said he was sorry he messed up their house, but he found out how to straighten it up; and asked them to let him come back and finish it; they gave him a key to the house; he worked a few days, then gave them a piece of paper so he could get paid by the County, but he did not finish anything. She stated they told him they could not give him money until the job was finished, and he walked out and refused to given the key, so they called the police. Ms. Barrett stated an inspector by the name of Frank Fallatico had communications with the handyman all along; they used his statement in court against them and said they fired the handyman; the judge believed it; and now they are going to foreclose on her home. She stated they did not have the money to buy a house; now there is a judgement against them; the handyman went for a foreclosure; and now the county is going to take their home. She stated Ms. Jackson looked at the house and said she had never seen such terrible work in her whole life; the handyman did not finish anything, yet the judge said he should be paid; and she does not know where to go and if they will be put out on the street. She stated the County allowed them to have the house and now it is taking it away; they did not do anything wrong; they have no money to pay the man; the man did not do his job according to his contract; but now the County is putting it on them and saying they have to pay for it or lose the house.

Chairman Higgs advised Ms. Barrett to give the County a written report; stated staff will prepare a report; and the board will pursue it to see if there is something it can do to help, but it needs a full report because it is a very complicated situation. Ms. Barrett advised they went to Legal Aid when they were first served and there was a lawyer who said she would take their care if it was going to court, but she moved to Georgia and now they cannot get anybody. She stated Legal Aid said it does not have anyone to recommend to help them, so she does not know what to do. Chairman Higgs stated Ms. Barrett has given the Board a start of what happened; and it will get a report from staff, her and her husband, and see what it can do to be of assistance.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - CURT LORENC, RE: BOARD MEETING POLICIES

Curt Lorenc stated the Board runs a nice meeting unlike the City of Palm Bay regarding the annexation and rezoning issue; however, he has one question on the way the meetings are conducted. He stated tonight he mentioned a pilot charged with throwing nails; Commissioner Voltz stopped him; and he thought it was pertinent especially if the county was going to have safety vehicles at Valkaria Airport. He inquired how are the meetings run; are they run by Roberts Rules of order; and does the Chairman have the job of keeping speakers on point. Chairman Higgs advised she will respond to Mr. Lorenc in writing and send him copies of the procedures. She stated the Board does conduct its meeting by Roberts Rules of Order.

WARRANT LISTS

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m.

ATTEST:

NANCY N. HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)