MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

February 23, 1996

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular/special session on February 23, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Board Room, Building C, 2725 St. Johns Street, Melbourne, Florida. Present were: Chairman Mark Cook, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O?Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Scott Ellis, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

Chairman Cook led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner O?Brien advised on March 12, 1996 there are LDR and regular meetings; and there is a conflict because he has to serve on the Canvassing Board for the Presidential Preference Primary Election.

Chairman Cook inquired if the Board wants to cancel the meetings.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised in discussing the LDR?s with staff, there is nothing too controversial.

Commissioner Ellis advised the night meeting has two major issues which are the Merit System changes and the Palm Bay Beltway; he is not sure the Canvassing Board will require reading ballots before 8:00 p.m.; and if they start on the absentee ballots around 2:00 p.m., they could probably be done before 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board could schedule the important items around Commissioner O?Brien?s presence. Mr. Jenkins stated Commissioner O?Brien was notified to be there at 5:00 p.m., so he would prefer to delay the Personnel Rules for a month.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is unfair to ask Commissioner O?Brien to do two things at once; and if his responsibility on the Canvassing Board will start at 5:00 p.m., then the Board should cancel the meetings and move them to another evening.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to cancel the March 12, 1996 meeting, and direct the County Manager to coordinate with Commission Offices and reschedule it for another day that week. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O?Brien stated March 14, 1996, he has to be in Tallahassee, and March 18, 1996, he has to be in Washington, D.C. for the Congressional hearing.

Commissioner Ellis stated there should be something more than the legal notice in the newspaper if the meeting is canceled because people have called his office and were told March 12, 1996.

Chairman Cook advised a Board action was taken in 1994 on the Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loans; the County Attorney said he is authorized to sign them as Chairman even though the Board action occurred prior to his election; but if the Board wants a new action, that is fine. Hearing no objections, Chairman Cook signed the documents.

Attorney Ken Crooks advised the Board tabled the item to consider whether or not the matter should be appealed any further; subsequent to that, he submitted to County Attorney Scott Knox, a short memorandum of law regarding the appellate issue; and presented copies to the Board. He stated in the discussion of zoning procedures, there was some concern about how much input staff provides to the Board on particular issues, and what posture that puts the Board in when rendering quasi-judicial decisions; and in this case, County staff did not let the Board down. He stated other than a DRI, there is no tougher review of a residential project than a PUD; staff took six months to review this project, from July 1994 to January 1995; the applicant submitted reports from all kinds of experts; and not only one, but two traffic reports were submitted by a professional engineer. He stated there was a professional water and wastewater engineer?s report submitted; an architect and a PH.D. in urban planning submitted a report in regard to land use; there were environmental studies done, reviewed, and approved by County staff and federal agencies; and even the golf course designer was a professional engineer on this project. Mr. Crooks advised the applicant went well beyond all the PUD standards and volunteered to not only satisfy those standards but to provide public benefits exceeding those standards; and after reviewing all the reports and all the information submitted, the County?s technical staff came out with recommendations; and there were six findings in regard to their part of the procedure. He stated they found that the proposal was consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and with the maximum allowable residential density under the Comprehensive Plan; the proposal maintained all acceptable levels of service relating to roads, solid waste, potable water, recreation, sanitary sewer, stormwater, mass transit, and all the Elements under your Comprehensive Plan; the proposal satisfied all the requirements for PUD zoning under Section 64-1446 of the County Code; the proposal had the highest rating for compatibility with surrounding land uses; and the proposal was consistent with the character of the area. Mr. Crooks stated after reviewing staff?s recommendations and findings, the P&Z Board reviewed the matter twice, recommended one amendment which was incorporated, and recommended approval of the project. He stated 20 months after filing the application, they find themselves having to file litigation challenging the denial by the Board, going through that process, incurring additional costs and delay, and being faced with the real threat of having to go through another six to eight months of delay prior to having an appellate decision on this matter. He noted Commissioner Scarborough and County Manager Tom Jenkins made excellent presentations at the Cocoa Beach Chamber Meeting on what they believe is a proper goal of Brevard County Government; and that was a user friendly government and how the County was intending to take those steps necessary in order to encourage people and companies to relocate and build in Brevard County. He stated he applauds the intent and efforts in that regard; however, what kind of message is the Board sending to those people who want to build and relocate in Brevard County when they come in, do what they are expected to do,

go beyond all the requirements, standards, and criteria to do a good project which County staff finds it is a good project that satisfies all the criteria; the P&Z Board finds it satisfies all the criteria; and a circuit court three-judge panel unanimously finds it satisfies all the criteria, and that the Board had no factual basis to deny that application. He inquired at what point does the system stop, and when can those people and this company have some acknowledged right to the rezoning they requested. Mr. Crooks stated under those circumstances, he finds it inequitable, unreasonable, and unconstitutional for the Board to go any further; the County Attorney, in his written recommendation, recommended the Board not appeal this matter and found there was very little basis for an appeal; at the hearing that opinion apparently changed somewhat; and he does not know what Mr. Knox?s recommendation will be today. He stated if the Board reviews the standards of review for this type of matter, it is not an appeal, it is an original petition for writ certiorari; the facts do not warrant any further expenditure of County funds; and their client is entitled to fair treatment. He stated everyone else has found the project to be proper, but for some reason the Board has not; and it should acknowledge that its findings were incorrect, and provide their client with the relief he requested.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel, represent the property owner, requested the Board?s advice in order to help him to know how to make presentations in the future. He stated when he comes before the Board with a project he is bound by the law; there were a few concerns expressed by the Board as to whether the road system was adequate for the project and maybe some environmental concerns; in order to start the project, they checked the matter of concurrency; and if the road system was not adequate to handle the project, they could not make it before the Board because of the Growth Management Act. He stated the County had to determine that the road system was adequate for the project; if concurrency is the law, and it is, if they do not meet concurrency, if the schools are not there, the sheriff is not there, etc., they have to correct those conditions or the project cannot go forward; and in checking concurrency, the County determined that the road systems were adequate to handle the project, so they went forward with the project. Mr. Spielvogel advised they met concurrency at that point; so for the Board to say or suggest, or anyone to say there is a problem with the transportation, that runs contrary to the concurrency findings of the County. He stated their client has agreed to make improvements and spend over $100,000 to improve the intersection of U.S. 1 and Micco Road even though that is outside their area of responsibility; but they saw it as something that needed to be done and voluntarily agreed to do it. He stated they are going to move traffic in a particular direction, so he does not understand the argument about concurrency. Mr. Spielvogel advised the other concern deals with environment; the Micco area relies on wells and septic tanks; the Royal Sebastian project brings a sewer plant and water plant that are going to be paid for by the developers, not the public; they will pass that cost on to the purchasers of lots, but they will bring something to the Micco area that does not exist there presently; and from an environmental point of view, nobody would say they need more septic tanks in any area of the County. Mr. Spielvogel advised they can come in without any controversy with one-acre lots that would generate some 342 lots and 342 more septic tanks; he knows the Board would not advocate that; so they are asking for additional density which allows them to put in a golf course, a water plant, and a sewer plant, and preserve more than 50 acres in wetlands and water retention areas and land preservation. He stated it is a good project; forget the law and legalities when talking about what

is right and good for the community; they will set a new tone for the Micco area; and as the other large tracts of land there begin to develop, they will have to be competitive with Royal Sebastian in order to sell lots. He stated there were a lot of people opposing the project; part of their fear is something new coming into the area; and he looks to the Board to allay people?s fears and reassure them that this is not a danger to them and the project is actually an improvement. He stated if the ground becomes contaminated because of septic tank seepage, their wells are going to be polluted, and they are not going to be able to continue to take water out of the ground; the message has to be conveyed to them that other large tracts which follow them in development will probably follow suit; and to discourage their project, delay it, and put obstacles in their path is sending the wrong message not only to their client, but to all future development down there.

Commissioner O?Brien advised of a project on Merritt Island where staff said not to spot zone or rezone but the Board did it any how and the residents of Villa De Palmas had to sue the developer and the Board; so the opposite is also true in Mr. Spielvogel?s argument that staff approved the project. He stated the judge was not an expert engineer, traffic engineer, or planner; the Board is elected to speak for the people; and the problem begins with due process when it is overruled by a judge who does not speak for the people. He stated they heard the professional staff and had to use their own discretion the same way the judge did; and the ruling has been made by the judge who can tell them what to do, but it seems like a double-edged sword, because the courts say the Board can do anything it wants to, then ten years later say it cannot do what it wants to. He inquired when is that law balanced out to be fair to the Commissioners, people, and everyone else.

Commissioner Higgs advised expert testimony is given frequently and can be obtained for almost anything; the standard the Board and other boards will have to move to is being defined in the courts; lawyers with golden tongues will argue almost anything; and those will become burdens that the taxpayers will have to go through in order to find government being user friendly. She stated in this case criteria is being applied from various situations; they are being defined in particular ways that the Board has to react to in controversial zoning cases; and she asked to table it so she could go over the criteria for appellate court review. She stated she discussed it with the County Attorney; and requested he outline for the Board and public what the criteria are that the appellate court would review in this case and other cases.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised there are two levels of appellate review; the first level starts with the decision that comes out of the Board; and that is the one that is being considered by the Board today. He stated the circuit court, acting in appellate capacity, reviews its decision and decides whether or not the applicants have proved consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; and if they met the consistency requirement, which they did in this case, the next question becomes was the Board action denying the application supported by substantial competent evidence or was it arbitrary and capricious. He stated the court in this case decided it was arbitrary and capricious; so the next level of appeal is to the Fifth District Court of Appeals if the Board chooses to do that; and it is a procedure called certiorari which means the Fifth District Court of Appeals will look at whether or not the Circuit Court of Appeals departed from the essential requirements of law. He stated it will not weigh the evidence; it will not analyze the competent and substantial evidence issues; and it will only look at whether due process was afforded, which in this case there is no issue about, and whether

the essential requirements were met by the Appellate Circuit Court. He advised in the case where the Appellate Court is reviewing a Circuit Court in its appeal role, the standard translates to whether or not the circuit court engaged in a miscarriage of justice; so the record the Board would present to the Fifth District Court of Appeals would have to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice which is an extremely difficult burden to meet. Mr. Knox advised he reviewed the record; what stuck in the Board?s craw was the fact that an expert witness for the applicant testified that 80% of the traffic going south would go north first before going south, which defied common sense and still defies common sense; however, there is nothing in the record from the County, no expert testimony that contradicts that; and he does not think there is enough evidence to meet the miscarriage of justice standard. He stated his recommendation is still not to appeal it; there is a chance the Board can go to the Appellate Court and argue the fact that the developer had to decide to make improvements at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Micco Road in order to make his 80% work is evidence that it does not comply with the traffic standards set forth in the Ordinance; but he does not think it will prevail. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board does not appeal, what are the steps that would be followed; with Mr. Knox responding it will go back to the P&Z Board. He stated he cannot speak for what the developer?s attorneys will do, but he suspects they will say they stand on the record they made in the last case, in which case the P&Z Board will make its recommendation to this Board; and this Board would get the matter back before it; and again the attorneys may say they stand on the record from the last case, and the Board will make its decision based on the record of the last case. Mr. Knox advised Snyder does not say that the Board has to grant whatever the developer wants; however, it does say whatever the Board does has to be based upon the record that was presented; so whatever it decides has to be supported by the record; and if it does not have support from the record, he can assure the Board the attorneys will be back in court with a 1983 action that revealed the Board?s zoning decision. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is an opportunity for additional evidence to be put into the record by the two public hearings before the P&Z Board and this Board; with Mr. Knox responding that is going to be an issue; it has not been decided whether or not the Board can go back and recreate a new record; he has not seen any case law on that; and the position the Board will hear from the other side is they made their record once, and the Board does not get two shots at the apple. He stated there is an argument to be made if it comes back before the Board, it can supplement the record to make its decision based upon evidence presented in that record; he has not decided what his advice is going to be on that; but he would like to talk to some other county attorneys to see if they had that experience.

Commissioner Scarborough advised he visited the area with Traffic Engineering Director Billy Osborne who has not looked at the plans; therefore, staff?s comments do not include his review; they observed the traffic; and the contingent was that the Micco Road exit would be the primary exit, so they were planning to improve an exit there. He stated if the people went substantially south because they were shopping to the south more than to the north in Sebastian, they would be putting in improvements in an area where there would be less utilization; so while they are addressing a problem, it would not resolve the problem he is concerned with. Commissioner Scarborough stated staff came with an opinion, but he has the ability as a Commissioner to go out and view a scene with the traffic expert and bring the information back to the Board. He stated his concern with the role of a Commissioner if he has to rubber stamp the Zoning Official?s opinion.

Commissioner Higgs advised she did not go back and review the record, but believes the Board was looking at using impact fees for improvements to Micco Road, and the impact fees would have been paid; and she has concerns about whether or not the Board can win at the Appellate Court level. Commissioner Ellis advised the idea he proposed was to apply all the impact fees in that area to build a bridge over the railroad tracks so they would not use Holly Lane and Micco Road.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board has no option and is going to be stuck with it, the Board should let them have the project. Mr. Knox advised the process leaves the Board in a position of making decisions on conflicting evidence; what the court is telling it in this case is there was no conflict in the evidence, so there is nothing to decide; and once that happens, the Board has to either grant it or make a decision that finds contrary to the property owner, if it has the evidence to support its decision. He stated Commissioners have to take themselves out of the traditional role and sit as judges and listen to evidence presented by the applicant, their experts, staff, and anybody else who says anything that has any relevance that is factually based, or in case of an expert, his or her opinions. He stated if there is a conflict, they can resolve the conflict as a finder of fact; if the Board resolves the conflict one way, it decides the issue one way; and if it resolves the conflict another way, it decides the issue the other way; but if there is no conflict in the evidence, there is nothing to resolve, and it has to make its decision based upon whatever the weight of the evidence supports. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if he can view the scene with County staff and draw conclusions outside of evidence presented to the Board; with Mr. Knox responding yes, but he cannot make his decision based upon something he saw that is not in the record. He stated if Commissioner Scarborough went out and looked at a particular zoning application scene and found something he thought was relevant and important to the decision-making process, the best thing to do to get it on record is have a staff member submit a report that the applicant can respond to; and if the applicant disagrees with it, the Board can make a decision as to who is right.

Commissioner O?Brien advised the Board did act as a judge, heard the evidence, and made a decision, then a judge, who alone and without looking at the physical property, and who did not hear evidence the Board heard, is making a decision which is contrary to the Board?s decision; and that is the part that bothers him the most. He stated he cannot support appealing this because it will get no where and will waste a lot of money; and unless the Board has new substantial evidence which it does not have, it would be impossible to turn it around. He stated the County has gone through this before; and from the list he requested from Mr. Knox of all the cases the County has won after the appeal has been sent back, it appears that one in 1,000 cases was able to be turned around.

Commissioner Higgs advised she is not advocating appealing the case; she wants on the record the conditions that could be met to allow the County to win an appeal; and if it goes back to the public hearing, which is the process, it will be a joke if evidence cannot be put in the record. She stated the Board will hear the same things again; it may hear new evidence; and it should have in the record substantiation of any decision. She stated it concerns her if they do not have the option of listening to the evidence realistically again and evaluating it, because they need to be able to weigh all that evidence when they go into the public hearing.

Chairman Cook recommended the Board decide whether or not to appeal, then look at whether it wants to go beyond that.

Commissioner Higgs stated whether or not to appeal is tied to the issue of what happens after that appeal; and her understanding is they will go through two public hearings and people will have the opportunity to present evidence and the Board would look at that evidence and make a decision. She inquired if Mr. Knox is telling the Board that is not what it is going to do; with Mr. Knox responding the Board is going to have two public hearings; the issue is whether or not it can re-open the record at this point; there are no cases that say it can or cannot, so it becomes an issue whether it wants to do that; and it has to make that decision.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to not appeal the Bosco v. Brevard County case, and open the record to challenge that area of the law in that matter.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired what does that mean; with Commissioner Scarborough responding it means the Board can listen to new testimony as to traffic or whatever. Commissioner O?Brien inquired if it means the Board can hold up new evidence and the applicant has to go through the entire process again; with Commissioner Ellis responding he has to do that anyway. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board cannot consider anything new, there is no reason for the people from Micco to come to the meeting; and it is just a matter of rubber stamping. He stated if the Board can define some issues, people will know its concerns; and if he was the applicant, he would try to substantiate something about where traffic flows are because that is going to be an issue.

Chairman Cook inquired if they have to go through P&Z again, and can the record be re-opened; with Mr. Knox responding there is nothing he found that addresses that issue, but he will provide the Board a definitive opinion as to whether or not he thinks it can do that. He stated the motion is in order because he did not find something that says the Board cannot do that; but if he finds something that definitively says it cannot re-open the record, then he will advise the Board accordingly. He stated if the Board wants to raise that issue and see what happens, it is appropriate as long as there is nothing out there that says it cannot do it.

Attorney Leonard Spielvogel advised there were three judges who heard the case not one; in the appellate procedure, the record of the Board goes to the appellate court, so they have the opportunity to read the entire record; the County Attorney or applicant can bring to their attention by quoting from the record; so the whole thing is transcribed by a court reporter and goes to the appellate court. He stated there was another case that went through at the same time; he is concerned about the procedure the Board is speaking about; the County Attorney says he does not find any cases on it, but if the Board is going to open the record, which they object to, and take new testimony, then that is two bites of the apple; and inquired if that applies to other appeals also. He stated the Board cannot be selective about these types of things; and he does not know why it is so negative on the project, but that is its prerogative, and it makes the decisions, although he respectfully disagrees. He stated if it is applied across-the-board, everybody is going to be coming back on every matter that has already gone to the court; and what the Board is saying to the appellate court is that its opinion with a quashed decision of the Board takes on much less significance because it will come back for another hearing, new testimony, new findings, and go back to the appellate court. He stated that is an endless cycle; it is not fair, never mind if it is legal; and they came in, made their presentation, brought experts, had traffic counts, and did the right and proper and respectable thing, so they should be respected for that.

Commissioner Higgs advised the issue is what must this Board and other bodies have as evidence, and what must be presented in a hearing that is quasi-judicial for the Board to review; and in this case, the court said the Board did not have the substantial competent evidence it felt was necessary, but did not tell the Board what it had to do, just that its decision was not adequate. She stated in this case, the Board had an application to go from GU and AU to PUD; it left the property as GU and AU; and a significant question is whether or not another decision would have been acceptable to the court, not consistent with the request of the applicant; so there are questions of what is fair to the citizens, what is the burden of proof on the County, and what is the evidence needed to put on the record that would be upheld in an appellate review. She stated there are a number of questions this issue has raised far beyond the project that is being proposed; so she will support the motion.

Commissioner Ellis stated another issue is when will the Board stop re-opening the case and say it is over. He stated if it is going through the appeal process, even to the point of re-opening the record, it needs to have strict limits that it will go that route once and not in perpetuity, because it is not fair to the taxpayers to spend funds on legal fees just because certain people do not like certain projects. He stated the Board needs to set a parameter that once is enough.

Mr. Knox advised Mr. Spielvogel raised the issue as to how the cases differ and why they should be treated differently; it is his recollection that the other case the Board is involved with had two choices of zoning classifications that would fit into the land use category; and the court found the one the Board chose to leave it in was not adequate, so it had only one other choice. He stated in this case, there may be three, four or five categories of zoning classifications that would fit into the land use designation that may be appropriate other than the ones the applicant already has. He stated the same issues are whether it has to rely on the existing record to pick one of those other categories, is stuck with the categories they asked for, or if it can re-open the record and see if there is other evidence it would like to take that would support a decision other than the one it did the last time. He stated the Board cannot leave the zoning the way it is, but Snyder does not say it cannot pick something that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan other than what is currently there. Commissioner Scarborough advised he would never want to do this more than once.

Commissioner Higgs stated it is not this project or a like or dislike for a particular project, it is the issue of adequacy of infrastructure, health, and safety of people and what the Board will be allowed to consider in terms of evidence. She stated the Board tried to look at significant issues regarding this project and applied what were reasonable criteria.

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

Chairman Cook called for the public hearing to consider adoption of the 1995B Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Planner I Todd Corwin advised the first item is approval of staff?s response to Department of Community Affairs Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC). He stated Department of Community Affairs raised objections to the amendments to the Conservation, Future Land Use, and Historic Preservation Elements, and the Future Land Use Map Amendments 95B.4, B.5 and B.6; each item was considered for staff response; and the response is included in each Plan Amendment. He requested approval of staff?s response.

Commissioner Scarborough requested the Board start with the wetlands policy.

Conservation and Future Land Use Elements

Margaret Hames, 667 Acacia Avenue, Melbourne Village, indicated inadequate time for public input; and recommended the Board delay the revision which is not recommended by the Department of Community Affairs and St. Johns River Water Management District, since it is required to review the Plan next year. She advised the St. Johns River Water Management District will complete its GIS mapping which will provide greater detailed data pertaining to the character of the land; and recommended the Board take time to study it, and if it is found necessary, do a revision properly.

Charles Moehle, 65 Country Club Road, Cocoa Beach, supported the amendment and requested the Board clarify and make equitable the Future Land Use Element and interpretation of what is controlled and prohibited by the wetland policy. He advised of the process that led to adoption of the Plan in 1988, amendments to the Plan, and Ordinances setting out where the uses will be. He stated "based on FDEP and St. Johns River Water Management District professional staff application of criteria and evaluation" in Policy 5.3, Criteria A, should be eliminated, otherwise it will bring the County into the process at the end which would be an unnecessary expense.

Margaret Broussard, 3660 N. Riverside Drive, Indialantic, representing Friends of The Scrub, advised of mismanagement of Florida?s eco-system resulting in the Kissimmee Everglades problem and enormous costs; and indicated discussing changes to Brevard County?s wetlands and water systems may repeat similar mismanagement. She stated to allow more development in wetlands, dredging and filling, and more flooding, flies in the face of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan; and if the Board does not care about quality of life, urban sprawl, increased pollution, traffic, crime and other ugliness of cities, or protection of historical structures and remains, and only cares about the economy, a lot of the economy depends on tourism; and the fastest growing kind of tourism is eco-tourism. She stated if the Board does not control growth as the Comprehensive Plan is designed to do and preserve its treasures of nature, it will be doomed to an ever-declining quality of life; and requested the Board not make ill-advised changes to the Comprehensive Plan.

Joe Yasecko, 125 E. Swanee, Cocoa Beach, advised population growth is the biggest cause of most of this discussion, and the Board is not doing anything about population growth control. He stated there is too much discussion on the Comprehensive Plan and dictating what individuals want to do; people want to live close to the water or in stilt houses in the middle of wetlands; people are sometimes destructive, but the problem cannot be solved with rhetoric; and the Board should back off in trying to control things.

Elmer Dachota, 335 Park Avenue, Satellite Beach, advised population growth is a problem and Brevard County cannot stop it; and the population has doubled in 25 years. He suggested hiring a firm to define the wetlands more clearly; and stated he is for slow growth, and the Board is looking for trouble if it does not have regulations.

Terry Goewert, 102 Martesia Indian Harbour Beach, advised in the Presidential candidates? debate, Florida was cited as having poor wetland policies and regulations restricting landowners rights; the unanimous consent of that debate was that people have a right to their land and land use; and if government wants to restrict the land use, it must buy the land and pay market value. He encouraged the Board to agree on landowners rights.

Kim Zarillo, 760 Cajeput Circle, Melbourne Village, representing Florida Native Plant Society, advised they oppose the amendment; there is no need to change the existing Policy; and there is a problem in obtaining the amendments in a timely fashion because the libraries did not have the information.

Commissioner Ellis advised his office is always open for anyone who wants to get information; they also send it out; and there is no way the Board can force the newspapers to publish everything it is doing. Ms. Zarillo stated all the Commission Offices are open and they are very friendly about letting people come and look at anything; but the information is supposed to be available to the public in the libraries, and it is not there. Commissioner O?Brien recommended the County Manager solve the problem, and people who go to the libraries and do not find the information can call the County Manager who will fax it to the library.

Discussion ensued on getting information to the public, evolution of thoughts that resulted in different drafts, and the language changes to meet Department of Community Affairs and St. Johns River Water Management District requirements.

Commissioner Ellis stated the small changes in language have been driven by the agencies not the Board and County staff; and he does not want the implication to be that the Board and staff is issuing new drafts every two weeks.

B. B. Nelson, 3535 Hammock Trail, Melbourne, presented a copy of Webster?s definition of "wetlands"; and inquired if it is legal to use it in the document. He stated a considerable portion of the wetlands was caused by government flooding lands, closing ditches, and making changes without consulting the property owners or doing studies; and inquired if the Board can stop the Federal and State Governments from flooding land and filling in ditches in violation of its Code. Mr. Nelson advised the Bill of Rights says, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation"; and stated the real issues are growth versus no growth and a simple definition of wetlands or the agencies? definition.

Deanna Reiter, Indian Harbour Beach, spoke against the environmentalists and people who oppose changes or common sense modifications of the regulatory process; and inquired if Brevard County will be a good place for birds, bugs and snakes, but not for people who want to find good jobs. She stated she is thrilled that the Board is trying to get rid of some regulations and making it easier for them, because most people want smaller government. Ms. Reiter stated they need a County that is fair and provides incentives for industry and business to locate, expand, and grow here; and downsizing government at all levels is what their goals should be.

Micah Savell, 1370 Sarno Road, Melbourne, indicated there is mismanagement within the County, people violating rules they espouse and want others to follow, and lack of common sense application in the administration and review of wetlands and other regulations that control their daily lives. He stated wetlands were swamps where water came in and sustained wildlife, fish, and other things, but now it is interpreted to cover every ditch, indenture, hole, etc. which was not the intent. Mr. Savell encouraged the Board to review the amendment carefully and adopt it; and stated there is nothing substantive other than to avoid duplication. He noted information was available to the public.

The meeting recessed at 10:31 a.m. and reconvened at 10:51 a.m.

Diane Stees, 21 Bougainvillea Drive, Cocoa Beach, representing Indian River Audubon Society, advised they are disappointed that they were not given adequate time to thoroughly review the changes; and the Audubon Society does not support the proposed amendment because the County has an adequate Comprehensive Plan as written although some fine tuning would improve it. She requested the Board withdraw the amendment and wait until the Plan comes up for review next year. Ms. Stees stated they are sustainable growth advocates, not no growth advocates.

William Kerr, 325 Fifth Avenue, Indialantic, advised preserving isolated wetlands within totally developed areas is not environmentally correct; and suggested the Board allow the Future Land Use Element to govern future land use as it was intended, and allow permitting on areas zoned commercial and industrial with isolated wetlands and let land development regulations take care of those areas. He stated the permitting takes care of mitigation, and mitigation takes care of no net loss; so the Board should let the existing language stand and apply to future land use because it has been approved by Department of Community Affairs. He stated it will afford future protection of wetlands and allow property owners to use their properties by mitigating wetlands and providing a more appropriate eco-system management.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Kerr finds any problems with the language; with Mr. Kerr responding he sees no problem with the proposed language or the existing language which was written for future land use; and recommended the Board leave the existing language and direct staff to interpret it for future land use and let existing industrial and commercial properties which are already zoned and have wetlands be controlled by the permitting process. He stated isolated wetlands in existing commercial and industrial properties could be mitigated; and it is not proper environmentally to keep isolated wetlands in an industrial complex because it collects cups, paper, oil and grease off parking lots. He stated the problem is interpretation of the language; and commented about future protection of wetlands, the permitting process of Department of Environmental Protection and St. Johns River Water Management District, mitigation, permitting pocket ponds in industrial and commercial areas, and protecting wetlands for the future.

Commissioner O?Brien stated the new language resolves the problem and spells out any new industrial and commercial zones created on the Future Land Use Map will be directed away from wetlands in the future.

Commissioner Ellis stated interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan precluded landowners from getting to State agencies because it says, "Commercial and industrial land uses shall be prohibited." He stated Mr. Kerr contends that meant future, and the way staff interpreted it caused the conflict.

Rob Lee, 1884 Gulf Court, Indialantic, advised the proposed language is a positive interim step, and encouraged the Board to include the mixed use districts in Policy 2.7.C., as it was designed for limited commercial expansion to serve residential areas. He stated without the ability to expand commercial within residential areas to serve the residents will force them to travel and increase traffic. Mr. Lee advised the Department of Community Affairs? February 22, 1996 letter views that it is the County?s position to allow commercial/industrial uses within wetlands; there is a difference between uses within wetlands and wetland impacts; isolated wetlands are distributed throughout all lands; and it is difficult to have a parcel that does not have a small pond on it. He stated impact should not be denied if mitigation is offered or required.

Pat Daly, 104 Lamplighter Drive, West Melbourne, stated she has provided the County with 37,000 trees; it is difficult to stop growth, but it has to be tripped up from time to time when it strips trees and impacts wetlands; and advised of problems in Lamplighter Village because of I-95 and Rodes Boulevard being constructed. She noted changes in Eau Gallie Yacht basin; and stated wetland and environmental issues should not be lessened. Ms. Daly commented on an experiment she conducted on the temperature in her car, noting one tree in the right place would have changed that; and inquired how much money is saved by taking down a tree instead of going around it.

Don Simms stated the amendment is an attempt to remove a layer of redundant regulations; Brevard County has lost thousands of well-paid jobs in the past few years; and the State only contributed $2,000,000 to help McDonnell Douglas, but is spending $100,000,000 on scrub jays. Mr. Simms indicated 15 years ago the Board wanted to make things work for the benefit of all; the County flourished and the economy was strong; and there was a common sense approach to problem solving which provided an environment for good growth and business expansion. He stated now they are faced with road blocks, regulations, and environmental elitists who never stop trying to prevent economic expansion; and urged the Board to remove the redundant regulations and re-establish common sense by passing the amendment today.

Norma Adams, 801 S. Brevard, Cocoa Beach, advised the policies use "shall" but the criteria use "would, could, and may be"; and that may have caused the difficulty of interpretation. She stated it leaves too much open to interpretation; and recommended more "shalls" be used. She also urged the Board to get its information out quicker.

Mary Todd, 135 S. Bel-Aire Drive, Merritt Island, representing Turtle Coast Group of the Sierra Club, indicated insufficient time for citizen input; and stated the Board has not carefully studied the effects the proposed changes will have nor investigated what properties would be affected and how the contributions of existing wetlands would be impacted. She stated in order to have the amendment accepted by Department of Community Affairs, the Board has to satisfactorily address the four objections stated in the ORC Report, as follows: (1) protection of wetlands and natural functions of wetlands, (2) lack of supportive data and analysis assessing the impact of the proposed amendments on wetlands and their functional values, (3) omission of an analysis of how the amendments are compatible with the goals, objectives and policies of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan addressing protection of natural resources and so on, and (4) prevent urban sprawl. Ms. Todd stated none of the Department of Community Affairs? concerns are satisfactorily addressed; and their study of the Florida Statutes indicate the amendments are not in compliance with the State?s Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Ellis advised there was no carefully detailed study done to implement the Comprehensive Plan; no mapping was done when the Plan was implemented; and that is why there are conflicts today.

Pat Poole, Box 854, Melbourne, stated the Board is playing with people?s lives and the lives of future generations; it should not rush into changing the policy; it will know if it is working for clean air, pure water and natural resources that it is doing the right things for the people and future generations; and if it devastates the environment, it will know it is not doing the right things. She advised people do not have the right to come here and do whatever they want and cause destruction of the environment; and if people come with the attitude of giving instead of taking, then they will have a good County to live in. She stated environmentalists are not elitists; they are here because they care and hope the Board will care too; and requested the Board not vote for the amendment.

Jody Rosier, 460 Highway 436, Casselberry, representing Florida Audubon Society, advised there is a place for permitting and a place for planning; correct interpretation of the existing language will solve the problems; and adding the date on single-family residences in Policy 1.6 will allow people to know the effective date. She stated Policy 2.7.F.2. covers everything; the Society supports keeping the existing language; if new language is added about roads, etc., Department of Community Affairs will require a data analysis; and the Board will have to figure out what is happening to the wetlands, how it will affect the Indian River Lagoon, and how it will affect the tourist and fishing economies. She stated the simplest thing that will work is to interpret the existing language correctly; she reviews permits and very few are ever denied; and recommended adding language to promote buffering and protection of rare wetland systems in the Conservation Element. She encouraged the Board to promote wise growth and not unwise growth.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board is attempting to clarify the language so if a person has a parcel surrounded by commercial/industrial uses, he would not be prohibited from those uses and forced into residential use. He stated he does not know how the Board can direct staff on interpretation when it did not work before.

Assistant Growth Management Director Peggy Busacca advised the Board cannot simply deal with interpretation; there are some amendments that need to be made; the Future Land Use Map refers to Policy 5.2 as a limitation on the intensity or density of land use; and even though Policy 5.2 discusses Land Development Regulations, because it refers to standards within the Land Development Regulations, it has blurred the edge between planning and Land Development Regulations. She stated the same is true about Policy 1.6 where it talks about residential density guidelines, environmental constraints, more stringent density guidelines, and refers to Policy 5.2; so the Board should make some modifications so that it will be clear that planning and site design issues are separate.

County Attorney Scott Knox advised the issue of taking generated this discussion originally; Assistant County Attorney Katherine Harasz told the Board there were two alternatives--(1) amend the Comprehensive Plan, and (2) pay compensation; however, there is a third alternative which is limiting interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan to prevent a taking. He stated how the Board would limit a particular Comprehensive Plan policy would depend upon what the circumstances were and how it was being applied to a particular piece of property; but the concept of applying a limited interpretation is valid. He noted staff could keep a record on exactly how they interpreted those policies, and go back to that record to use it as precedent for additional interpretations.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Ms. Busacca has language to accomplish what the County Attorney said; with Ms. Busacca responding no, but it could be generated fairly quickly. Commissioner Higgs stated what she read from Department of Community Affairs indicates it does not find a whole lot acceptable; with Commissioner Ellis responding that is not what he read. Commissioner Higgs stated going back to the original language was suggested; and if there is some way to accomplish what has been discussed and getting it through Department of Community Affairs, she would like to know what that language is.

Carole Pope, 715 Rockledge Drive, Rockledge, advised she is here as a taxpayer and voter and to have standing before this issue because she supports the State and its scrutiny of the recommendations. She stated the amendments are ill-conceived and ill-prepared; it is probably the worst criticism she has ever seen from the agencies that reviewed the document; and the Board needs to delay this amendment. She advised the State said it was inconsistent with Rule 9J-5, many of the items proposed are contradictory, and a lot of it leads to overcrowding of lands adjacent to wetlands. She stated the Comprehensive Plan is the overall view of protection for individual property owners in Brevard County so they can be assured the property they buy is properly developed; the way the Board is trying to gut the Plan flies in the face of the property owners of Brevard County; they are consistently interested in one thing, and that is quality of life; and they are not saying no development, but they want quality development. Ms. Pope stated the top three issues of every poll

taken in Brevard County are education, crime, and quality of life; the thoughts shared at five public hearings painted a portrait of people struggling with rapid growth concerns; they are tired of paying the bills for flooding, overcrowded roads, inconsistencies, and officials they cannot trust; and that is why they voted against the school bond, not because they do not support education, but because they do not support officials who do not spend their money properly. She stated the three Commissioners who are trying to perpetrate gutting the Comprehensive Plan need to remember that the only reason they are sitting on the Board is because the people voted against their predecessors and not for their ideas; their predecessors were flagrantly ignoring the same regulations; and now the response to the people is to throw the regulations out. Ms. Pope stated people make fun of environmentalists and talk about them being in favor of birds and spending a lot of money on birds; those people are quality control specialists who think about the quality of life and not how many people they can jam into Brevard County; and the more population, the more the salaries of elected officials increase. She requested someone show her in the Constitution where people are guaranteed a profit for land speculation and investment; and stated quality of life will do more to attract quality employers than swamp land development. She stated quality development allows a person to put a business here and know he can depend on his property not flooding; the regulations are for the benefit of everyone; and urged the Board to delay its vote and have more public comment and do more studies before making changes. She stated the Board is compromising good developers by the proposed amendment; and she hopes her statements will be on record to give her standing if the State does not pursue it.

Commissioner Ellis advised the Board is not gutting the Comprehensive Plan; the amendment affects less than 1% of the wetlands; Department of Community Affairs? letter states, "However, recognizing that the County undertook a land use planning effort to appropriately locate commercial and industrial uses during the development of the Comprehensive Plan, a policy could be established which allows, as an exception, the permitting processes of regulating agencies, St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to afford wetland protection for those areas currently designated for commercial and industrial uses. In our discussions with the St. Johns River Water Management District staff, this limited exception policy appears to be acceptable if applied only to areas currently designated for commercial and industrial uses." Commissioner Ellis stated Department of Community Affairs did not slam everything the Board did; and the Comprehensive Plan today has been interpreted to preclude a person from getting to the State agencies.

Commissioner Higgs advised Department of Community Affairs also wrote, "Given the representations of the County, the information given by St. Johns River Water Management District, we would consider a limited interim approach, and would allow as an exception the permitting process to address protection of wetlands on those areas currently designated for commercial/industrial uses. It would be difficult to support amendments which move beyond the limited issue." Commissioner Ellis inquired which part of the amendment moves beyond that issue; with Commissioner Higgs responding people have concerns about the lack of a date, transportation corridors, and definitions. Commissioner Ellis advised the comments are that the permitting process will address protection of wetlands in those areas currently designated for commercial/industrial uses; the maps depict how many acres the amendment works with; and Department of Community Affairs and St. Johns District feel people should be allowed to work through the State agencies and mitigate if they have a parcel surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. Commissioner Higgs suggested the Board go back to the original language to see what can be included that may address the issues and solve the problems.

Tim McWilliams, 492 E. Eau Gallie Boulevard, Indian Harbour Beach, stated the Board is trying to fix a problem in the existing regulations; if it was all up to interpretation, it would have been fixed a long time ago; so the Board needs to change the language to fix the problem. He stated if it can be done quickly through Department of Community Affairs, that would be great; but if the Board has to use the measured change, then it should get it done. Mr. McWilliams advised it is not destroying all wetlands or the St. Johns River; it is to fix the problem of property owners who have small isolated wetlands; and in the long run Brevard County will be better off because it will not have net loss and will have more wetlands with two to one mitigation. He stated he is a developer and environmentalist; it is important to save trees, wetlands and birds; but the change is common sense and gives landowners some flexibility, and at the same time saves the wetlands.

Carol Senne, Highway 100, Palatka, representing St. Johns River Water Management District, advised she wants to clarify the District?s position on permitting mentioned in Department of Community Affairs? letter; the District believes there are three levels; one is the land use decision that the local government makes; and once that land use decision is made, the local land development regulations and permitting are what protect the wetlands; and what is missing from the sentence in the letter is the concept that the local Land Development Regulations which the Board adopts and has in its Comprehensive Plan work hand-in-hand with the permitting. She stated they agree with Department of Community Affairs to add a date certain and refer to lots of record on single-family residential; they agree with Department of Community Affairs that Policy 2.7 needs to be tighter and that it is not clear what the definition of direct uplands and issues like that are; and on the Conservation Element Policy 5.2, they agree with C which is something a lot of local governments do. She stated the District does not have a problem with the County requiring permits be obtained; however, the language, "wetland functionality and mitigation shall be determined by the St. Johns" could become a situation where the District?s staff would be making determinations for zoning. Ms. Senne suggested using the District?s criteria rather than placing its staff in a position of making wetland determinations in areas such as zoning before it gets to the permitting stage. She advised they consider commercial and industrial land uses to be the land use designations on the Future Land Use Map; once a Future Land Use designation is made and found in compliance, that is the status of all future land use designations that are on the Future Land Use Map; compliance means they were found to be internally consistent; and once the land use designations are found in compliance, it is then that the Land Development Regulations adopted by the Board are considered. She stated as it gets to the site specific issues, the permitting that occurs determines the outcome of the wetlands on those sites; the District believes in that hierarchy of planning; but staff is interpreting land use to mean use of lands as commercial or industrial; she does not know how the

Board can solve that problem; but if there is a way to make a distinction that it is a policy that directs the future land use designation, she hopes it will retain the policy to help in the decision-making process for future land use designations because it has worked and it is language that has been adopted and found in compliance. She stated that would be the easiest way to solve the problem with lots that are in existing future land use designations and found in compliance but have problems in the zoning process and site plan process because there are wetlands on site.

Commissioner Ellis advised the new language for Policy 2.7.A. is very clear; it says, "New industrial land use designation should be directed to areas that are not wetlands"; and it will take the place of the language that is not clear and will not be an interpretation issue. Ms. Senne advised the Board could put that language in there, but it does not have a problem because the existing language has been found to comply; and requested an opportunity to review the language staff may come up with and comment. She stated if the Board is deleting Policy 2.7 and replacing it, Department of Community Affairs is communicating that the County will have to provide an analysis that goes along with it. Commissioner Ellis stated there was no analysis done when the Plan was done. Ms. Senne stated there was an analysis done based on the information available at that time. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board is being asked for an in-depth analysis that was never done; and had an analysis been done, staff would be able to reach in and get that data right now.

Commissioner Higgs thanked Ms. Senne for her efforts in trying to help Brevard County come up with a solution to the problem. She inquired if Ms. Senne feels the language the Audubon Society alluded to would address and solve the problem; with Ms. Senne responding it is up to County staff to counsel the Board as to whether or not they feel it will solve the problem, but conceptually they support it if that is the direction the Board chooses to go in.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Ms. Busacca comment on minimal language that could be used to resolve the problem.

Ms. Busacca advised the Legend of the Future Land Use Map has a footnote that says, "Locations and intensities are subject to Policies 5.1 through 5.5 for heavy or light industrial, and locations and intensities are subject to Policies 4.1 and 4.11 for mixed use districts"; embedded within those policies may be references to language contained in the Land Development Regulations; and that may be how staff managed to make Land Development Regulations language into planning language. She stated the intent was a disclaimer to explain to people they could not necessarily get the maximum density shown on the Future Land Use Map, because at the site specific review they may find out there are other policies such as concurrency and other things which would limit that; and that is how staff managed to get to the interpretation on land uses which are not permitted if there is a wetland on the site. She stated they could probably use the existing language as direction for a site design review which is done by the Land Development Regulations, but it needs to change some language to make it clear that it is not specifically talking about a future land use designation, or have direction from the Board that it is not the legislative intent.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Busacca can suggest some language; with Ms. Busacca responding she can give the Board an example. She stated Policy 1.6 discusses residential density and says, "The residential density guidelines for each density area of this Comprehensive Plan represent a maximum threshold, and the allowable density shall be based upon the following maximum criteria." She stated the criteria includes environmental constraints and more stringent density guidelines established in the Conservation Element Policies 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.2; and if it is the Board?s intent that allowable density shall be reviewed at the site plan or subdivision review stage, then she is not certain any language needs to be changed.

Commissioner O?Brien advised Policy 1.6 says, "Residential density shall be limited to no more than one dwelling per five acres unless strict application of this Policy renders a legally established parcel which is less than five acres as unbuildable." He stated the previous policy did not have that sentence, so if they could not do it in five acres they could not do it; and that was a taking of land. He stated that language will resolve problems where there are two acres in residential areas that have already been built.

Ms. Senne advised the District concurs with the single-family residential language if a date certain is put in there so it tightens it up; the Board has a policy that directs future land use decision-making criteria in a policy that directs what belongs in the Land Development Regulations; Policy 2.7 delineates policy that needs to be addressed in the Land Development Regulation Ordinances; and one of those policies deals with land use designations. She indicated the problem can be solved as she pointed out; and if the Board can solve the dilemma, then the District would feel comfortable with that approach and solution.

Commissioner Higgs advised language could be inserted that clarifies if established before 1988, or the date the Board determines in proposed Policy 1.6.A; that would not be taking property and making it unbuildable; and the existing language could be used and clarifying language could be inserted in existing Policy 2.7.F.1.

Commissioner O?Brien stated the original language in Policy 1.6 did not include "unless"; and if that is added, and language to address density transfer to upland areas, it would be more specific and not use strict application. He stated the current Policy 2.7 is being deleted as a duplicative policy and being replaced with, "new industrial land use designations should be directed to areas which are not wetlands"; that is common sense, so people in the future do not come looking for zoning in wetlands; and that is what the Board wants to accomplish. Commissioner O?Brien stated presently the maps have commercial zones with buildings; and parcels are filling up with oil, grease, garbage, etc. that perhaps were wetlands at one time. He stated mitigation has been a failure because of the lack of good planning; wetlands have increased in Brevard County because mosquito impoundment areas have been flushed out and made viable wetlands again; and 44,000 acres of saltwater marsh and 12,000 acres of freshwater wetlands have been gained that were not there 20 years ago. He stated he does not know if that is true, but that was told to him and deserves being looked into. He reiterated that new commercial/industrial development not in wetlands makes sense.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has the ability to deal with the problems by making small changes to the existing language. Commissioner O?Brien stated the new verbiage does not substantially change the old version, but it clears up the problem; and inquired why should the Board stick with the old language when it has better language now. Commissioner Higgs stated the ability to predict what the new language will do and how it will impact the land is what people are concerned about; and if the Board is concerned about solving the two problems that have been identified, it has the opportunity to do that with small changes to the existing language which has more potential of being accepted by Department of Community Affairs. She noted the fewer changes made, the better the chances are of solving the real problems that were identified. Discussion ensued between Commissioners O?Brien and Higgs on the old language versus the new language, strict application by staff, and making changes is not always bad.

Ms. Senne advised the St. Johns District does not recognize that all wetlands in present industrial and commercial land use designations have all become dysfunctional or trashed; that does happen in some instances, but there are still some functional wetlands; and those are evaluated during the permitting process at the St. Johns District. She stated there were thousands of acres of wetlands in the St. Johns River area; a lot of those were ditched and diked and turned into agricultural enterprises; since then, the District has undertaken an aggressive program in the Upper Basin and has restored thousands of acres of original wetlands; there is a tremendous effort going on which is not complete yet, and it may be larger than 12,000 acres. Commissioner O?Brien mentioned the marshes on Merritt Island, and Ms. Senne mentioned the restoration program up and down the Indian River Lagoon and in other counties to the south. Commissioner Ellis stated it is important to recognize that the wetlands are not disappearing in Brevard County. Ms. Senne stated it is a difficult decision to come up with something that is considered fair and reasonable; she has concerns with Policies 2.7.A and B as proposed, and about what was deleted with Policy 2.7.

Norma Savell, 3500 S. Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, advised the bottom line is no net loss of functional wetlands; constant reviews, tests, polls, analysis, or other stalls that continuously come up are tiresome; and developers are property owners. She stated the proposed policy change is very small, so she cannot believe there is any resistance to it; and requested the Board support the change.

Roy Pence, 4533 Canard Road, Melbourne, advised of his problems with his property off Wickham Road that could not be developed because of an isolated wetland, and he resolved it by annexing into the City of Melbourne, went through permitting with the St. Johns District, and mitigated the wetland two to one. He stated the prohibition is unique to Brevard County and does not exist anywhere else in Florida; and he supports what the Board is trying to do to make it reasonable for a person to utilize his property. He stated there will be no net loss of wetlands; the requirement is still in the Comprehensive Plan; if someone has a dysfunctional wetland on his property he will be able to use it with mitigation; there is a stringent permitting process in place; and it will not impact the wetlands by going through that process because there are no loopholes to it. Mr. Pence advised there is confusion and lack of understanding of the permitting process; the language proposed is minimum language to address the issue; and requested the Board adopt the language.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board wants Ms. Busacca to provide language after lunch; with Commissioner Ellis responding every iteration is still trying to accomplish the same concept; he prefers to send language to Department of Community Affairs of what the Board is trying to accomplish; and if it does not like it, then it needs to be specific of what it wants.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board did not get definitive answers from Department of Community Affairs at the workshop to bring it to where it needs to be; Mr. Patterson?s letter indicates it would be difficult to support amendments that move beyond the limited issue; the Board can have language that solves the problem, but if it is not accepted by Department of Community Affairs then those people who need assistance get nothing; so she would like to see language that would solve the problems and be accepted by Department of Community Affairs. Ms. Busacca indicated Department of Community Affairs would like to see a date on residential density in Policy 1.6; it believes Policy 2.7 does no harm; and it wants Policy 5.2.F.2 and 3 to remain so those could be used at the site design stage. She stated Department of Community Affairs could probably agree that the currently designated commercial and industrial lands on the Future Land Use Map can be utilized and allowed to go forward to the permitting stage, but it wants Policy 5.2.F.2 and 3 for new commercial and industrial designations design standards.

The meeting recessed at 12:32 p.m. and reconvened at 1:23 p.m.

Chairman Cook read a letter from Priscilla Griffith, Natural Resources Chairman of the League of Women Voters of the Space Coast, as follows: "The League of Women Voters of the Space Coast finds itself unable to support the current proposed wording for the Future Land Use Element and Conservation Element as regards wetlands. Our general reasons for this stance are that the County has not given data and analysis to support these changes from the 1988 Comprehensive Plan. It is not clear what the implications for the future are of these changes, and there appears to be some loopholes which would allow future unnecessary development for commercial and industrial purposes and residential. Furthermore, it appears that the County?s only protection of wetlands would be much diminished by this wording. There may be some planning, but there is very little protection proposed by the County, particularly of isolated non-jurisdictional wetlands. We hope that we are wrong in our conclusions. We intend to look over very carefully what finally goes from the County to Department of Community Affairs and comment vigorously. There?s an old saying that haste makes waste. Let?s hope that the haste with which these changes are being made do not waste our wetlands. Thank you."

Commissioner Higgs inquired if new language would be inserted in Policy 1.6, everything between Policies 1.6 and 2.7 would remain the same, and everything in Policy 2.7 would be deleted and replaced because the current language is duplicated in Policy 5.2 of the Conservation Element; with Ms. Busacca responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough requested an explanation of the underlines, big print, small print, all caps, etc.; and Ms. Busacca explained the changes in the last hour are all bold caps, the underline is new language to the Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1.6 of the Future Land Use Element is the language the Board has seen before, after the words "legally established parcel," and "as of (date)" was added as Department of Community Affairs recommended. Commissioner Scarborough inquired why some language in all caps are underlined and others are not; with Ms. Busacca responding that language is currently in the Comprehensive Plan; her draft showed it stricken; and now she is suggesting it come back, so Policy 2.7 will not show any changes proposed. She stated Policy 5.2 has added language of "to be utilized for review of site specific development"; and that will direct staff that it is not for comprehensive planning terms. She stated B states, "Brevard County should utilize the same methodologies for determining functionality of wetlands," because the St. Johns District does not want to be solely responsible for determining functionality. Ms. Busacca advised C is the same as before; D all caps is language that exists in the Comprehensive Plan, and the underlined portion, "mitigation ratios should be tied to the functionality of the impacted wetlands," was suggested by Commissioner O?Brien at a previous meeting. She stated G was F, and the language is as currently exists in the Comprehensive Plan except as underlined where it talks about strict application of a legally established parcel; G.3, utilization of fill, is the existing language that seems to be preferable from the Department of Community Affairs? standpoint; and she added, at the request of the St. Johns District, "the requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit." She noted the intent is so that the County would not be inconsistent with the permit requirements regarding fill if someone has a permit. She stated G, H. and I should be H, I and J; "professional staff" has been deleted from Policy 5.3.A, as there was a comment that the County wants to depend on the final evaluation of Department of Environmental Protection and the St. Johns District whether it be staff or the governing boards; and those are all the changes shown in the green pages.

Commissioner O?Brien advised G.3 has "and to the requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection"; and that is where it was duplicative because it is already being done by them. Ms. Busacca responded her rationale was that she did not want to see someone come in and go through all the trouble of getting a permit from the St. Johns District that specifically showed what they were allowed to fill and then Brevard County staff say they are not going to allow that person to fill no matter what is on the permit. She stated the policy as proposed would require the permit be obtained first; staff would then know what the information is; and she was trying to say the County will be consistent with that, and not make someone go back and alter the permit he or she already obtained. She noted she was trying to be consistent rather than duplicative. Commissioner O?Brien stated a lot of things in the policies are nothing more than a rubber stamp of other agencies? policies. Chairman Cook stated that was one area the Board looked at; and the agencies that have jurisdiction over wetlands are Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Protection Agency, St. Johns River Water Management District, Corps of Engineers and the County.

Commissioner Higgs advised page 2, Item B says, "limited commercial uses may be considered where the construction of major transportation corridors have altered the functionality and continued

viability of the wetlands"; and inquired if there is anything in that language that specifies what can be done. She stated the language is unnecessary because a future board could consider it anyway. Ms. Busacca stated if the language is located in an area such that a less intensive use would be compatible with the character of the area, that is true. Commissioner O?Brien stated it may be necessary to say lands which are designated as commercial and industrial on a date on the Future Land Use Map to lock it in place. Commissioner Ellis inquired if B should be changed to "new commercial land use designations"; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. She stated they have a mixed use district so that is problematic because they do not have a commercial land use designation; and inquired if they should say "new commercial land use within mixed use district," or is the Board comfortable with the idea that commercial land use designations will be understood to include mixed use districts. Commissioner Ellis stated that is what a mixed use district is.

Commissioner Ellis stated he has concerns about G.2, page 3 which says, "commercial/industrial land uses shall be prohibited"; and inquired how is it supposed to be interpreted differently from the way it is interpreted now; with Ms. Busacca responding because Department of Community Affairs feels at the site plan review stage, commercial and industrial lands will not be placed on the site in such a way as to be built in the wetlands is something they would like to see; they also said they are willing to consider this as an interim policy with the intent that staff would come back and do other language which would protect the wetland and still give flexibility in development with more data and analysis.

Mr. Jenkins suggested "approved after the adoption of this policy or amendment" be inserted in G.2. Commissioner O?Brien stated it would then say, "Commercial and industrial land uses approved after the adoption of this policy on this date shall be prohibited." Commissioner Ellis inquired if G.2 is saying, if they came in and got a land use designation as commercial/industrial after this is adopted, they can still get the designation, but whatever they do on the site they would have to work around the wetlands; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct; and if the Board wants to put wording like that into the Comprehensive Plan, staff would feel comfortable with that language.

The Board discussed mitigation ratios and overriding public interest. Commissioner Scarborough indicated an overriding public interest could be to have a large commercial activity at the Grissom Parkway/I-95 connector rather than having strip malls all along Grissom Parkway because of traffic safety, unity of a community, and other planning considerations. Commissioner Ellis stated he is concerned with a strict interpretation that it would be a government-owned facility.

Chairman Cook advised it is common sense regulatory reform; and to define the issue as protecting or not protecting the environment is a cheap shot. He stated every Commissioner is concerned about the wetlands and protecting the environment; and as elected officials they have to be concerned about what impacts their regulations have in the real world. He stated they can protect the environment and wetlands and have a common sense approach to the problem; there are numerous agencies that have jurisdiction over wetlands; and they are all trying to do what is best for the community.

Commissioner Higgs stated there was talk about limited changes to the existing language; and inquired if that is a possibility; with Ms. Busacca responding the changes suggested has to do with residential density and legally established parcels; even though it is a great deal of verbiage, it is a relatively easy concept to iterate; and the additional language separates planning and permitting. Commissioner Higgs inquired about Policy 2.7.B, regarding transportation corridors and commercial uses; with Ms. Busacca responding the intent of the language is to direct new future land use designations, not to talk about what is on the map currently, and to give staff some ability to say that even though along some commercial corridors they do not have a commercial nature, it may be acceptable, as the area evolves, to put commercial in that area. Commissioner Higgs stated it does nothing positive or negative so she cannot support that language. She inquired if G.1 will have a date; with Chairman Cook responding it should be the date of adoption. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that date will be inserted on the legally established parcels also. Commissioner Ellis stated he does not want to go back to 1988, and if the Board does, it should be prepared to buy all the unbuildable parcels. Commissioner Higgs stated she does not have a problem going back to 1988; and it would not have to buy the unbuildable parcels because there is a mechanism for that.

Discussion ensued on taking property and paying owners, interpreting the policy so it is not a taking, the appropriate date, and a mechanism for resolving potential conflicts. Ms. Busacca stated Department of Community Affairs? preference would be 1988, but if the only problem they have is the date, they would not find the County in non-compliance based on the date alone.

Chairman Cook inquired what the Board should be considering in regard to the Harris Act and property rights legislation; with Mr. Knox responding anything the Board does that is different than what it already has is going to be a new regulation; once it has a new regulation in place, the potential for a Harris Act claim rears its head because anybody who can interpret that new regulation as adversely affecting their property values can make a claim under that Act. He stated whether or not some of the changes would have that effect is yet to be seen; but the fact that it is making changes that create new regulations could give rise to that possibility.

Commissioner Higgs requested the County Attorney advise the Board of minor changes that could be done to address the problem; with Mr. Knox responding from a legal standpoint, the only thing that is being changed through the original proposals made by the Board is that the land use regulations no longer have to have the three things that were stricken as minimum criteria; and that does not mean the Board does not have an ordinance that has those things in it or cannot put those things in it, it just means that the policies in the Future Land Use Element and Conservation Element no longer will require it. He stated if the Board wants to leave those policies in there, it could add a few words to make it clear that it applies to new land use designations, or except for existing land use designations. Mr. Knox advised the only reason it has become a problem is because the Legend of the Comprehensive Plan has a note on it that says land uses must be consistent with those polices; those policies do not have a regulatory effect; and all it says is the Land Development Regulations have to have those kinds of things in it. He stated the courts would have trouble applying Policy 2.7.F. as a regulatory item because it says the Land Development Regulations have to have those in it, and does not say the policy governs how the property can be used.

Chairman Cook advised the Land Development Regulations and Ordinances still have restrictions that will not change by accepting the Local Planning Agency?s recommendation. Mr. Knox advised the Local Planning Agency?s recommendation is to eliminate minimum criteria that should be in the Land Development Regulations; and nothing has changed on how those regulations work. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the note on the Legend is eliminated, would that solve the problem; with Mr. Knox responding it would eliminate the problem that caused those regulations to be interpreted on a site-by-site basis. Commissioner Higgs inquired what else will the Board need to do; with Mr. Knox responding it could make the language clear that the regulations do not apply to existing situations, by adding, "New commercial and industrial land uses shall be prohibited unless the project has a special reason."

Commissioner Ellis stated the problem is not how it is written, but how staff has interpreted it for seven years; and he wants to clear that up by using straightforward and clear language. Mr. Knox advised Policy 5.2.F.2 could read, "New commercial and industrial land use designations shall be prohibited unless the proposed project has a special reason or need to locate within wetlands and there is an overriding public interest." He indicated public interest holds connotations of a public project as opposed to a private project; so maybe the better word would be "planning" interest. Chairman Cook stated he wants to add language that would leave interpretation out of the picture; with Commissioner Higgs responding the language says new commercial and industrial land use designations and gets away from the use of the land.

Mr. Knox stated if the Board is trying to eliminate the interpretation issue, it needs to eliminate the note on the Legend of the Land Use Map. He stated the Policy reads the way it supposed to read that the Land Development Regulations must have that kind of provisions in it instead of having staff interpret that Policy as part of the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the note on the legend can be deleted today; with Mr. Knox responding no, it would require another plan amendment. Ms. Busacca advised Department of Community Affairs may not be comfortable with that because it gives no guidance how a site plan is to be reviewed for existing industrial land use designations. Mr. Knox stated if Department of Community Affairs? concern is current land use designations, and it is trying to use the Policy to give guidance, then all the discussion has been for nothing because it would create the same problem the Board has had for seven years. Ms. Busacca stated Department of Community Affairs sees the language as good language for reviewing site plans should a wetland occur on a parcel, the development itself will not be put in the wetland. Mr. Knox and Ms. Busacca discussed Department of Community Affairs? suggestions, appropriate language, interim policy, and additional data and analysis.

Commissioner Ellis supported the language on the green sheets with slight modifications, and prohibition applying only to new commercial and industrial land use designations in Policy G.2. Ms. Busacca inquired if it would be in Policy 2.7 also; with Commissioner Ellis responding it needs to be in there. Ms. Busacca inquired if staff would put the date approved in G.2. as February 23, 1996; with Commissioner Ellis responding they can put the date instead of new, and also put a date in G.1. Ms. Busacca noted Policy 1.6 will need a date also. Commissioner Ellis stated he prefers the date of adoption versus 1988.

Chairman Cook recommended a separate vote on the date; and indicated his impression that the Board would not get a 120 hearing if it approves the date of adoption. Ms. Busacca recommended reiterating Department of Community Affairs? concerns that it would be an interim policy and subject to re-evaluation during the County?s EAR process. Commissioner Ellis stated the entire Comprehensive Plan is subject to review in the EAR process, so they can put that language in there since it does not change anything.

Discussion ensued on Department of Community Affairs? orders, amendments to address the main issues, new language, and appeal to the Governor if denied without reasons.

Mr. Knox advised after adoption of the amendments, it will go back to Department of Community Affairs to make a finding of compliance or non-compliance; if it finds the County in non-compliance, it will send the County into a 120 hearing; and if it has specific language, it will let the County know at that point and work out a stipulation to settle the non-compliance issues. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Department of Community Affairs rejects the amendments, will it come back with language; with Mr. Knox responding in the context of a 120 proceeding, it will do that. Commissioner Ellis inquired if it will cost over $100,000; with Mr. Knox responding not to the County.

Chairman Cook stated his preference is to avoid a 120 hearing; with Mr. Knox responding the Board cannot avoid a 120 hearing unless it gives Department of Community Affairs exactly what it wants the first time; and the likelihood of that happening is not very good. Chairman Cook advised he likes the language in the green sheets which could avoid a 120 hearing and bring common sense to the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner O?Brien advised Policy 5.2, page 2, says, "to be utilized for review of site specific development"; and inquired if the Plan is for the entire County, how can it focus on site specific; with Ms. Busacca responding she was trying to make it clear that the Land Development Regulations were intended for site specific development and not used as a planning tool. She stated Policy 5.2 directs that the County will adopt Land Development Regulations; and she was being redundant to address the issue of the Legend on the Future Land Use Map should there be any questions whether the Legend is directing staff back to those policies. Commissioner O?Brien and Ms. Busacca discussed the Comprehensive Plan being global in nature yet specific, land development regulations not used as criteria for planning, separation of planning and site specific review criteria, and regulations which promote no net loss of functional wetlands.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve the date as the date of adoption of the 1995B Comprehensive Plan Amendments.

Discussion continued on the appropriate date, unbuildable parcels that are legally subdivided, and relief for people who have property zoned commercial or industrial prior to this date.

Ms. Senne advised Policy 5.2 states, "to be utilized for review of site specific development"; G appears to direct decisions about land use, yet it is also qualified as being site specific which the land use is not; and she is confused on what the intent is with the land use language being site specific. Ms. Busacca advised the intent was not land use designation, but the actual impact from building activities. Ms. Senne stated she spoke to Department of Community Affairs; it is her understanding that Department of Community Affairs assumed the restrictions were considerations made about land uses; and if the Policy was in the Land Use Section, Department of Community Affairs would interpret the existing land uses, as adopted, are in compliance with it, and that it was not to be applied to zoning. She stated if a five-acre parcel with an existing industrial or commercial land use designation found in compliance has a wetland, Department of Community Affairs would not consider it not to be rezoned; she asked them that specifically; and that is why they were concerned about retaining the restrictions. Ms. Senne stated rather than guessing what Department of Community Affairs wants, that one sentence the County Attorney recommended could be faxed to them to get their consideration. She stated her concern is having policies directing land use decisions in the regulation section being site specific; that appears to be problematic; and it could bring the Board back to the original problem.

Chairman Cook inquired if it is mandatory to be included; with Ms. Busacca responding when the next Future Land Use Map designation is sent to Department of Community Affairs for industrial, they will want the County to show that the industrial land use is good for a variety of reasons, such as it meets compatibility, concurrency, and all the usual review issues; they will also like to know that the actual development activity is placed on the site in such a way that the wetland is not impacted; and that is why they are suggesting it be an interim policy. Chairman Cook stated that is a large departure; with Ms. Busacca responding Department of Community Affairs is saying the design approved by the St. Johns District is fine; however, should the County in the future decide to put a new industrial land use on the map, until it comes up with a better policy as part of its update, they anticipate the design of the new industrial use will not impact the wetland.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Policy 5.2 talks about specifics, and G.2. talks about general; it would be easier to go from general to specific; and it may not be possible at this late hour, but it makes more sense. Ms. Busacca advised Department of Community Affairs said for anything currently designated in the Future Land Use Map, the permitting will consider protection of the wetland at the site design stage; but if the County is looking at new land use designations, it will do an analysis based on suitability, which includes the environmental analysis, character of the area, compatibility, public facilities and services, and it will direct the uses to the sites where there are sufficient uplands. Commissioner O?Brien inquired what is St. Johns District going to do; with Ms. Busacca responding the St. Johns District does not look at planning; and once the property is purchased, zoned by local government, and comes in for specific uses, the way the building or parking is located around the wetland will become a permitting issue. She stated Policy 2.7 says when someone comes in and wants a new commercial land use designation, he will be directed to areas which are not wetlands, except if the activity has an overriding public interest, no feasible alternative location, or is located in an area where a less intensive land use would be incompatible with the character of the area. Chairman Cook stated he has no problem with that.

Mr. Knox advised the reason everyone is struggling with this is because what Department of Community Affairs wants and what the County has are two different things; it wants a regulatory plan; but the County?s plan says it will adopt Land Development Regulations to deal with the issue. He stated Department of Community Affairs wants the County to eliminate the first paragraph of Policy 5.2 which says it will adopt Land Development Regulations which will incorporate the criteria, and start with the criteria so the policies govern how the Board determines where it will put industrial and commercial land uses as opposed to the Land Development Regulations comporting with the criteria. Chairman Cook stated he does not have a problem taking commercial and industrial developments away from wetland areas as far as future land uses are concerned.

Commissioner Higgs advised a line could be inserted in the existing policies to take care of unbuildable lots; F.2 can be amended with three words; and a sentence could be added stating commercial and industrial land uses that have been adopted and found in compliance shall be governed by the permitting agencies and Land Development Regulations. She stated she cannot fully grasp all the implications of what the proposed language is going to do. Commissioner Ellis stated the language is specific, so he does not understand why Commissioner Higgs said she does not understand the implications. He stated there is language for new industrial designations and how they are to handle that property; how to handle unbuildable lots, and what to do with existing commercial/industrial designations; so he does not know what is not clear in the language.

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

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough for discussion, that (1) Policy 2.7.F.2 of the Comprehensive Plan be amended as suggested by the County Attorney which would read essentially, "New commercial and industrial land use designations shall be prohibited unless the proposed project has a special reason or need to locate within wetlands, and there is an overriding public interest, the activity has no feasible alternative location, the activity will result in minimum feasible alteration, and the activity does not impair the functionality of the wetlands; (2) insert in Policy 2.7.F.2 "Once a commercial or industrial land use designation has been adopted and found in compliance, County Land Development Regulations and regulating agencies for wetlands shall afford those protections"; and (3) include on F.1, "Residential land uses shall be limited to not more than one dwelling unit per five acres unless strict application of this Policy renders a legally-established parcel which is less than five acres as unbuildable."

Chairman Cook stated everything on the green sheets accomplishes that; with Commissioner Higgs responding it would accomplish that, but she is not certain what else it would accomplish.

Discussion ensued on the similarities of the motion and the language in the green sheets.

Mr. Knox advised either approach will be sufficient to take care of the initial problems; and it will take some action to clarify the Land Development Regulations so there will not be the same problem when it comes in for review under the Land Development Regulations. He stated if the Board changes all the policies on the green sheet it will create new regulations which may or may not come into play under the Harris Act; he does not know what the impact of that is going to be; and no one can predict that until it starts being applied.

Commissioner Ellis stated Policies 2.7.A and B are more restrictive and can be deleted if there is concern about them; they were done for Department of Community Affairs which requested that at the Workshop; and if Commissioner Higgs wants those taken out, he has no problem with that. He stated he does not want to get rid of 2.7.C because that is the issue of administrative rezoning, and he does not want the property eligible for administrative rezoning.

Chairman Cook stated the green sheets address all the things Commissioner Higgs brought up; it is palatable and will avoid administrative hearing and address the problems; and the language has been worked out by staff with Department of Community Affairs.

Ms. Busacca stated she disagrees with Commissioner Ellis that Policies 2.7.A and B. are more restrictive than the existing Policy; and the language that says, "or is located in an area that a less intensive use would be incompatible with the character of the area and surrounding land uses," gives the Board more flexibility in the location of new commercial and industrial land uses. She stated without that guidance, they would be strictly determined to use what is in Policy 5.2.F.2 that says, "Commercial and industrial land uses shall be prohibited"; and the criteria, "special reasons or need to locate, overriding planning benefit, no feasible alternative, minimum feasible alteration, or not impair functionality of the wetland," may not give as much flexibility to the Board as the idea of less intensive land uses.

Discussion continued on new commercial land use designations, Port St. John interchange, internal consistency with policies, criteria, intent of Policy 2.7, and Mr. Healy?s comments.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to amend the motion and include Criteria A, B and C of Policy 2.7. Motion died for lack of a second.

Mr. Knox advised he does not see Policy 2.7 as being a regulatory policy that governs how the Board sets its land use designations; he sees it as a policy that requires the Board to adopt Land Development Regulations that conform to the policies; but when it comes to actually making a decision as to where it is going to put commercial or industrial land uses on the land use map, those policies do not have any relevance. He stated Criteria A, B and C on the green sheets are new criteria; Commissioner Ellis is correct in that sense it is more restrictive because there are no policies that tell the Board where to put commercial and industrial at this point; and Policy 2.7 does not require that. Commissioner Higgs stated Criteria C of Policy 2.7 says "lands which are currently designated as commercial/industrial in the Future Land Use Element are deemed consistent. . ." and inquired if so stated, is it simply stating again the obvious; with Mr. Knox responding it is a re-statement of an existing situation.

Commissioner Ellis stated if that is the case, he would prefer to go back to the original language where it said under no circumstances would it be administratively rezoned due to the presence of wetlands, because he understood C was to prevent the administrative rezoning. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the County Attorney?s thoughts are that Policy 2.7 is to develop Land Development Regulations; with Mr. Knox responding yes, it says, "By September, 1990, Brevard County shall adopt regulations which promote no net loss of functional wetlands. At a minimum, the following criteria shall be included in the Land Development Regulations:" Ms. Busacca advised staff suggests deleting Policy 2.7 entirely and replacing it with the language about the intent of locating new industrial and commercial land uses. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is talking about the regulations, land use map, and administrative rezoning; and they are scattered in the same Policy causing confusion.

Mr. Knox advised the existing Policy 2.7 is being viewed by Department of Community Affairs as policies that govern where to locate commercial and industrial uses; it does not do that because the Board cannot use Land Development Regulations to tell it where to plan for commercial and industrial; the plan is done first then implemented with Land Development Regulations; and it does not use Land Development Regulations to tell it where to put industrial and commercial land uses. He stated the green sheets eliminate that contradiction by eliminating that provision; and when that happens, the Board will have created a new set of regulations for determining where its commercial and industrial will be.

Chairman Cook inquired if the concern is the Harris Act; with Mr. Knox responding yes. Commissioner Ellis stated he is not concerned about the Harris Act because if the Board adopts something that is less stringent than the current regulations, how could it be sued under the Harris Act. He stated every time the Board tries to lessen regulations, the Harris Act comes up; and he does not think it was to freeze all regulations; with Mr. Knox responding that is exactly the intent. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board cannot go with less regulation because of the threat of the Harris Act; with Mr. Knox responding it is a matter of how it views less regulation; but if there are no existing regulations and new regulations are adopted, then it has regulations it did not have before. He stated the Harris Act says whatever is existing is okay.

The meeting recessed at 2:57 p.m. and reconvened at 3:20 p.m.

Commissioner Cook stated he has a copy of the language Commissioner Higgs worked on with the County Attorney, but his concern is staff worked hard on the green sheets and they probably address most of the issues and are acceptable to Department of Community Affairs.

Mr. Knox advised he raised the Harris Act because it is his job to put the Board on notice when it has potential problems; the reality of the Harris Act and Property Rights Act being brought into play on this kind of land use amendment is not that great; and if it was brought into effect, they could defend it, but he had to let the Board know there are potential problems out there. Commissioner Ellis stated if someone sued the County under the Harris Act because they experienced loss of value, the County would always have the option to go back to Department of Community Affairs and to what it has right now, but a lot of people are not going to be happy. Mr. Knox indicated part of the whole process of the Harris Act is to put the Board through a mediation situation to resolve the problem if it can before it is sued.

Commissioner Higgs advised part of the problem is the difficulty of separating planning issues from regulatory issues; inherent in problems with two Elements are the confusion around Policies 2.7 and 5.2; so if the Board pulls out F.1 and 2, put them into an appropriate future land use position, and add the language she suggested or Commissioner Ellis suggested of new commercial and industrial land uses, then it would put them into the planning category. She suggested adding once they have been designated commercial or industrial uses, then they are in compliance with the plan and go forward to permitting through the St. Johns River Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or in some cases Brevard County. She recommended adding under 5.2.F.1, dealing with one unit per five acres, the provision of, "unless strict application of the Policy renders a legally established lot as of (date) unbuildable"; and stated that would take care of the problem. She noted those three changes, plus moving F.1 and 2 into the Future Land Use, will take care of the problems. Commissioner Ellis stated it leaves out "designation"; with Commissioner Higgs responding it should be "new commercial and industrial land use designations shall be prohibited." Chairman Cook repeated his preference for the green sheets.

Discussion continued on Department of Community Affairs? interpretation, Harris Act, language in Policies 2.7 and 5.2.F.1 and 2, and interim policy.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to amend the motion to include whatever changes are made to Policy 5.2.F.1 and 2, the exact same language be inserted in Policy 2.7 to avoid internal conflict in the Plan.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the amendment accomplishes what the Board is trying to do; with Ms. Busacca responding the intent is to have a specific policy in the Future Land Use Element stating that residential land uses shall be limited to not more than one dwelling unit per five acres unless strict application of this Policy renders a legally established parcel, as of a date certain, which is less than five acres is unbuildable, then the additional language that commercial and industrial land use designations shall be prohibited unless the project has a special reason or need to locate. . .could be added to the Future Land Use Element and removed from the Conservation Element Policy 5.2, or duplicated. Commissioner O?Brien recommended duplicating it, and Commissioner Ellis said either way does not matter.

Ms. Busacca advised staff would have the same standard for review at site plan as they do for planning, that new commercial and industrial land uses shall neither be designated that way in the future nor be permitted to be site planned in such a way that there is impact to wetlands if the language is moved to the Future Land Use Element. Commissioner Ellis stated it would leave the interchange at Port St. John in the cold; with Ms. Busacca responding that is her understanding of what the Board is discussing. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board has spent over a year on this issue; it needs to go to Department of Community Affairs and get something back because it will not respond unless the County submits a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Commissioner Higgs stated it would not exclude Port St. John interchange because it says prohibited unless there is a special reason or need to locate, or an overriding public interest; and those things would allow it to go forward. Ms. Busacca stated Commissioner Scarborough?s concern was the location of commercial in conjunction with the interchange being problematic in deciding if there was an overriding public interest; she understands the intent of overriding planning interest; however, site plan review and land use planning criteria would utilize the same criteria. Commissioner Higgs inquired what would happen if the criteria was deleted from Policy 5.2 and put into Policy 2.7; with Ms. Busacca responding in that case there will be no criteria at site plan review because the criteria would then only be within the land development regulations. She stated Department of Community Affairs has a concern with the County not regulating uses on location within the Comprehensive Plan even if it simply refers to minimum standards that the Land Development Regulations will meet.

Chairman Cook inquired what is objectionable in the green sheets which accomplishes what the Board wants to accomplish. Commissioner Scarborough stated the discussion has jumped around from site plan review, administrative rezoning, etc. and is not internally consistent; and he has difficulty knowing what he is talking about and whether it is a land use map, Land Development Regulations, administrative rezoning, etc. because the concepts are not isolated and are mixed. He stated he has a lot of problems with the way it is structured; and that is why Ms. Senne asked questions about it. Commissioner Ellis reiterated it is a simple problem the Board wishes to correct, and should forward the amendments to the agencies to get language back.

Discussion ensued on the original language, original problem, replacement of new Policy 2.7 with language in F.1 or F.2 or G.1 or G.2, Port St. John interchange situation, clarifying Policy 5.2 by changing land uses to activities, and less intensive uses.

Ms. Busacca advised when she talked to Department of Community Affairs about the language, the Department was not certain it felt comfortable with that language being added to the proposed language staff had; however, if staff continues to keep F.1 and F.2 that may limit or address the Department of Community Affairs? concern because it was very clear to her it wanted the County to have some standards for Land Development Regulations in the Comprehensive Plan. She advised Department of Community Affairs said it does not review Land Development Regulations and if someone in the public has a concern that the County is not following its regulations, there is more standing if they are able to say the development order is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan rather than not consistent with the Land Development Regulations.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Commissioner Ellis wants to make an amendment to the motion to include Ms. Busacca?s language; with Commissioner Ellis inquiring if Ms. Busacca wants to use development activities. Ms. Busacca advised development activities is suggested for G.2 which would address Ms. Senne?s concerns of when it talks about future land use and on the ground development. She suggested "commercial and industrial development activities" replace "commercial and industrial land uses" in G.2; and indicated it may not need "approved after adoption of this policy." Commissioner Ellis stated it said shall be prohibited in new commercial and industrial land use designations; and Chairman Cook responded "new" was dropped for "after adoption of this policy." Commissioner Ellis recommended changing "public interest" to "planning interest." Ms. Busacca noted the intent is to make it clear they are talking about land development regulations as implementation not a designation on the Future Land Use Map.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to amend the motion to change "commercial and industrial land uses" to "commercial and industrial development activities," change "public interest" to "planning interest," and replace "new" with "date of adoption of this policy."

Commissioner Higgs accepted the amendment to the motion.

Commissioner Ellis read the amended Policy 5.2.F.2 as follows: "Commercial and industrial development activities shall be prohibited in commercial/industrial land use designation designated after date of adoption unless the project has a special reason or need to locate within wetlands and there is an overriding planning interest, the activity has no feasible alternative location, the activity will result in minimum feasible alteration, and the activity does not impair the functionality of the wetland."

Commissioner Higgs inquired what planning interest means; with Commissioner Ellis responding the actual site plan use of the wetland shall be prohibited unless there is an overriding planning interest on properties that are not yet designated commercial/industrial, but would be in the future. He stated it will solve the Port St. John interchange situation which will be a new designated commercial/industrial land use; and if there is an overriding planning interest, they would be permitted to work the wetland issues with St. Johns District and Department of Environmental Protection. Commissioner Higgs inquired if both cases will use planning interest; with Commissioner Ellis responding yes, it affects 5.2 and 2.7.

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

Commissioner Ellis expressed concern with the administrative rezoning issue; and recommended language be added to the Comprehensive Plan to prohibit administrative rezoning solely because of the presence of wetlands.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to add Section 5.2.H., "In no case shall an existing land use be administratively rezoned based solely upon the current historic presence of wetlands. This Policy is not intended to prohibit the restoration of historic floodplains or watersheds on publicly-owned lands."

Ms. Busacca advised under the previous scenario, that language was problematic for Department of Community Affairs, but she does not know what it will think about it as currently structured. Commissioner Ellis inquired if Department of Community Affairs has the option to challenge one portion of the amendments without challenging all of it; with Ms. Busacca responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough stated administrative rezoning is based on Board action, so the Board has some control over it. Commissioner Ellis stated his concern is not only future boards, but litigation against the Board which could force the Board through a court decision into administrative rezoning. Chairman Cook recommended inserting "lands which are currently designated as commercial and industrial in the Future Land Use Map are deemed to be consistent with this Policy." He stated that would accomplish the same thing. Commissioner Ellis stated he will move that language if it accomplishes the same thing.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to amend the motion to state, "Lands which are currently designated as commercial and industrial in the Future land Use Map are deemed to be consistent with this Policy." Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to add to Section 5.2.C., a sentence that says, "Mitigation ratios shall be tied to the functionality of the impacted wetlands."

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board has control over mitigation; with Ms. Busacca responding staff has occasionally required mitigation which was different than the requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District; and she talked to representatives from the District about that sentence who do not seem to have a problem with it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would staff have done differently if it was required; with Debbie Cole responding in the past staff has always accepted the District?s idea of what the mitigation ratio should be and relied on their expertise to determine what is appropriate.

Commissioner Higgs expressed concern that the motion would tie it only to functionality when there are other issues; and inquired what impact it will have on what staff does or what the District does; with Ms. Cole responding the District has a definition of functionality and base it on the quality of the wetland; and if functionality means quality, then it would not change much.

Ms. Senne advised the sentence would not impact what the District does; the way they look at it is (1) are the wetlands functioning, and rate them high, medium and low; and (2) use the concept of avoidance. She stated the new ERP requires that the first test of someone coming in is can they avoid the wetlands; if they cannot, then what is the minimum impact they can have to that wetland and how they can minimize the fill. She stated if they cannot avoid impact to the wetland, then they get to mitigation; mitigation is determined on site or off site; if it is off site, the appropriate ratio is determined by the District; and the ratios are tied to the type of wetland, whether pristine, impacted, etc. She noted the different types of wetlands have different ratios; some wetlands are very rare; and those are looked at differently. Commissioner Higgs stated so functionality would not be the only criterion; with Ms. Senne responding it is not the only criterion.

Commissioner Scarborough asked Ms. Senne to give an example of property that would not fall under the District?s jurisdiction; with Commissioner Ellis responding parcels that are less than half an acre. Ms. Senne advised local governments have the right to adopt regulations that are more stringent than the District?s regulations if it feels an additional level of protection needs to be afforded. She stated with the new ERP, they have permits that go to the governing board and general permits issued in Melbourne by staff; there are circumstances for general permits, such as single-family residential homes are allowed to fill in wetlands up to 4,000 feet and can clear 6,000 feet without mitigation; so if the Board feels it wants mitigation for that impact, then it could have its own regulations.

Chairman Cook inquired if staff can think of an instance where the County required that; with Ms. Cole responding there have been a couple of site plans where staff asked that additional mitigation be added for smaller isolated wetlands that were not considered in the overall mitigation package presented to the District.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is nothing wrong with the motion, as it will look at functionality and develop a policy; with Commissioner Higgs responding it is only basing ratio on functionality and that is only one of a number of reasonable criteria, so she cannot support it.

Chairman Cook stated he does not think that is the intent of the motion; and it would be related to the functionality, but not be the only criteria; with Commissioner Higgs responding it is okay if it is not solely tied to the functionality. Commissioner Scarborough recommended "in determining mitigation ratios, the functionality of the impacted wetlands should be considered." with Commissioner Higgs responding that is fine.

Commissioner O?Brien and Commissioner Scarborough accepted the amendment to the motion

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

The meeting recessed at 4:09 p.m. and reconvened at 4:23 p.m.

Amendment 95B.1

Mr. Corwin advised the applicant is Brevard County; the property is located in Section 11, Township 26S., Range 36E.; the existing land use designation is public facilities; and the proposed land use designation is residential.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Amendment 95B.1 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Amendment 95B.2

Mr. Corwin advised the applicant is Brevard County; the property is located in Section 11, Township 26S., Range 36E.; the existing land use designation is residential; and the proposed land use designation is public facilities.

Motion by Commissioner O?Brien, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve Amendment 95B.2 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Amendment 95B.3

Mr. Corwin advised the applicant is Brevard County; the location of the property is Section 19, Township 22S., Range 35E.; the existing land use designation is PIP; and the proposed land use designation is heavy/light industrial. He stated there is also a Future Land Use Element directive developed for this item.

Attorney Ken Crooks, Dean and Mead Law firm, advised of the activities that have taken place over the past three years regarding the property; and noted they have no objections to the Local Planning Agency?s recommendation; however, it should read "or" public facilities rather than "and", because there is nothing that is heavy/light industrial and public facilities. He stated staff?s recommendation tried to solve the problem, but did not for several reasons--(1) the corridor is designated SR 405 Corridor, but only applies to the clients? property, and (2) it limits it solely to light industrial uses. Mr. Crooks advised they have no problem with the limit on most of the property; however, on portions of the property it would not seem appropriate, such as immediately adjacent to the Solid Waste Transfer Station and mulching facility. He noted the uses are not that different between heavy and light industrial; however, light industrial prohibits activities outside of an enclosed building; and that is too restrictive, depending on the type of uses proposed for the property. He stated at the rezoning and development stage, there may be some types of uses that would be appropriate, but they would not apply for a fish canary, coal yard, fertilizer plant, livestock yard, glue factory, nuclear power plant, or slaughter house, an abattoir. Mr. Crooks suggested the Board adopt the amendment as proposed by the Local Planning Agency directive that will allow the clients to solve the actual potential problems of uses and buffering at the rezoning and development stages. He stated the properties will have to be rezoned to be developed; so the Board will have a chance to satisfy its concerns at that time, and at the site plan stage which is required.

Charles Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., owner of the property, explained a map showing the location of the property between the Gheen site, which is a boat manufacturing facility, and Brevard County mulching facility and hazardous waste site; advised of what transpired in January when the property was asked to be rezoned, including Mr. Gheen?s withdrawal of his property from the rezoning request; and stated they have heavy industrial on both sides of their property and across the street, and the rest is owned by them, so they will not affect anyone by trying to do something that is compatible with the area. He requested the Board resolve the problem of light industrial uses adjacent to the Transfer Station, Mulching Facility, and Gheen Boat Manufacturing.

Commissioner Scarborough advised during the lunch period he and Mr. Moehle visited on the annexation issue; Mr. Moehle gave him a map; he made copies of the local agreement; and inquired if Mr. Moehle said the annexation will not go forward; with Mr. Moehle responding there are two different properties; the annexation of property that is subject to the item before the Board will probably not go forward; but it is different than the other annexation. Discussion ensued on annexation, heavy industrial use concerns, and buffering. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the difference between the Local Planning Agency?s and staff?s recommendations; with Mr. Corwin responding when staff looked at the area, it addressed buffering not so much through the use of vegetation but through the de-intensification of uses; the Local Planning Agency took a different viewpoint to buffer SR 405 with landscaping; and its directive states, that in the SR 405 corridor, between SR 50 and Fox Lake Road, all properties designated heavy/light industrial or public facilities on the Future Land Use Map Series of the Comprehensive Plan shall provide visual buffering on SR 405.

Commissioner Scarborough advised there is a great deal of activity in the area; there is an emerging of tourist commercial at the corner of SR 405, SR 50 and I-95; Cracker Barrel, Wendy?s, Lowes, a car dealership, and other things may be going in there in conjunction with Wal-mart; there are three motels and some restaurants; so it is developing in other than a heavy/light industrial mode. He stated the County has a Transfer Station out there and is putting in a mulching facility; the transfer station has heavy trucks coming in and out, but it does not look bad; and the mulching facility design is to place it off the road, and it must look like a County park so people will not see anything from the road other than a park-like environment. He stated he does not have a problem approving the zoning, but he would like to see "opaque" vegetative buffer if that is acceptable. Mr. Moehle advised he assumes it would mean 100% of not being able to see through something, but nobody is doing that. Commissioner Scarborough stated if someone drives by the mulching facility, that person would not know it is back there because it will be landscaped in addition to being opaque.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Amendment 95B.3, including the Future Land Use Element SR 405 Directive, with an opaque vegetative buffer. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Amendment 95B.4

Mr. Corwin advised the applicant is Brevard County; the existing land use designation is PIP; the proposed land use designation is residential; and the location of the property is in Section 19, Township 29S., Range 38E., adjacent to Valkaria Airport. He stated staff received an objection from Department of Community Affairs which had to do with their perceived residential encroachment the amendment would cause upon Valkaria Airport; they also interpreted inconsistencies in the Comprehensive Plan on Policies within the Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element; and there is a representative from Florida Department of Transportation in the audience.

Commissioner Ellis advised Policy 2.7 does not match up with Policy 5.2.F.2; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct; the intent is to have land use designations in the Future Land Use Element and development activities within Policy 5.2 of the Conservation Element, so the Future Land Use Element Policy 2.7 discusses how to designate the land use designations, and 5.2 states once the land use designations have been decided by the Board, development activities which occur shall be located on the site based on the criteria.

Chairman Cook inquired if Ms. Busacca is saying the intent is designation; with Ms. Busacca responding yes, that is why there was discussion about putting planning into the Future Land Use Element and site plan review criteria in the Conservation Element. Commissioner Ellis stated it is okay; and even though it is different, it is similar. He stated Policy 2.7 still leaves some flexibility based on overriding planning interest for large developments. He inquired if people who already have commercial land use designations would not be affected by Policy 2.7; with Ms. Busacca responding that is correct.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve the Wetlands Policy as recommended by staff on the blue sheets. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Doug Potts, 140 Breakwater Street, S.E. Palm Bay, advised he has a signed Contract to purchase approximately 3.25 acres of property north of Graddick Drive and north of Henderson Drive if the zoning can be changed to rural residential so he can build a home on the property. He stated there are several homes to the north and west of the property, some of which are closer to the flight approaches of the Airport; and the reason he selected the property is because of its proximity to the Airport which will enhance his ability to participate in one of his hobbies which is flying. He stated the property is not as near to the Airport and flight approaches as Pamello Ranch development; two other people have a similar interest in purchasing the land with residential zoning; they are all aware of the Airport and have no concerns with the noise caused by air traffic; and a vote to change the

zoning of approximately 13 acres north of Graddick Drive and west of Henderson Drive to rural residential will be greatly appreciated by his family.

Commissioner Ellis stated the Board has supported going to residential on the property, but it is getting challenged by the Department of Community Affairs, so he wants people to understand that any action today is not final.

Kim Zarillo, 760 Cajeput Circle, Melbourne Village, advised the area should not be changed to residential, one dwelling unit per acre; but she agrees with a more rural character of one unit per 2.5 acres as the projected water supply is approximately 20 years, and 46 houses will shorten the supply to less than the mortgage payments. She stated there is significant natural resource impacts opposite the area with Florida scrub jay habitat and wetlands; and there was administrative rezoning of the water body that runs through there that needs to be addressed to make sure that is in compliance.

Frank Wichawski, 5151 Adamson Street, Orlando, representing Florida Department of Transportation, read portions of the ORC Report from Department of Community Affairs as follows: "The proposed amendment is not supported by an analysis demonstrating that the residential land use is compatible with airport-related activities including noise, runway clear zones, and planning activities for the Airport. Introduction of residential land uses in the subject area would establish incompatible land uses adjacent to the Airport. The amendment is not supported by data analysis demonstrating consistency with your Comprehensive Plan Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element. The amendment is not supported by data analysis which demonstrates that the County has coordinated with the Florida Department of Transportation regarding the proposed amendments impact upon Valkaria Airport. If the amendment cannot be revised to be consistent with the provisions of the Plan, and the data analysis cited above, the County should not adopt the amendment." He stated the Department?s formal objection to the amendment cited Chapter 93-206, Laws of Florida, which made specific amendments to Chapter 163 concerning land use compatibility around Airports. Mr. Wichawski advised Florida Statutes 163.3177(6)(j) adds the requirement for each unit of local government within an urbanized area to prepare a transportation element that addresses aviation, rail, and seaport facilities, access to those facilities, inter-motor terminals, availability of the facilities and services to serve existing land uses, and compatibility between future land uses and transportation elements, airports, projected airports, and aviation development and land use compatibility around airports. He stated Florida Statutes 163.3177(10)(1) says, "It amends the legislative intent statements for Rule 9J-5 adding that the State Land Planning Agency shall consider land use compatibility issues in the vicinity of all airports in coordination with the Department of Transportation." Mr. Wichawski advised FDOT has stated its objections; Department of Community Affairs has said the land use change has not been justified and is inconsistent with the County?s Comprehensive Plan; the objection is to residential development at a general aviation airport underneath the traffic pattern; and from the handouts of the amendments it was hard to determine how far it is from the active runways, but the Property Appraiser?s maps show at most it could be 2,400 feet from an active runway. He stated whether they are one-acre lots or 2.5-acre lots, it will go from 2,400 feet to probably a house within a couple of thousand feet of an active runway. He stated it was said there is residential development around the Airport, and that is true; however, if they had the comprehensive planning knowledge back when that happened like they do now, that would not have happened. He stated DOT would have objected to the land use and the County may not have allowed it; the noise problem at Valkaria Airport is a real problem; it is the County?s problem; but DOT will keep objecting to the land use change and hopes the Board will take the knowledge of what causes that problem and not let it get any worse. He stated that is why DOT is asking the Board not to approve the land use change.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve the proposed residential land use designation which is consistent with the State?s policy against urban sprawl and consistent with the character of the area and natural resources.

Commissioner Ellis stated he lives a couple of thousand feet from the Melbourne Airport which handles larger aircraft than Valkaria Airport, and there is not a real problem with the Airport. He stated anyone moving into the area will know the Airport preceded their lot.

Commissioner O?Brien stated he cannot support the motion to allow residential at the end of a runway; just because there are a few houses there does not mean the Board has to compound the problem by rezoning to allow more homes; it already has a problem with VARIA which complains about the noise and everything else that airplanes cause; and to encroach upon the runway will compound the problem for the future. He stated there are too many things about an airport that would be totally incorrect to zone it for residential at the end of a runway; the problems inherent in the future will be incredible; and the Board will have more people screaming some day in the future than it has now.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are people who do not want to live near airports, but there are some developments in Florida that occurred because of the proximity to airports; and there are people who have airplanes who want to live near airports. He stated every time there is an airport does not mean it will be industrialization around it; there is a little airport in Titusville that has homes around it and has been accepted because there has not been tremendous industrialization; and if that had occurred, there would have been an outpour of objections.

Commissioner O?Brien stated VARIA has been before the Board complaining loudly and clearly for hours and hours about the operation of Valkaria Airport; and the Board will compound the problem by rezoning the end of that runway as residential. Commissioner Ellis stated the Airport was there before they built their homes. Chairman Cook stated he will vote against the motion because it compounds a problem that already exists.

Chairman Cook called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners O?Brien and Cook voted nay.

Amendment 95B.5

Mr. Corwin advised it is a Future Land Use Map Series amendment; the applicant is Brevard County; the location of the property is Sections 27 and 28, Township 23S., Range 37E.; and the amendment will show the proposed location for an interchange of I-95 in the Port St. John area and a proposed access road from that interchange to Grissom Parkway. He stated the Department of Community Affairs raised objections to this amendment; it wants a brief environmental analysis; and staff provided that under the environmental resources portion of the amendment.

Kim Zarillo, 760 Cajeput Circle, Melbourne Village, stated it is inappropriate to plan to develop service standards once something has already been built; there is not enough data analysis prior to the building or permitting process; and to establish level of service standards upon completion of the interchange and access road is ludicrous. She stated the County is funding future development without any standards or data analysis of what should exist there; the right-of-way will impact several wetlands, floodplain, and scrub jay habitat; and she is opposed to that. She recommended "small shifts could be made during the design and engineering process that will offset the impacts to the natural resources" be changed to "should be made. . ."; and if it is possible to make those shifts, then they should do it and not say it could be done. She stated there is not enough data analysis in order to move forward with this amendment.

Commissioner Ellis advised it is a connector road to the I-95 interchange and has near unanimous support in Port St. John.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the County hired a consultant; they met with the people; FDOT finished its land acquisition; construction funds will not come in for a few years; but because the County will get an interchange, it has to connect to it. He stated there was a great deal of discussion on how to avoid wetlands as much as possible because it is cheaper as well as environmentally sensitive; and "could" should be changed to "should" or "shall" because that is the intent. He stated it is impossible not to go ahead and plan for it, because if the County did that, it would never get another dollar from FDOT.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Amendment No. 95B.5.

Chairman Cook advised Joseph Stadnik requested the name be changed to Canaveral Groves/Port St. John and the road not move south on Grissom Parkway.

Carole Pope, 715 Rockledge Drive, Rockledge, advised the amendment was sent forward and not supported with any data analysis as required by the State in 9J-5 of the Administrative Code; the State suggested specific recommendations regarding general characteristics of the area, identifying wetlands, floodplains, wildlife habitat and any unique features which will have to be addressed during the planning and permitting process of the access road, and revising the amendments to be consistent and supported by data analysis; and inquired if that has been done because she did not find a copy of that. Mr. Corwin advised the language has been added to the other environmental resources which now reads, "The access road will be located upon an existing right-of-way. This right-of-way impacts several floodplain areas, wetlands, and Florida scrub jay habitats. Small shifts should be made during the design and engineering process that will offset impacts to the previously mentioned natural resources." Chairman Cook inquired if Ms. Pope would like to have a copy of it; with Ms. Pope responding yes, and she wants to read into the record for official standing if necessary to have a 120 hearing.

Commissioner Scarborough advised as Bussen-Mayer gets involved, there will be a tremendous amount of data that the public will have to deal with on this issue; the community wants to do things environmentally sensitive; they talked about all kinds of shifts, where to put retention areas, etc.; but the data is going to be forthcoming as the engineering is done.

Ms. Pope stated she understands that and knows it is an important thing to take place in that area, but the majority of the Board will say the State is driving them to do this when it is not really so. She indicated they will use the State as a battering ram to put things through and say it is not them. Chairman Cook inquired on what Board; with Ms. Pope responding the County Commission. Chairman Cook inquired where is that in the record, because it is not factual; with Ms. Pope responding she heard it here today that the Board is sending it to the State so the State will tell it what it is supposed to do. Chairman Cook stated that was one Commissioner not the majority, but it was a unanimous vote of five Commissioners. Ms. Pope stated that is what she just said.

Commissioner Ellis advised FDOT has already programmed the interchange at I-95, so he does not know how Ms. Pope expects the Board not to build a road to it because it does not make sense. Ms. Pope stated she said she did not see the analysis of some of the issues; and she wants standing so she can bring it up at a later date. She stated she is concerned about what is driving this Board and raised those issues before, so she will not raise them again for fear of being called uncivil.

Chairman Cook stated he thinks Ms. Pope is uncivil to an extent because he can understand disagreeing with his votes; he can see disagreeing with his issues; but he takes exception disagreeing with his motives and that bothers him. Ms. Pope stated she is sorry but she does disagree with his motives; it is her right; and that is exactly how she feels.

Jody Rosier, Florida Audubon Society, advised she reviewed FDOT?s 2020 Plan; and what is driving those are the population studies; however, she has seen several cases where FDOT?s numbers do not match up; so the Society wants standing to make sure the cumulative impacts were looked at on this proposed road. She stated just because it is in the studies does not mean it is going through all the way; they are going through the P.D. and E study where they are reviewing all that; and the Society is concerned with this and the cumulative impacts of the additional growth that is going to come out of it which sounds like commercial/industrial areas. Ms. Rosier advised her previous comments also relate to the next amendment for the Pineda Causeway. She inquired whether there is enough transportation needs for that, whether the Board is looking at mass transit and other alternative transportation modes to lower the transportation figures, and whether there is a need for a new road compared to the environmental problems that could occur from it.

Commissioner Scarborough advised FDOT has completed acquisition of land for its project; the County is in the process of connecting to Grissom Parkway; and it hired Bussen-Mayer Engineering, went to the community, had a great deal of discussion on wetland and environmental impacts, and got a lot of input. He stated FDOT is going to put in the interchange, and Brevard County better hook up to it if it ever wants to get any money in Brevard County again; he is not sure the Board can defer action on it; it can proceed with the A&E firm then change the Comprehensive Plan; and inquired if it is more constructive to deny the amendment. Ms. Rosier stated for FDOT?s project to be consistent, it has to be in the County Comprehensive Plan, so it cannot go through with the road unless the Board amends its Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Scarborough stated they made their determinations where to acquire land already; the County has a road that is aligned and a point to hook up; there are a lot of options; it can curve, etc. but it has to connect; if the Board sends a message to FDOT that it does not have plans to connect in the Comprehensive Plan, he does not know how FDOT would accept it; and inquired what should the Board do. Ms. Rosier stated the Board could continue through its Comprehensive Plan amendment; since she has spoken today, the Florida Audubon Society can be in the discussions of that part and make sure the cumulative impact of the project does not impact other areas that should be protected; and the same comments go for the Pineda Causeway project.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Amendment 95B.5. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Amendment 95B.6

Mr. Corwin advised the applicant is Brevard County; the location is Sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 30, Township 26S., Range 36E.; and the amendment will put on the Future Land Use Map the proposed Pineda Causeway Extension per the right-of-way that is currently being acquired by the County. He stated the extension is a straight line across from the intersection of Wickham Road to I-95; the right-of-way that the County is currently under negotiations to acquire runs considerably farther south; and this Amendment will show that right-of-way. He stated there are two circles on the map which are for interchange intersections; they are there because negotiations with the property owners have not been completed; and the alignment is not yet finalized at those interchange intersections.

Chairman Cook advised Margaret Broussard left a message saying, "I object to this amendment. This is not a well-analyzed change"; and Jody Rosier advised her previous comments on Amendment 95B.5 are the same for this amendment.

Kim Zarillo, 760 Cajeput Circle, Melbourne Village, inquired if this is already in the FDOT Plan; with Commissioner Ellis responding no. Commissioner Higgs stated the 2020 Plan shows the Pineda project. Commissioner Ellis stated on FDOT?s Plan there is no interchange on I-95. Ms. Zarillo stated she has a problem proceeding with new development that is not in the FDOT Plan because of who will have to pay for it; and what it does is subsidize a development corridor. She stated if there are wetlands, and this and the other extension are approved, they would be dated as of today and would be included. Ms. Zarillo advised that area has not been fully resource evaluated; staff did a cursory review, but there is no access to the interior; they had to look at soils maps and aerials, but there has not been a full walk through and ground truthing. She stated the proposed roadway alignment seems to permit greater flexibility; and inquired why put it on a Future Land Use Map when the alignment has not been accepted and the road is not funded, and what does "seem" mean. She indicated it is another way to subsidize future development out of the taxpayers money; and by putting forward the proposed amendments the taxpayers are already subsidizing development because they are paying for the amendments.

Commissioner Ellis advised there are numerous unfunded roads listed in the Comprehensive Plan; that is not unusual; there is already a Pineda Extension and existing right-of-way; and what the amendment does is move it further south. He stated the Pineda Extension has been talked about for many years; and it is bazaar to oppose it at the last minute.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired where does the land from The Viera Company for Pineda Extension stand; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding it will come to the Board at the next meeting. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if environmental research will be done before acceptance of the land; with Bob Kamm responding DOT conducted a thorough environmental and engineering analyses on the alignment in 1989; it has been ground truthed, walked, and investigated; and it has been cleared through FDOT?s Environmental Office five or six years ago. Commissioner Scarborough requested that information be given to Ms. Zarillo and others who are interested.

Carole Pope, 715 Rockledge Drive, Rockledge, registered an objection to the amendment because of the re-alignment and not enough first discussion although it has been around for a year. She stated there are things the Board studied for a year, but still did not know what it is doing today; so they who have not known about some of those things have reason to doubt the substance of what is existing. She stated there has not been enough study done for this roadway, so she will register an objection for an issue of standing.

Chairman Cook inquired if the right-of-way being donated is part of the Viera DRI; with Mr. Kamm responding there is a condition in the Viera DRI dealing with the Pineda Causeway; and it needs to have additional road capacity before The Viera Company can proceed beyond a certain threshold.

Commissioner Ellis advised there are problems on Wickham Road now which will be compounded;

the reason the Pineda Extension was considered goes back before Wickham Road was widened; and it was to provide direct access from the beaches to I-95 and as a traffic reliever for North Wickham Road. He stated it was also discussed before the Viera DRI.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Port St. John/I-95 interchange access road has the same status, or is it further along in defining where it will actually be; with Mr. Kamm responding in some

degree it is the opposite; in Port St. John they know where the end points are and are trying to figure out the middle; and with the Pineda Extension, they know where the middle is, but not the end points. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board will get the environmental study as part of the Deed for the property; with Mr. Kamm responding he can provide that data. Commissioner Scarborough advised there are people in the audience who would like to have that information and notice before the Board accepts that property; and inquired if there is a way to word it in a manner that would give the Board latitude in accepting variations in the actual alignment, and that it will come before the Board. He stated in the Port St. John issue, it says, "small shifts could. . ."; and that should be changed to "should" to tell everybody the Board is going to look at it. Ms. Busacca stated they can change it. She stated after they found the best alignment for Grissom Parkway, they went back and changed the Future Land Use Map to be consistent with that alignment.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Ellis, to approve Amendment 95B.6, with the language "small shifts should. . ."

Commissioner Higgs advised if the Board adopts this amendment, it is still a very long way from any road being constructed; it does not have preliminary engineering; none of the public hearings have been held; and it does not have the money for the project.

Mr. Kamm advised there are other Policies in the Comprehensive Plan that talk about preservation of rights-of-way; that is a major focus of the Traffic Circulation Element; and this is acting more on those policies to preserve right-of-way far in advance so that it is available in the future when needed. He stated it will also allow private individuals to know where the right-of-way is located, but there is no funding now to build a road. Commissioner Higgs stated there is no dictate that the Board will build the road even though it has the right-of-way. Commissioner Ellis stated the Board has rights-of-way in other areas and has not built the roads. Ms. Busacca stated the DRI demands are such that if the State or County is not prepared to pay for this, it is Viera?s responsibility, or all development stops within the Viera DRI, but it does not obligate the County to construct the road.

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

Policy 3.2.1, Recreation and Open Space Element

Mr. Corwin advised the amendment will remove sections of Policy 3.2.1 and Criterion B in the Recreation and Open Space Element; and it was done in conjunction with a change to the Planning and Development Regulations requirements for open space.

Kim Zarillo, 760 Cajeput Circle, Melbourne Village, inquired what is the reason to delete 3B; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board had a limit of 50% passive recreation which was driving golf courses; and they can move to passive recreation to a greater extent with this change and not have to have so much active recreation. He stated it will allow larger portions of undisturbed areas for walking trails, etc. rather than create golf courses.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve amendment to Policy 3.2.1 of the Recreation and Open Space Element. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Policy 4.2.4., Traffic Circulation Element

Mr. Corwin advised the amendment will add more emphasis to the standing of SR 520 and I-95 in the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan; it is being done in case funding becomes available for those roadways; and the Local Planning Agency recommended a change to place No. 1 Priority in parenthesis after U.S. 192.

Chairman Cook inquired if the change by the Local Planning Agency will work to the detriment of other projects; with Mr. Kamm responding Susan Hann attended the Local Planning Agency meeting and made a statement that project priorities is a function of the MPO, but the Local Planning Agency chose to adopt the amended language anyway. Chairman Cook stated that may be the Board?s top priority, but it is not a function of the Board. Mr. Kamm advised DOT is doing preliminary engineering work on SR 520 and U.S. 192 in the event there are funds in the future for widening of those roadways; one of the checklist questions they have, when doing a PD&E study, is if it is clear in the Comprehensive Plan that the project is supported; and it was not clear in the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan that it explicitly supported widening of U.S. 192 and SR 520. He stated it was buried in an Appendix as a long-term need; and they were ask to bring it up more explicitly in the Plan so DOT would feel comfortable proceeding with the project. Chairman Cook stated he does not have a problem with the amendment, but cannot see adding the number one priority because it is not the Board?s function and SR 520 is also a high priority. Discussion ensued on whether or not to include No. 1 priority for U.S. 192 widening.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve amendment to Policy 4.2.4. of the Traffic Circulation Element, as recommended by the Local Planning Agency.

Chairman Cook inquired if it will impact funding for SR 520; with Mr. Kamm responding it will not because prioritization of funding goes through the MPO, and all DOT is looking for in the Comprehensive Plan is support for the project.

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

Historic Preservation Element

Mr. Corwin advised the amendment is to delete the entire Historic Preservation Element which is an optional element per Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5. He stated staff received an objection from Department of Community Affairs regarding this amendment; it wants the Board to state where other historic resource preservation policies are located within the Plan; and they have done that and have compared the 9J-5 requirements.

Kim Zarillo, 760 Cajeput Circle, Melbourne Village, advised the purpose of the Element is to provide for the identification, protection, preservation, and appreciation of the historic resources of Brevard County; it defines historical periods, and provides for a County agent; and she understands there has not been an agent appointed, but staff helps with those activities. She stated there is a local database that has to be updated; she understands the Historical Commission will stay in place; so what the County has are volunteers who are appointed to be responsible for the local database. She noted Policy 2.12 says there is going to be an ordinance to provide protection for resources listed in several sources, including the local Register, so the County will maintain responsibility for updating that database. She stated Policy 2.13 says there is going to be designated historic resources; they are not defined in separate Elements, but are defined in the Historic Preservation Element; and inquired if it will still protect historic resources, what are they and how are they to be protected because the definition of what those are is in the Element proposed for deletion. Ms. Zarillo advised the Historic Preservation Element is referred to in several different Elements, so if the Board deletes it, it will have to delete the references in other Elements because it cannot fulfill the intent of an Element that is not there, as noted in Policy 2.17. She stated there are several things in the original Element that are important; it does not matter that it is not a requirement, it is already in place; and now the Board is spending money to delete it and to change the other Elements as well. She stated the Element has funding mechanisms that are not included in other Elements; and it has a TDR, and talks about zoning ordinances, easements, tax incentives, and donations for historic preservation that are not in other Elements. She indicated the Board is rushing through to make something smaller and in essence is making it ineffective and unavailable.

Commissioner Ellis requested staff explain the logic behind the amendment as it was not Board driven to subterfuge the Plan that it is being accused of on every Element. Ms. Busacca advised the amendment came about when staff had a workshop with the Board to explain that there were certain things in the Plan that were duplicative and were not required by Rule 9J-5; and staff suggested those be removed. Mr. Jenkins advised there is a very extensive list of tasks that obligated the County to do; and while it had a part-time staff person working on some of those, a budgetary commitment was never made to perform all the tasks included in the Element. He stated it was estimated to take two people full time to work on that Element; two people were not assigned to it, so it was not occurring; and the Board has to address the issue of either funding two positions or not being in compliance with its Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Historical Commission reviewed the amendment and gave input; with Mr. Corwin responding the Commission was informed on several occasions that the amendment was proposed and encouraged to attend the public hearings, but they did not attend. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it was referred to the Commission for discussion as part of its agenda; with Mr. Corwin responding it was brought up at several of the Commission?s meetings and discussed.

Carole Pope, 715 Rockledge Drive, Rockledge, inquired if the record shows it was a 3 to 2 vote in favor of eliminating the Historic Preservation Element; with Mr. Corwin responding at the transmittal hearing it was a vote of 3 to 2. Ms. Pope stated it is obvious the majority of the Board, Commissioners O?Brien, Cook and Ellis, are totally opposed to historic preservation in Brevard County; with Commissioner Ellis responding that is false. Ms. Pope stated transferring the Element to other parts of the Comprehensive Plan does not accomplish what the current Element accomplishes; and recommended the Board keep the Historic Preservation Element the way it is because there is no necessity to delete it. She stated it is an element that recognizes the County has historic resources which are valuable resources; there are a certain type of tourists who are attracted to that type of resource; and the Board needs to encourage that type of development in Brevard County. She stated the Legislature recently enacted laws that said they can have tax write-offs for historic preservation, and the Board can enact certain incentives to help people preserve historic properties; so there are other ways to make properties more important and encourage people to preserve history. Ms. Pope stated eliminating the total Element sends a bad signal to the historic preservation community and the thousand members of the Heritage Council. She stated the Historical Commission mostly collects history not necessarily works to preserve it; there is a Heritage Council with a wide network of people who asked her to represent them in their total opposition to this amendment; and it will send a ripple through that community if the Board proceeds with this. She noted there is no driving force behind this amendment; and inquired if there is a driving necessity to eliminate it.

Mr. Jenkins advised the only issue is there are certain milestone dates involved with the tasks and the County has not been complying with those; they have to either eliminate the dates or change them because it is a commitment in the Plan that is not being fulfilled which puts the County in violation of its Plan; and staff was concerned about that. Ms. Pope recommended moving the dates forward, sending it to the State and asking for an extension then put people together who are interested in historic preservation. She stated the County could get a lot of volunteers because of the network of preservationists; and they can begin working on this Element. She stated the Board is truly gutting this Element; there is no necessity to do that; and requested a motion to take it off the recommendations.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if there are other Elements with dates that have not been met; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, staff is making an effort to meet those dates or get amendments to the dates as part of the evaluation process. Ms. Busacca stated they do that as part of the annual monitoring report.

Chairman Cook stated nobody is anti-history; this amendment was brought to the Board by staff as an Element they were not complying with or meeting the obligations; the Board has an option to hire two people to implement the Element; or it could hire two police officers or social workers to help people who cannot help themselves; so there are a lot of issues at stake. He stated it is never easy, but in government, they have to prioritize services.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to not eliminate the Historic Preservation Element, and direct staff to review it to make it economically and practically feasible for the County to proceed with it and remove the dates. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Amendments to Maintain Internal Consistency

Mr. Corwin advised the amendments were based on deletion of the Historic Preservation Element as there were other Elements where it was referred to; but since it was not eliminated, this amendment is not necessary.

The Board withdrew the amendments to maintain internal consistency.

Duplicative Policy Amendments

Mr. Corwin advised the duplicative policy amendments are areas in the Comprehensive Plan where staff is trying to put one policy and one element. He stated the first is the Conservation Element and goes through to the Capital Improvements Element.

Commissioner O?Brien inquired if it eliminates policies that duplicate one another; with Ms. Busacca responding yes.

Jody Rosier, representing Florida Audubon Society, advised of her experience as an environmental planner in Indian River County; and disagreed with eliminating duplicative policies because it would cause people to have to search through several different Elements to find out what they have to do. She stated the whole idea of the amendments was to make things easier for people; a person could buy one policy and know what had to be done without having to search different policies; all the duplicative policies are in the back of the book and is quite huge; and right now it says, "This policy is duplicated in the Future Land Use Policy 2.1.4." She inquired, if those areas are lost, how will people know they are supposed to look in other policies. She repeated similar concerns with the Coastal Zone Element; and recommended the Board wait until the EAR process.

Mr. Jenkins advised one of the criticisms the County received on its Comprehensive Plan is that it is more bulky, cumbersome, and voluminous than other local government comprehensive plans; staff understood the direction to be clarify and make it easier to use; but Ms. Rosier has a different perspective. Ms. Rosier stated people do not want to buy five elements instead of one; the Future Land Use Element is supposed to be a summary of everything; and it would be difficult for the average citizen to figure out what he needs to do, considering how hard it was for the Board to understand the wetland issues today.

Commissioner Scarborough advised somebody originally thought there was some relevance to having duplicate policies; and inquired how would they know it is there if there is no reference. He stated because it is duplicated now, they can see the whole thing, but if it is not and yet relevant, how will staff refer them to other Elements.

Ms. Busacca advised right now wetland policies are duplicated in the Conservation Element and Future Land Use Element; if someone was interested in wetlands, he would pick up the Conservation Element because it makes sense; the Coastal Management Element is one place where that could be confusing because coastal management is a unique blend of land use and conservation issues in a coastal zone; and some people find it confusing to pick up the Recreation and Open Space Element and read about wetlands, historic preservation, etc. because to them the policies are disjointed. Ms. Busacca suggested staff prepare a cross reference which can be provided to people rather than adopt something within the Comprehensive Plan. She noted staff can maintain the cross reference fairly easily; most everything they sell are on computer disks which also makes it easy; and they will be happy to provide that to people.

Ms. Rosier advised the Open Space Element says, "An objective analysis associated with the wildlife corridor concept"; people think they can use their open space credits to help wildlife also; and it gives them other ideas; but if it is not in the Plan, it would not be in their ideas. She stated if it is made more like a code, people will not start thinking creatively in their planning process.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to approve the duplicative policy amendments as recommended; and direct staff to prepare a cross reference for the policies. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ordinance Adopting the 1995B Amendments

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O?Brien, to adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Brevard County Code, entitled "The 1988 Comprehensive Plan," setting forth Plan Amendment 95-B of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled "Contacts of the Plan"; specifically amending the Future Land Use Map Series, Future Land Use Element, Conservation Element, Traffic Circulation Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Historic Preservation Element, Surface Water Management Element, Housing Element, Potable Water Element, Sanitary Sewer Element, Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Element, Mass Transit Element, Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element, Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Capital Improvements and Programs Element; 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.

Final Motion

Mr. Corwin read the final motion, and requested approval of same.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1995B as discussed and based upon thorough review of supporting data and analysis, careful consideration of the recommendations of staff, Building and Construction Advisory Committee, Citizens Resource Groups, Local Planning Agency, and written and oral public comments received, specifically Comprehensive Plan Amendments 95B.1, 95B.2, 95B.3 and related SR 405 Future Land Use Element Directive as amended, 95B.4, 95B.5, 95B.6, and amendments to the Future Land Use Element as amended, Conservation Element as amended, Traffic Circulation Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Historic Preservation Element, Surface Water Management Element, Housing Element, Potable Water Element, Sanitary Sewer Element, Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Element, Mass Transit Element, Ports, Aviation and related Facilities Element, Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Capital Improvements and Programs Element, and other amendments necessary to maintain internal consistency. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Board talked about rescheduling the March 12, 1996 meeting because Commissioner O?Brien has to serve on the Canvassing Board that evening; the first available date is March 20, 1996, but Sue Hann has an out of state commitment; so his office moved the Land Development Regulations to March 28, 1996, at 5:01 p.m. to keep it in compliance and the Palm Bay Beltway and Merit System Rules to April 23, 1996.

Commissioner Ellis inquired if it will be an evening meeting; with Mr. Jenkins responding it will start at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Ellis agreed with the change in schedule; and no one else objected to Mr. Jenkins? recommendation.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________

MARK COOK, CHAIRMAN

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_________________________

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK