October 2, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on October 2, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and *Susan Carlson, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

The Invocation was given by Pastor Felix Nazaez, Power and Praise Ministry, Melbourne, Florida.

Commissioner Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: FOURTH ANNUAL SALUTE TO BREVARD COUNTY RESIDENTS FREE
WEEKEND AT KENNEDY SPACE CENTER’S VISITOR COMPLEX

Commissioner Pritchard stated to show its appreciation for the support of Brevard County residents, the Visitor Complex at Kennedy Space Center is pleased to present the Fourth Annual Salute to Brevard County Residents Free Weekend Friday through Sunday, October 10 through 12, 2003.

REPORT, RE: YOM KIPPUR

Commissioner Pritchard stated Yom Kippur is the day of atonement in Judaism, the most sacred holy day falling on the 10th day of the Jewish month of Tishri, usually late September or early October; it is a day of fasting and prayer for forgiveness of sins committed during the year; Jews gather in synagogues on the eve of Yom Kippur when the fast begins and return the following morning to continue confessing doing penance and praying for forgiveness; and the most solemn of the prayers, the Kol Nidre, is chanted on the eve of Yom Kippur. He noted biblical origins are found in Leviticus, where the priestly ritual of atonement is described; October 5th is the beginning of Yom Kippur; and individuals may want to wish the Jewish community blessings.

REPORT, RE: DELEGATION

Commissioner Pritchard stated on Wednesday, when the Delegation is here, he will be in the audience appearing as a citizen.

REPORT, RE: ZONING AGENDA

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the things he discussed briefly with the Board was the zoning agenda; an agenda has been drafted which will make it easier to follow; it is a combination of the agenda that was handed out tonight and the agenda that is prepared by the Zoning Office; and provided copies of the proposed zoning agenda to the Board for its review.

The Board acknowledged receipt of a proposed combined zoning and regular agenda format presented by Commissioner Pritchard for review and consideration of combining both agendas.

REPORT, RE: ITEM III.B.5., SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC.

Commissioner Carlson stated she has a 7:00 p.m. engagement that she needs to attend; Item III.B.5., SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. needs to be taken care of before she leaves; and it is the only item in her District.

REPORT, RE: FLORIDA AIR ACADEMY

Chairperson Colon introduced members from the Florida Air Academy government class and welcomed them to the zoning meeting.

A representative from Florida Air Academy stated there are about 20 students in the government class; their teacher is great; and tomorrow they have a hard test.

REPORT, RE: TABLED ITEMS

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.B.1., Sebastian Crossings, Inc., request for change from GU and AU to RR-1 on 32.244 acres located at the western terminus of Iris Lane, north of Jonquil Lane, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, has been requested to be tabled to the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

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

Chairperson Colon stated there is a request to table Item III.B.7., Carlos J. Jones, Jr. and Johnny Jay Jones, request for change from AU to ARR on one acre located on the west side of Cactus Place, south of Breckenridge Avenue, which was recommended for tabling by the P&Z Board to the October 13, 2003 P&Z Board meeting and the November 7, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 7 to the November 7, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: TABLED ITEMS

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.23., Section 10, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. 50, Lot 1, owned by Michael S. Stern, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9625 for Sale of Alcoholic Beverages for Consumption on Premises, has been requested to be tabled to the October 13, 2003 P&Z Board meeting and the November 7, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 23 to the November 7, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.28., Section 15, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. 25, Tracts A, B, C, D, E, and 251, owned by S&S Enterprises, Inc., proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-9631 for Additional Building Height and Z-9668 for Alcoholic Beverages for On-premise Consumption, has been requested to be tabled to the November 10, 2003 P&Z Board meeting and the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 28 to the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.30., Section 28, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. 01, Lot 2.04; Section 33, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. DW, Lot 13.03, owned by Jeanne Caudle, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10077 for horses and barn in SEU, has been requested to be tabled to the January 5, 2004 P&Z Board meeting and the February 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 30 to the February 5, 2004 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: WITHDRAWN ITEMS

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.B.4., M&W Pump Corporation and Eller Brothers Investment, LLC, request for change from BU-2 with an existing BDP and CUP for a Marina and IU, to all BU-2 with a CUP for a Marina, retaining the existing BDP on 1.20? acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of First Street, has been withdrawn by the applicant.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.B.15., Rushing Wind LLC, request for change from AU to EU with a BDP limiting density to one unit per acre on 24? acres located south of Micco Road and west of Fleming Grant Road, has been withdrawn by the applicant.

REPORT, RE: WITHDRAWN ITEMS

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.5., Section 36, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 535, owned by KEW LLC, with current zoning IU and proposed zoning PBP, has been withdrawn by staff for readvertising.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.8., Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 259, owned by Rick Waelti, Jr., with current zoning GU and proposed zoning RR-1, has been withdrawn by staff for readvertising.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.9., Section 31, Township 24, Range 36, Parcel 59.1, owned by Mitropoulos Panagiotis, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9787 for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption, has been withdrawn by staff.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.13., Section 31, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. 01, Lots 35 thru 39, owned by Sixty Banana River, Inc., proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10141 for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption, has been withdrawn by staff.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.14., Section 07, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. DQ, Lots 2.01, 2.07, and 3, owned by John W. and Lisa Schmidlin, Robert A. Casse, and Eugene L. Long, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-9175 for Horses (no more than 4) on Lot 3; Z-9263 for Barn on Lot 3; Z-9838 for Goats (2) in SEU on all; and Z-10127 for Goats (2) in SEU on all, has been withdrawn by staff.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.38.b., Section 29, Township 21, Range 35, Parcel 11, owned by First Christian Church of Titusville, Inc., proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9916 for Church, has been withdrawn by staff.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.47., Section 21, Township 20G., Range 34, Sub. AI, Block 2, Tract 8, owned by Ben C. Storey, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9287 for Towers and Antennae, has been withdrawn due to current use of the CUP.

REPORT, RE: READVERTISED ITEMS

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.2., Section 35, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 751 and 757, owned by Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc., with current zoning IU with BCP and proposed zoning PIP, will be readvertised.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.4., Section 36, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 505 and 513, owned by Viera Boulevard Joint Venture, Inc., with current zoning IU with BCP and proposed zoning PIP, will be readvertised.

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.6., Section 01, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 252, owned by Flagler Development Company, with current zoning IU with BCP and proposed zoning PIP, will be readvertised.

REPORT, RE: READVERTISED ITEMS

Chairperson Colon stated Item III.E.7., Section 02, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 1, owned by Flagler Development Company, with current zoning IU with BCP and proposed zoning PIP, will be readvertised.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE IX,
AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CODE INCLUDING TEMPORARY
SIGNS (FINAL HEARING)

Chairperson Colon called for the final public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 62, Article IX, amending certain sections of the Code including temporary signs.

Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore stated this is the second hearing for the Sign Ordinance amendments; such amendments were proposed by both the County Attorney’s Office and Land Development; there were recent changes in First Amendment Case Law that allow the County to refine its regulation of off-premise signs; and staff provided further clarification regarding the maintenance and replacement of nonconforming signs, as well as providing a 14-day review period for sign permit applications and a more time sensitive appeal process to any denials of sign permits, all to meet First Amendment requirements. She noted Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Washburn is also present to address any questions regarding banner sign and temporary sign amendments.

There being no further comments or objections heard, motion was made by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt an Ordinance of Brevard County, Florida, amending Chapter 62, Article IX, Signs; specifically amending Section 62-3301, Definitions; amending Section 62-3303, Purpose and Applicability; amending Section 62-3304, Nonconforming Signs; amending Section 62-3306, Permits Generally; amending Section 62-3309, Prohibited Signs; amending Section 62-3317, Temporary Signs; amending Section 62-3318, Off-premises Signs; amending Section 62-3319, Waivers and Appeals; providing for resolution of conflicting provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; and providing for an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

REPORT, RE: LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS PACKAGE

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board received a package which included the list of those legislative items, which were not resubmitted in 2004, and a brief explanation.

Legislative Delegation Coordinator Carol Laymance stated there were 11 items; one item was the A. Max Brewer Bridge, which was put back on the list this year; and the last 10 items are described in the package. She stated the Waste Tire Grant Program was reestablished, but was funded much lower than it had been in the past; and the Beeline Toll Revenue Bonds was successful in last year’s package. She noted the Billboard Regulation was initial legislation that the County opposed, but it was passed in 2002; and the potential for the Legislature to readdress the issue is minimal at this time. Ms. Laymance stated the Juvenile Assessment Center continues to be funded at its base level; and the County requested service expansion to 24/7, but it does not seem likely that it will happen. She stated for Drug Court funding, new legislation was passed last year stating specifically that the State cannot fund treatment-based programs; the County pulled the request for that this year; High Tech Industry Data Base was requested last year; and the County does not believe it will have a good chance of being funded this year. Ms. Laymance noted Juvenile Drug Interdiction/Enforcement was not submitted by the Sheriff’s Office this year; the Veterans Transitional Facility funding has been on the County’s Legislative Request Package since 1988 and continues not to be funded; and the State does not fund those types of veterans services. She stated expanding Veterans Memorial Park and Museum was requested two prior years, and there is no reason to believe it will be funded by the State; and the Transportation Disadvantaged funding request was met during the 2003 Legislative Session.

Commissioner Carlson inquired has staff talked to the veterans to see if they want to take the Veterans Memorial Park and Museum off of the Legislative Requests Package; with Ms. Laymance responding negatively. Commissioner Higgs suggested the item be left in the Package.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve inclusion of expanding the Veterans Memorial Park and Museum in the 2004 Legislative Requests Package. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon requested Ms. Laymance speak to the Article V issues, fireworks, A. Max Brewer Bridge, and the different categories for the presentation next week before the Delegation.

Ms. Laymance stated the A. Max Brewer Bridge will fall under the appropriations request, but not necessarily appropriations specific for Brevard County since staff believes the Bridge will be transferred to Department of Transportation (DOT).

Commissioner Carlson inquired was there a motion for the fireworks issue to be put in the Legislative Requests Package. Commissioner Pritchard responded he thought it was part of the discussion and was included; and the only item that was put on hold was the TiCo legislation. Commissioner Higgs inquired what was the motion in regard to fireworks; with Commissioner Pritchard responding that it would be included in the legislative package, but it had not been finalized because the final meeting dealing with the fireworks legislation was going to be in the middle of October 2003. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has not adopted anything; and it should not add something if it does not know what it is. Chairperson Colon noted the item can come back as an amendment and it can be added in the future; and Article V will go under the State Legislative issues. Ms. Laymance stated she can include a position statement indicating the Board supports Florida Association of Counties’ statement on backing Article V issues for this year, which will be included under Statewide issues.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the regional initiative, sooner or later the County will have a regional packet; Orange County is very organized and structured, and other counties are less so; and if there is something worth commenting on, Ms. Laymance can share with the Board anything it needs to know that adjoining counties are initiating that they may want to share in the initiative.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEM FROM JULY 7, 2003 PLANNING AND ZONING
BOARD AGENDA

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the item tabled from the July 7, 2003 Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board Agenda, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0307104) Millennium Development of Titusville, L.L.C. and Titusville Holdings, Inc.’s request for change from GU and PUD to all PUD on 1,132.6 acres located on the north side of S.R. 46, east of I-95, which was recommended for approved by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated a presentation was made at the last zoning meeting; the Board had some issues, but a full presentation is not necessary; and what is more critical is if there are questions from Commissioners or new information to be shared.

Attorney David Norris, representing Millennium Development of Titusville, L.L.C. and Titusville Holdings, Inc., stated at the last meeting the Board left the applicant with several issues to go back and address; such issues have been addressed; and the Board received a revised submittal package. He noted one of the issues was to establish a maximum number of units that could be developed utilizing the Folsom Road entrance or roadway before the applicant completes the main entrance on Australian Way; the applicant has committed to a limit of 50 units before the main entrance is completed; and they have already submitted for approvals on the entranceway and are moving forward and hoping everything goes smoothly. He noted the second issue was the multifamily issue; there were questions raised about the number of multifamily and the ratio; such issue has been addressed adequately; and the multifamily has been eliminated all together. He stated the applicant previously had requested 414 multifamily units but they are gone all together; there is single-family attached, which is limited to 256 units; and it is all single-family and fee simple. Attorney Norris noted the Board suggested a minimum square footage; the applicant is willing to commit to 1,550 square feet; no unit would be under 1,550 square feet; and another question that was raised was the variety of designs. He stated the applicant has put as a condition that a variety of designs will be provided; he has designs available for the Board’s review; there will be a strong architectural review board to review and approve all designs; and the applicant has committed to such board as a condition also. He noted those were the issues from the Board and they have been dealt with; the renderings show the upscale quality product; it is the applicant’s goal and intent to provide an upscale active adult and nature-oriented development; and all the issues have been addressed. He stated the applicant has met with staff on many occasions and some Commissioners; a couple of meetings have also been held; everything has been addressed; and the applicant is excited about the project and ready to move forward.

Commissioner Higgs noted the applicant has removed the Assisted Living Facility (ALF) item; and inquired if the representations made will be part of a Binding Development Plan (BDP).

Attorney Norris responded the applicant is committing to 1,550 square feet, which is a condition. Commissioner Higgs inquired are the rest of the representations made binding. Attorney Norris responded those are the designs that the applicant is planning to put in Walkabout. Commissioner Higgs inquired is it a binding part of the proposal; with Attorney Norris responding affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs inquired are the designs the only ones or would there be others; with Attorney Norris responding there could be others as it is a market-driven product. Commissioner Higgs inquired how would the Board handle additional designs. Attorney Norris responded the County will have control and a say when the applicant comes in for later approvals and the individual subdivisions; and right now it is the preliminary development plan, which is the basic picture of what is being done. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants some assurance of how the County is moving forward with the project.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated all of the commitments that have been made today have been incorporated into the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP). Commissioner Higgs noted Attorney Norris indicated there might be other designs; and inquired how is the County going to handle it.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responded she is concerned about other designs; if the applicant is committing to the Board today that he will use those designs then that is the commitment; it needs to be incorporated in the PDP or a Binding Development Plan (BDP) if it is the intent of the parties here today; but if the applicant is trying to give the Board an idea of what he plans to do and does not want to be bound, that is another issue and everyone needs to consider that. She inquired if the applicant says those are the designs and he will not have flexibility unless he comes back before the Board to create new designs. Attorney Norris stated he is not sure that normally at this level the County would be providing for the exact design of what will be in the development; it would deal with it at the next step; the applicant wanted to provide the Board with the products he knows he is going to provide; and there may be other products. Commissioner Higgs stated she has a real problem if there is not a clear understanding of the issues. Attorney Norris stated if the Board wants to put some type of condition in the BDP that any other designs would have approval right of the County, the applicant is fine with that. Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board could look to those designs; and any new and additional designs could be brought back to the Board. Attorney Norris stated the Board would have the approval right at the next level. Attorney Bentley noted she wants to be very clear about how the County would process something like that. Attorney Norris stated he does not think this is normally what would be at the PDP; the applicant is happy to place a condition at this stage saying that when he gets to the next approval stage, if he is suggesting anything else, the Board has the approval rights; he does not believe the Board wants the applicant to have to come back for an amendment to the PDP; and it wants to have some say in the product. He noted the applicant is fine with that, as he knows the Board will be satisfied with what he brings to it. Commissioner Scarborough stated his conversation with Mel Scott earlier was that the County did not want to end up with track-type housing where everything looks the same; it wants to have a diversity of designs, which spells out a quality neighborhood; Mr. Scott had given him some language at that time; and the applicant has gone beyond that in providing specific designs. He noted he is happy with the idea that those are the designs; and he believes the County is at the point where it wants to be.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated he agrees with Commissioner Scarborough; he was very satisfied when the applicant was willing to commit in the PDP to the architectural review board; if the Board were to incorporate this into the record and see a wide divergence from the styles presented here coming before the architectural review board, staff would have a degree of latitude to bring that back to the Board; and having the commitment to the review board sets the proposal apart from 99% of what the County has.

Commissioner Carlson inquired how does the applicant accommodate the custom homes; stated some of the people who want to live at Walkabout are not going to want to pick some of those designs; the quality is there; and the architectural review board has the latitude to say something is way out of the ballpark. Attorney Norris stated the review board is set up by the master association.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board is beginning to tread on ground that it most likely has not been on before, which is telling a developer what the façade and elevation of the house should look like; by saying that the minimum size is going to be 1,500 square feet and providing a rendering of what the applicant is going to be producing, then it is inherent upon the developer of the community and architectural review board to decide what type of structure will be built; it is not within the Board’s purview to get into that; asking for a certain size, density, and certain types of housing is where the Board should stay; and it is getting into an area that it does not need to be in. Attorney Norris noted he agrees it probably is not the norm at this approval level to get into that; the applicant is committed to providing quality, the various designs, and minimum square footage; those are normally the key things that insure quality; and the applicant is not afraid of conditions if the Board wants to have any additional unusual approval rights when the applicant gets to the next level. He stated the applicant is going to provide quality and is sure he will be able to satisfy the County.

Commissioner Higgs inquired who is on the architectural review board. Attorney Norris responded it is appointed by the master association; and typically when one starts a development, the review board is appointed by the developer. Commissioner Higgs inquired at what point does it become different; with Attorney Norris responding when the control of the property owners association shifts to the residents after 51% and as much as 75% of the subdivision has been developed. Commissioner Higgs stated she likes the suggestion that there would be some review at the stage of the individual subdivisions; the County could accept the designs as examples; other things could be reviewed at the site stage; and the applicant seems willing to do that. She expressed concern about the architectural review board being in the hands of the applicant until 75% of the subdivision is built; and stated if the County wants some say, it goes beyond what it would have a say in. Attorney Norris stated in terms of the control of the review board not turning over, the applicant looks at that as a plus; once such board is turned over to all of the residents, it does not know if such residents are experts and who is making the decisions; and from the applicant’s standpoint, it is critical that he controls the review board as long as he can so he can insure that the quality is there. Commissioner Higgs noted it could work both ways; and Attorney Norris’ suggestion seems to be reasonable. Attorney Norris noted that is fine.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when there is a huge development it can end up with the cookie cutter effect with everything looking the same; it is a less quality development than when there is diversity; and the applicant went a step further to show that he is doing a quality job. He noted Commissioner Carlson brought up an interesting thing; if the County goes too far with this, it is going to put a burden on the purchaser of a lot who wants a custom-made higher- quality home; he does not mind going along this route as long as the County continues going in the same direction it started, which is creating a quality diverse community. He stated it is okay as long as there is the caveat that in no case would a custom-made quality home have to come back for additional review before it proceeds forth; otherwise, the County would be reducing the quality rather than optimizing the quality. He stated the applicant is giving the County more than it asked for; and he does not want to take advantage of the situation to everybody’s detriment.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 1 with all the changes that have been incorporated.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what precisely would Mr. Scott want him to say at this moment regarding the diversity and nature of homes. Mr. Scott responded he would suggest it be incorporated as an illustrative exhibit, which would include all the latitude and direction that an architectural review board would need. Attorney Bentley stated as an illustration, she does not have a problem with it.

Robert Smith expressed concern with water and traffic problems; stated Florida TODAY’s front page story today will reinforce the public’s misgivings about the second phase of Millennium; the story suggests that the County has only a 20-year water supply; however, a letter one month ago to the City of Cocoa from St. Johns River Water Management District suggests that the guaranteed supply is only for five years. He noted the second phase of Millennium will plant down a dense group of one-fifth acre single-family housing in the midst of Mims; Millennium has not solved the traffic problem; there has been minimal or no work done on the main entrance; and the second phase of Millennium deserves to be disapproved by the Board.

Gloria Taylor stated she and her husband live at the end of Folsom Road; they have enjoyed all the peace and quiet; Millennium is their direct neighbor to the north; and Millennium has been the best of neighbors throughout the five years of construction. She noted Millennium has been very cooperative; its employees have been polite; the project is number one; and the golf course is beautiful. She stated many of the comments are that the golf course compares to Walt Disney World’s golf course; she feels certain that the applicant would not put any trash homes in the project; and if anyone has seen the project, he or she would be very happy and pleased to live next to it.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the traffic issue was clarified; the applicant is going to build only up to 50 homes using Folsom Road; it will then shift over to the new road; and it has been discussed with the neighbors and staff. He noted nobody has come back with a negative comment.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF
SEPTEMBER 8, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its September 8, 2003, as follows:

Item 2. (Z0309302) Larry E. and Susanne Chancey’s request for CUP for Alcoholic Beverages for On-premises Consumption in TU-1(7) zone on 1.532 acres located on the east side of Highway A1A, north of Flamingo Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated since the applicant is not present she will move to table the item to the November 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting; she has met with the applicant and some of the neighbors; and there are questions that have been raised from the neighborhood that she would like to have a chance to talk about.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 2 to the November 6, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 3. (Z0309303) Vistar Realty, Inc.’s request for change from BU-1 to RU-2-8 on 3.71 acres located on the west side of Highway A1A, south of Oak Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP, limited to an over 55 community.

Clayton Bennett, representing the applicant, stated the request is to construct up to a 29-unit condominium development; and in order to address the school capacity issue at Melbourne High School, the developer has agreed to develop the site as a 55 and older community if the Board requires it. He stated the parcel was identified in a small area development plan for the South Beaches; the site was identified as a commercial node; and the analysis was based on a population of the South Beaches of 12,000. He noted currently there is a population of 7,500 or about 60% of that which was assumed; with the down zoning of the South Beaches and the South Beaches reaching build out, there has been a lack of demand for commercial property, which is confirmed by the site still remaining undeveloped; and in addition, a portion of the parent node has been developed as commercial property. He stated there is a 7-Eleven that is immediately south of the subject site; there is also an ice cream shop and a car wash to the north; there is commercial property and major commercial nodes located approximately two miles to the north and south; and there is a Publix development, which has a number of shops, plus a restaurant, which is approximately two miles to the south. Mr. Bennett noted to the north there is a major commercial site along Ocean Avenue in Melbourne Beach; there has been a lack of need for the commercial property; and the developer would like to move forward and develop the site as a condominium development.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how does this differ from the proposal brought to the Board in July 2002. Mr. Bennett responded the applicant is still requesting the same rezoning; in July 2002 there were some additional properties that were being developed, such as Indian Landing development; and most of the major sites in the South Beaches are reaching build out conditions. Commissioner Higgs inquired is it basically the same proposal that the Board unanimously turned down in 2002; with Mr. Bennett responding yes.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired is there an addition of making it an over 55 community; with Mr. Bennett responding no. Mr. Bennett stated there was a school capacity issue in 2002; and the applicant had proposed an age 55 and older community in the development. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why was the item denied in 2002 and why is it coming back to the Board. Commissioner Higgs responded the applicant is bringing the item back. Commissioner Pritchard stated the item is the same as in 2002; it was denied for certain reasons; and it has come back again with the same proposal.

Commissioner Carlson stated when Mr. Enos briefed her, there was an issue regarding the ultimate build out population numbers for the South Beach study; and that was what she understood was the reasoning behind the denial before.

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated there are two considerations that the Board has embraced in deciding to retain this node, as well as a commercial node to the south; the first it has touched on was a commercial allocation study staff did in 1994; it identified the current supply of commercial that was built and existing population at that time; and it assumed at that point that the market had found perfect equilibrium, meaning that supply was meeting demand in a perfect supply and demand equilibrium point. He noted the analysis then extrapolated the existing ratio of built commercial and population at that time; if the same ratio was to be preserved, how much built commercial would one expect to see at build out population; at the time, the build out population was about 12,700; and at a current population of 7,400 right now, over time the County has seen a decreasing build out population number in the South Beaches. He stated it was only one of the component parts that compelled the Board at that time in 1994 to eliminate some vacant commercial properties that were in the South Beaches and to retain the two nodes; the Board’s second consideration was that from a planning perspective and the sound practices in Transportation Engineering, identifying two solid nodes of commercial activity would be far better than having scattered commercial opportunities on A1A; when there are more opportunities for friction along the roadway, such roadway fails to operate at its optimal condition; and noding commercial opportunities far exceeds the strip commercial or sporadic commercial opportunities that the South Beaches had sprinkled on A1A. Mr. Scott noted as the Board considers the item today, it is fair to identify that it is a commercial node that still has some vacant property; and even though it would not in the future serve as high a build out population number, it is still there to satisfy the additional population which will move there; and over time, the drive by or pass-through traffic will continue to increase as well. He stated one could argue that retaining this has merits, as well as the merits that Mr. Bennett would put forth as part of the rezoning request.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired in looking at the parcel and speaking about commercial nodes and residential areas, what is the ability to develop this as a commercial property if the clientele is not there to sustain it; and stated there has to be a certain level of expectation in order to build something that is going to be serving the public. He inquired if it is not there, how could the property ever be used. Mr. Scott responded there is a function of when the market finally catches up to the lands that have been allocated; and the Board clearly engages to a large degree to what point it would want to have set aside vacant commercial property for future commercial demand that is sure to get there or to consider the market pressures, which are in place there now. Mr. Scott stated residential development would be easily bought with today’s market and today’s interest rates in this location; however, the Board should also consider the balance of a neighborhood that would have living, playing, and shopping opportunities. He noted it is difficult to locate new future commercial locations; and that frames the issue. Commissioner Pritchard stated there are two commercial locations; the Publix is one mile and a half away or so; on the north side there was another shopping commercial roadway; and inquired would it be enough to serve the people in the neighborhood. He inquired how much more is there to build out that could reach this level of develop ability for a commercial package on the site. Mr. Scott responded the County would expect to see 1,000 or maybe 1,500 more residents in the South Beach area; but over time, because it is SR A1A, the County will forever see the capacity of the roadway increase; and it is a dual function of tourists and the snowbird population increases tremendously in that area, as well as the existing residents. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is that section of A1A four-laned; with Mr. Scott responding no, there are decel lanes in the center and to the side. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Mr. Scott thinks it will ever be four-laned; with Mr. Scott responding no. Commissioner Pritchard noted if there is an increase in traffic and not a roadway to sustain it, there will be a tremendous bottleneck. Mr. Scott stated it is a location that people will be willing to get into because of its location, such as the beach. Commissioner Pritchard inquired would there be approximately 1,000 new residents between the Publix on the south and the commercial strip on the north. Mr. Scott responded he would expect that the South Beaches area, which is from the southern limit of Melbourne Beach to the inlet, to increase by another 1,000 to 1,500 residents. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is quite a distance of maybe three miles, and inquired how many more residents would staff anticipate in the area; with Mr. Scott responding very little in such area. Commissioner Pritchard noted he does not see what the demand is for a commercial development. Mr. Scott stated his intent is to merely frame the issues that he thinks are viable for the Board to consider; the Board will be grappling with whether or not there is a demand, whether or not it is willing to forsake potentially a commercial location, which will be very hard to locate in the future, if it is satisfied that the barrier island has the balance it will need, and if losing the commercial opportunity is okay.

Commissioner Higgs stated the whole South Beaches Small Area Plan is a wonderful example of planning; a citizen process started in 1991 in which a group of citizens, of which she was one, studied the area and made recommendations that they thought were good for the long term; they based it on the capacity of the roadway as the first starting point and the ability of people to get off the barrier island in an emergency; and the Small Area Plan has worked. She noted it is bringing the density down tremendously in the area; the capacity of the roadway will be able to handle the traffic; the cost of expanding A1A on the barrier island would be huge; and the idea of 15 or 17 miles of A1A expanded in beachfront property would be costly to acquire the right-of-way and build there. She stated the parcel is one of the few remaining commercial parcels; on both ends of it there is commercial and on the back side is a sewer plant; the compatibility of residential with those high-intensity uses is questionable; and compatibility is one the Board should think of in terms of whether it is going to be compatible for the people who move in there or would it be making a choice that would cause incompatibility. Commissioner Higgs stated the Small Area Plan, which was approved by the citizens group, then the Board, and went on to be considered and approved by the State, recognized that there were commercial uses needed for the long term; the County was looking at the long term and how it could be a community that provided commercial and residential; the commercial had to be spaced; and if the roadway is to work, not everybody should be going all the way to Melbourne Beach, Indialantic, or some place else to go commercial shopping. She noted there were accepted in the plan the need for commercial, and this is one of those; it will be very difficult in the future to site additional commercial in the area; it will be an extremely controversial move to find some other commercial when people need it; and there is a commercial site there, which is surrounded by an intense use in the back and on both sides. She stated the owner has the ability to develop a residential use in association with the commercial that is now there, so they can put some residential uses there. Mr. Scott noted staff has identified 14 potential units in a compound commercial scenario in the report. Commissioner Higgs stated there is a variety of uses that can be put on the site; and it would be in the County’s interest to leave it as it is.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 3. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Pritchard voted nay.

Item 5. (Z0309401) SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc.’s request for change from AU and RU-1-9 to all RU-1-9 with a BDP on 61.377? acres located north of Sunrise Subdivision, east of Pinehurst Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP limited to 112 units.

John Newton, representing the applicant and Newton Land Development, Inc., stated the project is a low density single-family residential subdivision on 61 acres located east of Pinehurst Drive in Suntree; currently the southern 24 acres is zoned RU-1-9; the remaining 37 acres is zoned agricultural; and requested rezoning of the entire 61 acres to RU-1-9 with a BDP limiting the total number of residential units to 112. He noted 24 acres is now RU-1-9; it is nine lots per acre; however, the minimum lot size in the County today is 6,600 square feet; on the southern 24 acres today there could be 158 lots; but staff says there could only be 112 units. He stated on the agricultural portion of 37 acres the zoning allows one house per two acres; so there could be another 18 houses; and combined it is at least 130 units without rezoning. He stated the Comprehensive Plan shows a much greater density of approximately 300 units on the entire 61-acre parcel if it was fully rezoned to match the RU-2-15 zoning that the Comprehensive Plan shows for the site. He depicted the property on a map; stated the site is a big reverse “P” along the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way; and it is north and east of Sunrise Subdivision and has a good separation between the Springs of Suntree. Mr. Newton noted at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting a couple of people brought up the fact that the road is too crowded; the staff report says Pinehurst Drive would be at 49% capacity with the development completed; currently Kennedy Middle School and Rockledge High School are under capacity; and Suntree Elementary School is over capacity, but the approved school at Viera will be completed prior to the first home being completed in the Subdivision. He stated a five-acre wetland on the western edge of the site will be preserved and enhanced in conjunction with St. Johns River Water Management District; a full endangered species study has been done by Jon Shepherd; for the past six months he has been actively negotiating a 100-foot wide by a 70-foot long access easement of under ¼ of an acre with the Board of Directors of the Springs of Suntree Homeowners Association, which is the neighboring Subdivision. He noted at the August 2003 meeting, the Board of Directors approved his request to move forward with an easement agreement, subject to a legal agreement prepared by the Association’s attorney and approved by a general vote of the residents; a majority vote is expected by the residents sometime before the end of October 2003; the Association will be well compensated financially for the easement as it will be an ongoing payment program; and the subdivision in question will be developed and called San Marino Estates, which will be a much lower density than can be built on the site today. Mr. Newton stated at 112 lots there are approximately 1.89 lots per acre of the overall site; the lot layout designed has many of the newest land concepts in play; it uses the coving concept, creating lots of many varying shapes, curved streets, and green areas; and the latest version of the 112-lot layout is over 15 acres of green space on 61 total acres, plus the wetlands being preserved. He noted there has not been full civil engineering planning of the design yet; during the past six months of studying and due diligence on the site, he has worked closely with staff to create the concept for a subdivision that not only reduces the planned number of residential units for the site, but also creates more than 15 acres of green areas and open areas; he has also managed to preserve a five-acre natural wetland; and it is truly a beautiful concept. He stated the proposed low-density subdivision is considered infill of residential in an area planned as residential in the Comprehensive Plan; the proposed zoning is the same as that on three of the four sides; the fourth side being the north has an industrial zoning that goes all the way up to Viera Boulevard; and in meetings and discussions with many of the homeowners from the neighboring existing subdivisions, such as the Springs of Suntree and Sunrise, a significant number of the residents are in favor of the development compared to many of the options that could occur on the site. He reiterated the development will be low density, has green areas, is a wetland preserve, and will enhance property values in the surrounding area. Mr. Newton noted a project of more than 112 homes could be built on the property today without any rezoning approval; by the proposed zoning request, he is asking for fewer homesites spread over an area twice the size in order to create something that is beautiful and an enhancement to the native environment; and requested the Board approve the rezoning request.

Jon Shepherd advised of his support for the project; and he is present to answer any questions on any environmental issues concerning the project.

Richard Dutchik stated he supports the project; at the last meeting there were people opposed to the project; however, since such meeting, the majority of the Board of Directors of the Springs of Suntree now support it; and he sees nothing but a value enhancement to the community and property values. He noted his dealings with Mr. Newton have been nothing but honorable; he has been straightforward with the community and answered everybody’s questions; and expressed his support and most of his neighbors’ support of the project.

Michael Pelosi stated he supports the request; he was one of the nay votes the last time as he had concerns about traffic and schools; the County answered those questions with its report indicating there should be no impact; at the last meeting the plan was over 146 homes, which gave the residents concern; but since it is now 112 homes and has the additional separation that Mr. Newton designed into the project of a 20-foot buffer in some areas, he now supports the project. He noted Mr. Newton has been open and honest with the residents, and is willing to work with the neighboring communities.

David Stach stated he supports the development with the reservations that Mr. Newton treat all adjoining residents equally and the pepper trees be removed as they are not indigenous and a fire hazard. He stated he paid a premium for a piece of property adjoining a non-developed area; he was under the impression it was a conservation area; and there are some residents who have the area behind their house cleared and some do not.

John Baldwin stated he supports the proposed request; he is a homeowner in the Springs of Suntree and a former board of directors member; this is an example of what a good development can be; and the project is good for the community. He noted the developer will be putting in homes that are going to appreciate the value of the homes already in the area; the 75 by 120-foot easement is small and less than 1/10th of one percent of the whole development; it is ridiculous for those people who came at the last meeting to object to that; the residents will receive monetary value from the project; and the community is going to be a great one.

Sharon Fitzpatrick stated she is in full agreement with Mr. Newton’s project; her property abuts where the houses are going to be built; her concern was that she was going to have a house in her backyard; however, Mr. Newton has met with the residents and will provide a good size buffer. She noted Mr. Newton has a good project and seems to be a person of his word; and reiterated her support for the request.

Frank Ricciardi stated he supports the project; Mr. Newton has been up front; everybody seems to have paid for a premium lot; his lot was over cut; and he has an extra 50 feet in the back of his lot that has been cleared and sprinklers put in. He noted when Mr. Newton addressed the residents about the green areas, he told Mr. Newton that the area is clear cut and he would maintain it; he suggested Mr. Newton put in a fence there; and there was an agreement with everyone about the maintenance. He stated he is speaking for the 12 people that he represents tonight; Mr. Newton has been up front; his associates have been agreeable; and the project is a good one.

Mr. Newton stated it pays to talk to people; this is an example where initially a couple of people came up with their own version of what he was going to do and spread the wrong issues and wrong layouts; but further in the process, people understood he was trying to do the right thing.

Commissioner Scarborough noted Mr. Newton has a site plan he is showing the Board, but it is not a binding site plan. Mr. Newton stated he had a written BDP he submitted. Commissioner Scarborough noted for everybody’s benefit, this is not binding on the developer. Mr. Newton stated there are 112 lots represented, which is all he is going to develop. Commissioner Scarborough noted it could be in a different configuration entirely as there is nothing binding that is occurring this evening. Mr. Newton stated it has to be civil engineered to make it work.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated the BDP needs to be amended to say 112 lots. Mr. Newton noted he submitted the information to County staff. Attorney Bentley stated that is fine.

Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Newton came by her office and described his project to her; and everything he said to her earlier was what he presented tonight. Commissioners Carlson and Colon stated Mr. Newton also met with them. Commissioner Carlson stated it appears that the project is a quality development; it is one she would like to see in other areas of the County; the overall density has been decreased; and Mr. Newton has worked with the homeowners over the last six months, which is outstanding. She noted the concept plan indicates that Mr. Newton is going to add five feet to the 15-foot buffer that is already required, and inquired if Mr. Newton would be averse to adding it to the BDP; with Mr. Newton responding not at all. Commissioner Pritchard stated he spoke to Mr. Campbell about the project.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 5 with amended BDP for 112 units and increase of buffer to 20 feet. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

The meeting recessed at 6:58 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m.

Item 6. (Z0309501) Indian River National Bank’s request for change from GU to AU on 3.61 acres on the north side of Willowbrook Street, west of Babcock Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Tina Vickers requested the Board support the rezoning request; stated five acres is needed in GU for a buildable homesite; and changing the zoning to AU requires 2 ½ acres for a buildable homesite.

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

Item 8. (Z0309102) Alan R. and Karen M. Martin’s request for change from GU to AU on 1.14 acres located on the east side of Alan Sheppard Avenue, south of Erie Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 9. (Z0309103) The B.D.M. Financial Corporation’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (03S.10) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 4 to Community Commercial; and change from RU-1-11 and BU-1 to all BU-1 on 1.95? acres located on the south side of the Port St. John Parkway, west of Grissom Parkway, which was recommended by the LPA for approval of Community Commercial and the P&Z Board for approval of zoning change.

Commissioner Higgs stated when the Board did the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that dealt with wetlands and those issues, there was a size of acreage that was to be located at the interchanges; and she wants staff to address the issue of whether this complies with the 40 acres allotted at the proximity to the interchange or would this exceed that.

Planner Todd Corwin stated he did a preliminary analysis of the particular site; on the south side of the interchange alone, there are 37.39 acres; and it is adjacent to where I-95 and Port St. John Parkway intersect.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how many acres are the two parcels; with Attorney John Evans responding there is 1.95? acres in Item 9 and five acres in Item 10. Mr. Corwin stated the 37 acres is the south side alone and on the north side there are 20 acres; and there are over 40 acres at the interchange already. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is exceeding what is set up in the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Evans stated this is the first time the issue has been brought up to him; and the staff report indicates the applicant is in full compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Higgs noted in the staff report on Page 57, Policy 5.2.E.(2)(f) says, “A maximum of 40 acres shall be allotted in proximity to the interchange, counting both sides.” Mr. Corwin stated the language pertains to the impact of wetlands; this particular Policy is utilized for impacts to wetlands that development can occur in wetlands if those criteria are followed; in this particular instance, it is 40 acres within a project; and the wetlands could be altered in the 40 acres based on the Policy. Commissioner Higgs noted it does not say in wetlands. Mr. Corwin stated Commissioner Higgs is correct; the language is not clear; however, when the Policy came before the Board, it was part of the settlement for an amendment that dealt with wetland issues. Commissioner Higgs noted that is correct and she remembers it well; but she is not sure that the 40 acres meant 40 acres in wetlands and she thought it meant 40 acres in the interchange sites.

Attorney Evans stated the primary reason for doing this is to avoid wetlands; this particular project has been laid out; with the two rezonings, the applicant can avoid all wetlands on site; and the engineer for the project is present and can verify that.

Mr. Evans noted for Item 9, the interchange curb cut is a little bit west of the property; people coming into it would have to do a U-turn; and if the one acre can be used, the people can go straight down and come in. Commissioner Higgs inquired would the applicant be able to put some of the acreage he has at the interchange into EA, that might exceed the limit set up in the Comprehensive Plan, since he would not impact wetlands; and noted then there may not be a problem. Attorney Evans stated with proper engineering he can take the wetlands and put them in an EA category. Commissioner Higgs noted she wants to be sure there is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has had a lot of acquisitions for conservation in this area of a major interchange; this is an area that is ideal to have a higher use as there is I-95, Grissom Parkway, and the capacity to move traffic without having the traffic component; but he did not get into a full discussion with Mr. Enos on it.

Rodney Honeycutt, Honeycutt and Associates, stated there are a couple of wetlands in the area already zoned BU-1; by adding the larger piece to the south, it allows avoiding the wetland completely; it is one of the areas in Brevard County where wetlands can be impacted as it is at an intersection; and his client is not going to impact any wetlands, even though he is allowed to do so. He noted he understands what Commissioner Higgs is saying; but there is no development at this interchange now. Commissioner Higgs stated there was a lot of discussion when the County was revising the Wetlands Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan provisions in this particular area; there were concerns about this interchange and the provision for commercial at that interchange; she believes there is a problem; and such problem may be able to be overcome with some additional work. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what precisely would Commissioner Higgs like to see here. Commissioner Higgs reiterated the Board needs to be sure there is consistency with the Plan; and stated the item could be tabled to a subsequent daytime meeting so that the applicant can have time to work with staff. Commissioner Higgs noted if there are more than 40 acres designated for commercial, some of them are going to be in preservation as wetlands, and if the parcels the County is trying to rezone meet the criteria for commercial, then maybe some of the others would be acceptable as some other zoning. Attorney Evans stated the applicant has no problem taking existing wetlands and zoning them EA to counteract any additional commercial. Commissioner Higgs noted she is not sure if that will do it or not; and staff needs to review it to be sure that there is consistency.

Zoning Official Rick Enos inquired have the wetlands been identified and surveyed; with Mr. Honeycutt responding yes. Mr. Honeycutt noted the St. Johns River Water Management District has agreed with the survey lines. Mr. Enos stated staff could initiate an administrative rezoning to EA on those parcels that have been identified as wetlands. Commissioner Scarborough inquired can the applicant amend his zoning to EA. Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responded it is not advertised and not part of the legal description. Attorney Evans stated the vast majority of the wetlands are on the existing BU-1 property. Commissioner Scarborough noted he does not want to take something that is fairly simple and agreed on tonight and make it a six-month process of advertising.

Chairperson Colon inquired how long will it take; with Mr. Enos responding approximately three months from the time he receives the survey. Mr. Evans noted that is crucial. Commissioner

Higgs noted going over the 40 acres seems to be not in a consistent nature with the final provisions. Attorney Bentley stated it raises a question. Mr. Evans noted there are already 65 or so acres out there. Commissioner Higgs stated there is a problem going any further. Mr. Enos noted the Policy states, “Commercial and industrial land development activities are prohibited in wetlands unless the conditions are met”; it includes the less than 40 acres; if one meets all the conditions, he or she can impact the wetlands; and if the applicant is not impacting the wetlands then the Policy does not apply. Commissioner Scarborough noted Mr. Enos does not believe the County has to do anything in his interpretation; and the applicant is willing to zone property and go a measure further. Mr. Corwin stated the intent of the Policy is that the project itself and the wetland impacts would not be greater than 40 acres on both sides of the intersection. Commissioner Scarborough noted it was the impact to wetlands, not that there are 40 acres there; and if the applicant is not going to impact the wetlands, the Policy would not apply. Attorney Evans stated the Policy indicates that the development of wetlands is prohibited, except for the following conditions; it enumerates those which the applicant has to meet so he can impact wetlands; but he is not intending to do that, so he does not believe that limits the size of the project to 40 acres. Attorney Bentley noted it comes down to a question of intent; the Board may need to go back and review the minutes when it adopted the Policy to see if it was part of a settlement; and she was not involved in the settlement, so she cannot give any indication of the intent. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the applicant was developing the wetlands he has an exception that he can walk into because of meeting the criteria; but he does not have to go to the criteria because he is planning on not developing in the wetlands and is willing to go further and hold it in the conservation mode.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 9 with a BDP to be brought back to the Board on October 21, 2003; and authorize administrative rezoning of the lands identified as wetlands to EA. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. (Z0309104) The B.D.M. Financial Corporation and Jacob Aaron Corp.’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (03S.10) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 4 to Community Commercial; and a change from GU to RU-1-11 to BU-1 on 4.94 acres located south of the Port St. John Parkway and west of Grissom Parkway, which was recommended by the LPA for approval of Community Commercial and the P&Z Board for approval of zoning change.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 10 with a BDP to be brought back to the Board on October 21, 2003; and authorize administrative rezoning of the lands identified as wetlands to EA. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Tenth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2003, 03S.10., to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled “Contents of the Plan”; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E), entitled “The Future Land Use Map Appendix”; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. (Z0309105) David B. and Lorna L. Holland’s request from AU and RR-1 to all AU on 3.23 acres located at the western terminus of Arlington Avenue and east of the F.E.C.R.R., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 12. (Z0309106) Paul W. and Mildred S. Greene’s request for CUP for a Single-family Residential Second Kitchen Facility in AU zone on 0.64 acre located on both sides of Indian River Drive, north of Brookhill Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 13. (Z0309107) Richard J. and Patricia A. Connolly, Peter Vander Haeghen, and Peter F. and Kristine A. Woldanski’s request for Small Scale Plan Amendment (03S.11) that proposes to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Residential 12 (Directive) to Community Commercial; and change from RU-1-13 and RU-2-10 to BU-1 on 1.8 acres located on the east side of U.S. 1, north of the northern terminus of Indian River Drive, which was recommended by the LPA for approval of Community Commercial and the P&Z Board for approval of zoning change.

Rodney Honeycutt, representing the applicants, stated the request is for commercial land use by rezoning from RU-2-10 and RU-1-13; it is the front 200 feet of the three properties; the area includes a mix of residential and commercial and warehouse uses; and presented a map showing the area to the Board and Clerk. He noted the applicants live on their properties to the rear; the areas in yellow on the map are zoned commercial; the areas in green are zoned industrial; and generally there are a lot of the areas where the U.S.1 frontage of the property is commercial and the area to the rear closer to the river is residential. He stated there is a good bit of industrial property across the street; the staff report said there was a retail plaza proposed for the property, but that is not the case; the owners do not have any plans at this time; and one reason they bought in the area is because the lots are deep and there was commercial on the front, and they thought they could have their houses in the rear and a small office building in the front. He noted there has been some discussion about decel lanes, traffic, landscaping, stormwater management, and hours of operation; there are Land Development Regulations that each one of the property owners would have to go through if they developed their property; all of the issues are addressed; and in the staff report it noted that there is no negative impacts to the level of service for the property. He stated the report also mentioned Policy 1.2, Protection of Residential Riverside; the request does protect it as the applicants are keeping their individual homes on the rear of the property, which is on the riverside; the properties are 500 feet or so deep; and they are only taking the front 200 feet for commercial.

Pete Vander Haeghen stated Mr. Honeycutt has done a nice job of presenting the technical side of things; the whole area is industrial and commercial; the intended use would be some kind of professional office building or office complex; and it could not be very big. He noted there has been some concern that there might be a restaurant or something else there; the owners have no intention of doing that as they live there; it is obvious that anybody who purchased a piece of property on U.S. 1 is not looking for a quiet residential community; and the residents hear trains, trucks, motorcycles, and everything else 24 hours a day. He stated the residents do not anticipate any kind of change in that by putting in an office complex; all of the property on the riverside of U.S. 1 and to the south is commercial; everything across the road is still business and industrial; and there are several properties to the north that are commercial. He noted there is a professional office building and an apartment complex; beyond the map, the commercial density increases significantly; and requested approximately 400 feet be added of contiguous commercial property right on the highway to use it for professional office business. Mr. Vander Haeghen stated any kind of businesses that go in there means additional jobs; and it is always a welcome in any county, especially Brevard County.

William Hanawalt stated he is opposed to the request as he is within approximately 100 feet of the property in question; he bought his property in 1981 for his retirement home; contrary to what he heard tonight, where he lives there is peace and quiet; and there are many houses to the north, not businesses. He requested the area be kept as residential; stated he is also concerned about the traffic as there are no right lanes to turn off of U.S. 1 and ample signal coverage must be given before turning into the driveway; and with commercial development within 100 feet, he expects there will be more traffic problems.

Rita Stanton stated she owns two houses in the neighborhood, which are two lots north of the subject parcels; her properties are zoned and used for residential purposes; she has spoken with many of her neighbors and they are opposed to the requests; and she has submitted letters to the County. She noted the Citizens Resource Group (CRG) voted against the request at the hearing on September 18, 2003; the proposed land use amendment and rezoning specifically violates two policies of the Comprehensive Plan, a third policy, and possibly others; the request violates Policy 1.12 of the Future Land Use Element concerning protection of residential riverside lands; and the Policy states, “Brevard County shall identify lineal land use patterns which parallel the U.S. 1 corridor and the Indian River in order to promote the protection of residential designated lands lying easterly of U.S. 1, and to discourage the expansion encroachment of non-residential designated lands into such lineal residential areas. These lineal land use patterns shall generally be identified in, but not limited to, the following areas of Brevard County--generally, from the southern Titusville city limits to S.R. 528.” Ms. Stanton stated the staff report identifies the Policy and also points out that the subject site is located within this area and is currently designated for future residential use; the Board has ordered staff to do a study of how to implement Policy 1.12; it was requested by citizens living in the Riveredge Drive area near the NASA Causeway; and that area and this area are both within the area identified in the Comprehensive Plan for protection. She noted the proposed request should be denied; at a minimum, it should be tabled so that the same type of investigation concerning implementation strategy for Policy 1.12 can be studied; the proposal violates Policy 2.15 concerning the expansion of strip commercial development; and the Policy states, “The creation or promotion of strip pattern of commercial development shall be discouraged. Infill within established strip commercial areas is preferred over extension of a strip commercial pattern. Extension of a commercial land use designation may be considered in circumstances where the proposed commercial parcel is located within a block in which at least 50% of the block face in linear feet is either currently developed with commercial land uses or is designated for commercial use. In either case, the proposed commercial land use extension shall not constitute an encroachment into a residential area.” Ms. Stanton stated staff has pointed out in its comments that the subject land is currently vacant; the block face calculations for the subject land were determined using the intersection of U.S. 1 and Macey Drive, the southern boundary, and the intersection of U.S. 1 and Louisiana Avenue, the northern boundary; the block face distance established by these two streets is approximately 3,300 feet; and approximately 31.8% of the eastern side of the block face, 1,050 feet, is currently designated as Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. She noted approximately 100% of the western block face is presently designated for future commercial uses; Policy 1.12 shows that the two sides of U.S. 1 in this area are viewed differently; the east side is riverside residential; on the east side there is limited commercial development; and the Four Communities Fire Department is not really commercial and is a public facility and not riverfront. She stated what is being considered as a small neighboring commercial area is not really commercial; and the triangle parcel between the fire station and Indian River Drive is zoned primarily residential, even though it is designated as Community Commercial on the Future Land Use Map.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to allow Ms. Stanton to complete her comments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Stanton stated it is the entrance to Indian River Drive, which is designated scenic route; the triangle is surrounded by residential uses; it is not on U.S. 1 and has poor access; it is totally inappropriate for commercial development; and the only commercial piece is the Bell property of the Rocket Museum. She noted even this area is not commercially developed and there are no buildings there; it is an anomaly of commercial surrounded by residential or public use; the requested use also violates Policy 2.8 concerning the locational and development criteria for Community Commercial uses; the staff report stated, “Locational and development criteria for Community Commercial land use are as follows: Community Commercial cluster of up to 10 acres in size should be located at an arterial intersection. Collector arterial intersections are acceptable for clusters of up to 10 acres in size; however, the collector roadways must serve multiple residential areas. Intrusion of these land uses of the surrounding residential areas shall be limited.” Ms. Stanton stated staff has commented that the subject land of 1.8 acres is located 1,300 feet north of the U.S. 1 and Camp Road intersection, an arterial and a collector; the amendment side is located at the southernmost terminus of a residential area; the subject amendment will extend Community Commercial land use approximately 700 feet into the residential area; and the subject parcel is not at the intersection of any road, so it does not meet the criteria. She noted the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policies; it harms the residential riverside land; it expands strip commercial development into those residential lands; and the request is opposed by the neighbors. She requested the Board deny the proposed request.

Richard Stanton presented a map to the Board showing the fire station, Camp Road, U.S. 1, and waterfront homes; stated the area is designated as all residential; the applicants are trying to make it commercial; and he wants to slow down any growth in his area. He noted the residents want to keep the prestige and quiet; and it will not happen with commercial development in the area.

Laura Ward stated her neighborhood is part of the defined area that falls under Policy 1.12; the residents requested the Board implement such Policy in their neighborhood; she is hoping any action taken by the Board tonight in this area would not be something that would diminish or weaken the Policy, which deals with protection of riverside lands from encroachment by commercial uses; and that is what the proposed request seems to be. She noted the Board is being asked to change its Comprehensive Plan; it should not be done cavalierly without thorough examination; the Board takes its Comprehensive Plan seriously; and the request seems to be not in compliance with several of the Policies enumerated. She inquired why is there a need for the change; stated the staff report points out that there is quite a bit of commercially properly zoned property in the area, a lot of which is vacant; and requested the Board take an action tonight that would not weaken Policy 1.12.

Jeannette Elliott stated the area is not commercial; she has lived there since 1952; there is an old motel that was built in the 1950’s; and there is another small building by the road that is used for bond sales. She noted a building was made to view the missiles when they went up; there is also a fire station; the area is beautiful; and the area is residential. She stated the buildings she mentioned have been there for a long time, but they are not obtrusive; and she does not see any need for commercial on that side of the river. She requested the Board deny the proposed request.

Mr. Honeycutt stated the CRG that met and voted against the request was not notified until the morning of the meeting; the residents have been saying that the request is not in compliance with Policy 1.12, but he disagrees; the request is keeping the integrity of the residential on the river; but the applicants are willing to make a compromise. He noted Policy 2.14 talks about transitional commercial areas; there is a zoning that is compatible in an area like this between commercial and residential, which is called Residential Professional (RP); the residents do not seem to be concerned about the commercial that already exists; and it is the fear of the unknown that may be there. He stated the RP zoning would be restricted to office only; the applicants can live with that; it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and something the applicants would offer; and the missile viewing site is directly adjacent to the southernmost property, which is zoned commercial.

*Commissioner Carlson’s absence was noted at this time.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what precisely is the Board going to undertake when it takes Policy 1.12 and implements it.

Planner Todd Corwin stated staff will undertake a small area study; it will be an analysis that looks at the existing and neighboring land use patterns, and environmental and infrastructure characteristics; from all that analysis, there could possibly be recommendations set forward to preserve the residential character of the area; and if the data analysis serves otherwise, there could be a different recommendation than that. He noted the small area study process typically is a process where all the data is looked at; the community gives their input; and recommendations are generated from that. Commissioner Scarborough inquired when would the report come back to the Board; with Mr. Corwin responding approximately three months. Commissioner Scarborough stated District 4 has this problem occurring south of Rockledge; RP zoning is a quasi-residential type thing; and inquired does the Board want to defer the item until it gets a handle on the issue. He noted he is inclined to defer the item; the County has done lineal type analysis; it is time to do the right thing; and even though a property may not have obtained its maximum value, riverfront property in a residential mode is extremely valuable in Brevard County and everybody pays premiums for it. He stated the point has been made that there is commercial across the road; and inquired does commercial have to be put in where it could deteriorate the overall value for a sizeable strip of land.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 13 to the December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting for small area study relating to Policy 1.12, protection of riverside property. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 14. (Z0307501) James E. (Jr.) and Joanne L. Bennett’s request for CUP for Wild Animals in an RR-1 zone on 0.85 acre located on the west side of Ohio Street, north of Chicago Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board for the existing two wolves, and two cougars.

Attorney Priscilla Rosenberg, representing the Bennetts, stated the Bennetts applied for a CUP in 2001; it was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board; the item came before the Board of County Commissioners in 2001 and was denied; and she filed an appeal to the Circuit Court. She noted the Circuit Court found that the Wild Animal Ordinance of Brevard County was unconstitutionally vague and sent it back for reconsideration under the general CUP standards; in September 2003, the P&Z Board unanimously recommended approval to grant the CUP; the P&Z Board considered all the criteria under such standards and found that they were all met; and there are two cougars and two wolves at the Bennetts’ home with caging and under permits granted by Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission since the animals were two weeks old. She requested the Board approve the CUP so that the Bennetts can continue to keep their animals; stated there are current permits and everything is in order; the Bennetts have met all the guidelines under the general CUP requirements; and the court found that while the County adopted new wildlife CUP standards, they could not be applied to the Bennetts at this point as the matter was taken on appeal.

James Bennett requested approval to keep the animals where they have been since they were 14 days old; stated he uses the animals for exhibits and educational purposes; and he has had the animals for eight years without incident.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley stated the last time the Board considered the item, it also considered other provisions; Section 62-1958 was stricken by the court, so this time the Board needs to consider solely the general criteria for a CUP issuance; and they are contained in the staff report. She noted the items start with Section 62-1901(c)(1)(a), (c)(1)(b), etc.; there are six or seven criteria at least; the Board needs to review the record; and in addition to the P&Z Board minutes from the last hearing, there are minutes from prior hearings on the item. She stated the Board needs to review all the evidence in conjunction with the general criteria for CUP and determine whether or not there is evidence, which would support or deny the issuance of a CUP.

Chairperson Colon stated some of the information before the Board is based on evidence and testimony that has been given by the neighbors, and the minutes; she will not be supporting the CUP based on Section 1901(c) and noise, which is testimony that has been given to the Board in regard to howling of the wolves and the odor; and it is not compatible with adjacent residential properties.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Page 87 includes actual noise levels; in bold it says, “These animals do not bark, roar, or make any other loud or obnoxious noise”; and inquired who made that determination. Assistant Zoning Official Robin Sobrino responding that is the applicant.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated the text in bold is the applicant’s response to the issue; and the text in italics is a staff entry.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired does Chairperson Colon want a motion to deny the item; with Chairperson Colon responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item 14.

Chairperson Colon inquired is there anything else that the Board needs to apply here; with Attorney Bentley responding it needs to apply the general criteria. Chairperson Colon inquired is that Commissioner Scarborough’s motion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the things that intrigued him was that in reading Page 86, the applicants are assisted in the maintenance of the animals, including cage cleaning, by persons who are required to perform community service; it might be a little tense in terms of where the animals are; and it is his understanding that the animals are used for demonstration purposes.

Mr. Bennett stated he has used the animals for educational shows at a lot of elementary and junior high schools; there have been several people who have had to serve community service that have come to see him; and being a non-profit organization, he basically allows those individuals to serve their time by helping out with the animals and taking care of them to work off their community service hours. He stated it is his understanding that the initial person who filed the complaint about the animals had lived across the street from him for two years prior to even knowing that the animals were there; so apparently, the noise level was not a big issue.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not see a staff comment in regard to noise level; with Mr. Enos responding that is correct. Mr. Enos stated there is no staff response; however, there are letters from neighbors; and there is evidence in the file from neighbors that there is howling and other noises from the animals at night.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is there any testimony from Animal Services and Enforcement Department concerning noise coming from the animals; with Mr. Enos responding no. Mr. Enos stated the only discussion from the Department is in regard to the caging. Commissioner Higgs stated in dealing with the order from the court, the Board has been commanded that further proceedings need to be on a different level than the ones previously; and inquired is the Board able to get new testimony or does it have to make its decision based on the record it currently has. Attorney Bentley responded the Board has clear direction from the court; it is able to receive new testimony; the County should therefore conduct further hearing to determine of record whether the Bennetts’ application should be granted or denied; and due process requires a full hearing under the Code provisions. She stated the Board is able to get new testimony, but it must give the applicants a chance to respond.

Chairperson Colon stated the Board could table the item to have new testimony come before the Board and allow Mr. Bennett time to do that. Commissioner Higgs noted she wants to be careful in dealing with it because of the nature of the court. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no reason to waste everybody’s time and money in the courts. Commissioner Higgs requested the item be tabled to get testimony from Animal Services and Enforcement Department and the Fish and Wildlife Commission; stated some information could be gained on that so there is expert testimony in the record and the Board’s decision could have that included; she has read the court direction to the Board; and she wants to be sure that it complies.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board is going to rely on things in the record, the applicants have the opportunity to bring rebuttal witnesses in; and the Board would hear it and make a determination who it is going to believe. Commissioner Higgs noted it is her desire to review the records at the P&Z Board meeting and the Board of County Commissioners meeting again, as well as any additional testimony that is given so that the Board is complying with the court’s order.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew his motion to deny Item 14 and Commissioner Colon withdrew her second to the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item 14 to December 4, 2003 Board of County Commissioners meeting to consider the general criteria for CUP issuance, review staff comments, Section 62-1901(c)(1)(a), etc., the P&Z Board minutes from last year, Board of County Commissioners minutes of prior hearings, all the evidence in conjunction with the general criteria for the CUP; hold a full hearing under the Code provisions, receive new testimony, request testimony from Animal Services and Enforcement Department and Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission; and give an opportunity for the Bennetts to rebut the evidence to comply with the court order. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is important that the Board cover its bases very carefully as there is another issue about the Thunderhawk Big Cat Rescue; and he wants to make sure that what the Board is doing is going to fall in line so that should it have further deliberations, it will have full knowledge of what it is or is not doing properly.

Item 2. (Z0309302) Larry E. and Susanne Chancey. (Continued)

Commissioner Higgs stated she is not sure if anyone was here earlier or not when the Board tabled the item; Mr. Chancey can explain his proposal and what conditions he would attach to it; and the Board could continue the item to a day meeting two weeks from now. She noted she does not know if anybody was present who wanted to speak; she wants to protect their rights; and when the Board tabled the item it did not listen to testimony.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer to hear Mr. Chancey’s comments at the time he is voting as opposed to some time different. Commissioner Higgs inquired does Mr. Chancey want to have a CUP for alcohol in a restaurant setting; with Larry Chancey responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired is it for beer and wine; with Mr. Chancey responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired would Mr. Chancey enter into a Binding Development Plan (BDP) that would bind his restaurant to what kind of alcohol and what hours, and would it only be associated with a meal that somebody would have at the restaurant. Mr. Chancey responded that is correct; he is interested in a sit down restaurant; he opens at 11:00 a.m. and closes at 9:00 p.m. seven days a week; and he has an Italian restaurant. He noted he has an existing beer and wine license, and a six-unit motel on the beach; he has gone through the rezoning and permitting for a sit down restaurant; instead of buying beer and taking it out to the patio or in front of a motel room, by creating an inside dining area with the restaurant, he has no problem saying that if he has the sit down restaurant, it is the intent to serve beer and wine for an Italian meal; and it is not the intent to establish a bar atmosphere. Mr. Chancey stated he is not looking at an alcohol license whatsoever; it is strictly to have beer or wine with an Italian dinner.

Commissioner Higgs stated the CUP would not get into those licenses; it would be beer and wine with the hours described in a restaurant setting with a meal; Mr. Chancey can work with staff to put that in writing; and she went by the site to see what Mr. Chancey was suggesting.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item 2 to November 6, 2003, and staff work with the applicant on a BDP limiting the CUP to beer and wine in a restaurant setting and defining the hours of operation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PORT ST. JOHN DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD
RECOMMENDATION OF AUGUST 14, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board, made at its August 14, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Item 1. (PSJ30901) George C. Queen’s request for change from RU-1-9 and RP to all RP and amending the existing BSP on .46 acre located on the southwest corner of Arabella Lane and Fay Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board, with an amendment to the proposed BDP stating that the parking lot must be brought up to Code within three years from recording of the BDP.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not think there is a problem with the item; and it is a corner lot next to the F.E.C. railroad that has a high level of acceptability for what is being requested.

Zoning Official Rick Enos stated the applicant has submitted the BDP as requested by the Port St. John Dependent Special District Board, so everything is set.

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

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, made at its August 14, 2003 meeting, as follows:

Item 1. Section 13, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 510 through 517, owned by Douglas and Theresa Waller, Brian K. and Janina A. Allen, Rodney P. O'Connor, Stefan F. and

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUGUST 14, 2003

Mary C. Bergman, and Mark and Nicole Madeux, proposed for change from PIP to RR-1, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Douglas Waller stated he is a property owner and represents Parcels 510 and 511; he is currently building his residence on Lot 510, which is two acres; it has taken close to two years to get to this point; and requested approval of the request.

Brian Allen requested approval of the request; and stated later he will be coming back before the Board to request AU zoning for 2.56 acres.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has spoken to the applicants and the rezoning is worthy of the Board’s approval.

Commissioner Higgs stated she has consistently not been as supportive of this and will vote no.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

Item 2. Section 24, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 250, 252, 261, 265, 266 through 270, owned by Cecil E. and Margaret A. Bryan, Scott R. Carswell, Anthony J. and Jenny L. Falanga, and Gerard Patrick Floyd, proposed for change from PIP to RR-1, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board, with Items 2c, owned by Anthony J. and Jenny L. Falanga, and 2I, owned by Henry R. and Melissa B. Rusch withdrawn by staff.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2003

Chairperson Colon called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on September 8, 2003 on administrative rezoning items, as follows:

Item 40. Section 19, Township 22, Range 35, Sub. AV, Lots 30, 31, 32, 35, Ex. SR 405 R/W, owned by Modern, Inc., proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9804 for Land Alteration, which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to deny Item 40 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 46. Section 35, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 02, Lot 50M, owned by Walter H. Dyer, III, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9243 for Alcoholic Beverages (on premises consumption), which was recommended for denial by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to deny Item 46 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 1. Section 26, Township 25, Range 36, Parcel 253, owned by Florida Inland Navigation District, to change zoning from IU to GML (H), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 3. Section 35, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 789, 790, and 791, owned by KEW, LLC, Dartom Corporation, and East Viera LLC, to change zoning from IU to PIP, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 10. Section 36, Township 24, Range 36, Sub. 25, Lot 10.01, owned by PRN Investments, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9356 for Alcoholic Beverages (on-premise consumption), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 11. Section 30, Township 24, Range 37, Sub. 74, Lot 6, owned by John W. and Louise M. Horsch, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9401 for Aquaculture (Case II), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 12. Section 31, Township 24, Range 37, Parcel 251, ex. ORB 3687, PG 1633, owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9875 for Alcoholic Beverages, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 15. Section 16, Township 29, Range 38, Sub. 50, Lot 21, 22 & 23, owned by William C. Lewis, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9733 for Commercial Entertainment and Amusement Enterprises, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 16. Section 34, Township 29, Range 37, Parcel 279, owned by Thomas C. and Josephine B. Gates, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9604 for Pet Kennel (no outside runs and kennel activities) and Veterinary Clinic, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 17. Section 13, Township 30, Range 37, Parcel 501, owned by Grady G. Hudmon and Gail Lynne Hudmon, Trustee, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-9933 and Z-9934 for Land Alteration, retaining Z-10608 for Towers & Antennas (200 ft.), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 18. Section 14, Township 30, Range 38, Parcel 272 (BU-1 portion only), owned by Eugene R. Lomando and Anthony Lopes, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9763 for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 19. Section 07, Township 30, Range 39, Parcels 13, 43 (SEU portion only), owned by Eileen K. Taylor, Life Estate, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9871 for Aquaculture (Case II), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 20. Section 20, Township 25, Range 36, Parcels 268, 501, 751, 757, and 758, owned by John F. and Paula D. Tucker, Gilbert A. Tucker, Life Estate, Robert A. and Mary Ann Tucker, and Gilbert A. (Jr.) and Caroline D. Tucker, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9363 for Tower & Antennae (275 ft.), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 21. Section 04, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 508; Section 05, Township 26, Range 36, Parcels 750, and 751 (GML portion only); Section 08, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 2; Section 09, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 251, owned by The Viera Company and Brevard County c/o Property Control, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9383 for Additional Building Height, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 22. Section 09, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 757; Section 10, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 512, owned by City of Cocoa, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10037 for Additional Building Height, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 24. Section 12, Township 26, Range 36, Sub. DE, Block 41, Lot 1, owned by Kevin Miller, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9416 for Alcoholic Beverages On-Premise Consumption, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 25. Section 13, Township 26, Range 36, Parcels 752, 762, 763, and 764, owned by Florida Premier Group Limited, Red Sail Enterprises, Inc., Republic Bank, and The Glidewell Corp., proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-9680 and Z-9796 for Alcoholic Beverages On-Premises Consumption, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 26. Section 15, Township 26, Range 36, Parcels 9, and 11, owned by ACI Income Fund, LTD and Micah G. and Norma C. Savell, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9698 for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 27. Section 15, Township 26, Range 36, Parcel 13, owned by Space Coast Credit Union, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9593 for Additional Building Height (to 66 ft.), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 28. Section 15, Township 26 Range 36, Sub. 25, Parcels 255 and 264, owned by Amerada Hess Facilities Business, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permits Z-9631 for Additional Building Height and Z-9668 for Alcoholic Beverages for On Premise Consumption,
which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 29. Section 19, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. DS, Lot 19, owned by Scott B. Hubel, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9589 for Boat Sales and Service, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 31. Section 32, Township 26, Range 37, Sub. 52, W. 200 ft. of Lots 25 & 26, owned by Marilyn Eakin, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9833 for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 32. Section 02, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 797, owned by Daniel C. Kippeny and Lenora P. Kippeny, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9544 for Guest House, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 33. Section 22, Township 27, Range 36, Parcel 758, owned by Petro Management, Inc., proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9543 for Gasoline Service Station, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 34. Section 30, Township 27, Range 38, Sub. 27, Lots 1 thru 27, owned by Jack W. Fritz and Raul M. Rivera, John R. and Nancy G. Woodrum, Richard and Carmen Bachert, Dennis G. and Jari L. Kral, Dale P. Seefeldt, Harold L. and Gail W. Staton, Leona Raschbacher, Trustee; Michael W. and Vicky L. Carey, Cornelius L. Fox, Jr. and Lucille E. Fox, Trustees; Ronald H. and Carol Mitzie Rothman, Antonio and Michelina Iommazzo, James N. and Melanie M. McManus, Michael R. Riemenschneider, Clinton A. Albury, Jr. and Irene Fox, David and Adrienne Offenberg, Herbert H. and Judith Ann Teichman, Anthony J. (Jr.) and Priscilla W. Gerardo, Noah A. and Kary A. Babins, Richard Todd Spurlin, Robert D. and Maria Carmela Jones, Larry A. and Barbara S. Rodriguez, Patrick and Amy J. Moeller, Praturi and Rajewari P. Sharma, Vittorio and Sharon Napolitano,Tarik A. Khair-El-Din, John P. and Maria Callahan, Trustees; and Alan C. and Joanne C. Schneider, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9407 for Additional Building Height (total 71 ft.), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 35. Section 03, Township 28, Range 36, Parcels 7 and 13, owned by Marc W. and Phyllis R. Collins, and The County Line of Brevard, Inc., proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9911 for Athletic Complexes and Stadiums, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 35 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 36. Section 16, Township 28, Range 36, S. 330 ft. of the N. 1,322.38 ft. of the W. 660 ft. of the E. 684 ft. Parcel 1, owned by F. Carlyle Platt, Family Limited Partnership, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9765 for Towers and Antennae (270 ft. cellular communications tower), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 37. Section 41, Township 20G, Range 34, Parcels 171, 172, 173, 175, and 176, owned by B.B. Nelson, Trustee, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10091 for Towers & Antennae, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 38. Section 29, Township 21, Range 35, Parcels 10, owned by Farrell C. and Allene Phillips, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9916 for Church, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

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

Item 39. Section 25, Township 22, Range 34, Sub. AV, Lots 105, and 106, owned by George R. and Derinda N. Clark, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9773 for Towers and Antennae (500 ft.), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 39 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 41. Section 26, Township 22, Range 35, Parcel 502.1, owned by F. Del Kelley, Trustee and Robi Roberts, Trustee, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9865 for Substantial Expansion of a Pre-Existing Use, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 41 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 42. Section 26, Township 22, Range 35, Sub. 50, Lot 16.01, owned by Kenton Pontius, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-10128 for Alcoholic Beverages, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 42 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 43. Section 12, Township 23, Range 35, Sub. 02, Lot 1.11, owned by Randall D. Osley, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9579 for Boat Sales and Service (boat trailers only), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 43 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 44. Section 34, Township 24, Range 35, Parcel 532, owned by Terrance P. Mulreany and Peggy A. Davis, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9588 for Bed and Breakfast Inn, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 44 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 45. Section 6, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 763, 764, 765, and 805, owned by Cocoa Partners LTD Partnership, proposed for removal of Conditional Use Permit Z-9638 for Alcoholic Beverages (on premises consumption), which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve Item 45 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)