MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

April 6, 2006

 

 

The Board  of County Commissioners  of Brevard  County,  Florida,  met in  regular  session  on

April 6, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chair Helen Voltz, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Ed Washburn, and Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson.

 

The Invocation was given by Reverend John Hill, Suntree United Methodist Church, Melbourne, Florida.

 

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

 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the Commission Offices have agreed to cancel the April 27, 2006 budget meeting and move it to the May 18^th budget meeting.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to move the April 27^th Budget Meeting to May 18, 2006.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

 

Pat Manning, Vice Chair, Brevard Alzheimer’s Foundation, stated the Foundation would like to inform the Commissioners of the excellent work their staff has done for them.  She stated there are Centers in Micco, Melbourne, and now Titusville; and it would not have happened without the Commission’s cooperation, Parrish Medical Center, the Mark Woods Trust, and the citizens of Brevard County.  She commented the new Center is the state-of-the-art Alzheimer Center of the State; and she thanked the Board for its help.

 

Commissioner Scarborough thanked Ms. Manning for all her hard work at the Center.

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard commented his office made a request to the County Manager, to not have the names of two deceased applicants to be scrolled across the television on Item VI.B.19, as his office thought it would be inappropriate to have their names on television. He advised Peggy Busacca thought it would be best to take it before the Board; and that is what he would like to do.  He stated the request is that the names be removed only on the running scroll that will be on television; and the Agenda itself will remain the same.  Chair Voltz stated it would

not be a problem to take the names off of the scroll; and Commissioner Pritchard requested SCGTV take them off. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised he received an email from Janet Conrad stating the Chair would like to take awards, resolutions and presentations off of the zoning agenda; and asked Chair Voltz if she is going to address the issue, and what would happen in the future, as the zoning meetings are their only night meeting.

 

Chair Voltz stated the agenda is long and zoning business has to come first.  Commissioner Carlson advised it is nice to get presentations on the regular Commission meetings, but when they have big issues and the audience is packed, they need to make considerations and do the presentations at the end of the meeting.  Commissioner Pritchard stated if they have a resolution for an Eagle Scout he would not expect him to sit at the meeting until 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.  Commissioner Carlson suggested the Board have an evening regular meeting once a month. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she did not like the idea of having a regular evening meeting once a month.  Commissioner Scarborough commented he had to have Pat Manning speak to the Board tonight because she was not available and he wanted to get it to the public before April 26^th.  He commented an Eagle Scout resolution does not take that long, and they should use discretion when these things come to them.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard commented on an email from The Florida Association of Counties; and the email states that the Commission should not be fooled, as their Constitutional ability to govern as a regional authority is in serious jeopardy. He read from the email that House Bill 949 and Senate Bill 1608 will forever alter the structural balance of local government power by enabling municipalities across the state to opt out of a number of Countywide Ordinances. He continued to read that the Bills retroactively affect existing Charter County Provisions; and prospectively the bills pre-empt Countywide Ordinances in all counties.  He advised he just spent three days in Orlando at the Leadership Academy, and they discussed the regional concept of how Brevard is part of a seven-county region; and he does not think they need to fragment anything any further by not advocating a non-support for House Bill 949 and Senate Bill 1608.  He noted the Board should pass a resolution in opposition to House Bill 949 and Senate Bill 1608. 

 

Chair Voltz responded she has emailed the representatives the Board’s opposition to the bills.  Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like the Board to take a formal position on the issue. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution in opposition to House Bill 949, and Senate Bill 1608.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to share with the Board How Shall We Grow, which has some recommendations such as transportation.  He commented he would speak more on the subject at the next regular Commission meeting.  

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated that one member of his team at the Regional Leadership Academy was from St. Louis, Missouri, where there are 85 cities in one county; and they have created a virtual government on-line.  He commented Brevard has a subway system on line, and the Space Coast Living Magazine had a story on the new subway station providing service to Mitchell Ellington Park on Merritt Island; and the article stated how the Commission supported the subway system, but at the bottom of the article it says, “April Fool”.  He added people did not notice that part of the article and he has gotten phone calls asking the location of the subway; and he took it to the Leadership Academy as a joke, but there is a website misubwayauth.org and people can ride the virtual subway.

 

 

 

Commissioner Carlson commented the Brevard Symphony Orchestra is present and Fran Delyle is here to speak to the Commission about the Symphony.  She stated it is part of the Sample-the-Arts Program that is sponsored by the Brevard Cultural Alliance and it gives folks an opportunity to know what the cultural arts providers provide them with.

 

Fran Delyle thanked the Board for its support; and stated she is proud of all of the accomplishments it does for the County and community.  She introduced their music director and principal conductor Christopher Confessore.

 

Christopher Confessore thanked the Board for their support; stated in February, they had the pleasure of sharing Peter and the Wolf at their Annual 5^th Grade Concert.  He stated they also perform a family concert, a 4^th of July concert, and they also offer their classical subscription series at the King Center.  He invited the Board to attend the final concert of the season for that series. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised this weekend, at Space Coast Stadium, is Spring Fest, formerly known as Sea Fest.  He noted there will also be marine flea market, at Harbor Town Marina, put on by Citizens for Florida Waterways, Saturday and Sunday.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz commented she had some things for the Board from the Florida Association of Counties, regarding Senate Bill 360; and she thought it was a productive meeting. She asked County Manager Peggy Busacca about Lobbyist John Thrasher, who is now going to be a County Commissioner; and what that would mean to the Board.  Peggy Busacca stated Leigh Holt will ask Mr. Thrasher to put something in writing for them, but it is only a two-hour commute from Tallahassee to Clay County, so Mr. Thrasher will continue to spend most of his time in Tallahassee during the legislative session; and in addition to that, he will now have a different perspective from a County level.

 

Chair Voltz brought up the issue of renaming the Palm Bay Parkway; stated naming it the St. John’s River Parkway would be appropriate and it would bring in the community and not just Palm Bay.  She inquired if the Board would want to make a motion on the name change.

 

Commissioner Carlson asked Chair Voltz if she would want to make a motion to bring the issue back for further discussion.  Commissioner Pritchard suggested the Board bring the subject to the MPO meeting. 

 

The Board agreed to bring the subject of the name change to the MPO meeting.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz commented she attended the Florida Puerto Rican Hispanic Chamber of Commerce dinner and received a special recognition as Brevard County Commissioner for the Juan Ponce de Leon Special Recognition Award.  She stated it was a great event.

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon asked if the Commissioners received a letter from her stating she needs support for the YMCA.  She advised if the Board agrees, she would like to make a motion to approve a letter of support.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to approve letter of support for a partnership with the YMCA to try to bring in $5 million to Brevard County.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

Commissioner Colon added they are trying to form a partnership between the YMCA and Lake Nona; they have been able to build schools in partnership with the YMCA so young people are able to have after school programs right there; and it has been a blessing because they have been able to utilize the building.  She added there has been a tremendous partnership between the County, City, the developer, and the YMCA.

 

Commissioner Carlson discussed with the YMCA the idea of bringing the facility into Viera, and there is a capital piece to the project that they are going to be coming to the Board for money.  She commented if there is a partnership with the School Board and the County can weigh in on it, then that would be great, but it was a substantial amount of money.

 

Commissioner Colon stated that conversation was very old and she is now part of the YMCA Board now and the partnership is really with the School Board, so whatever money they utilize to build a school, they will use School Board money and money from the YMCA.  She advised when the President came to see the facility, the Federal Government realized they need to foster these kinds of projects.

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to adopt Resolution No. 06-089 amending the January5, 1950 Resolution declaring the need for a housing authority in Brevard County, and authorizing the Governor to appoint Commissioners pursuant to Chapter 421 of the Florida Statutes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page    for Resolution No. 06-089).

 

Commissioner Pritchard commented the Board needs to move forward on housing, and whether they call it workforce, assistance, or low income, it affects a broad spectrum of their community.  He stated even though there is a flattening of the real estate market, there will not be enough a down-turn that there are going to be $100,000 houses again; the Housing Authority of Cocoa has been working on a soft second program using HUD money to actually help subsidize the financing of a mortgage; programs like that are what they need to address; and they need to move forward. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard read aloud a resolution honoring Eagle Scout Gerald John Nielsen. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution No. 06-090 recognizing and congratulating Gerald John Nielsen for attaining the rank of Eagle Scout, and offering its congratulations and best wishes for a successful future.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page     for Resolution No. 06-090)

 

Gerald Nielsen commented he has learned a lot and has had fun; and he thanked the Board for allowing him to attend the meeting.  He also thanked his parents and his church for their support.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca informed the Board that the Nielsen family has a member who is also a County employee. 

 

 

Commissioner Pritchard introduced Paul Hansen, Vice President and General Manager of Bright House Networks, and stated he appreciates Mr. Hansen being present; and he appreciates all that Bright House does in the community.  He read aloud a resolution recognizing Bright House Networks. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt Resolution No. 06-091 recognizing and expressing its gratitude to Bright House Networks for its concern and commitment to Brevard County residents and visitors providing them live emergency information on Space Coast Government Television; and presented the Resolution to Paul Hanson, Vice President and Director of Melbourne Operations for Bright House Networks.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See page    for Resolution No. 06-091)

 

Paul Hansen thanked the Commissioners and accepted the Resolution on behalf of the 450 Bright House employees who work and live in Brevard County.  He stated they are pleased to offer the emergency service to their customers, and he hopes that it will never be needed. 

 

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting of March 6, 2006 as follows:

 

VI. A. 1.   Withdrawn

 

 

VI. A. 2.  (Z0510205)  WASIM NIAZI’s request for a change from IU to PUD on 13.03 acres, located on the south side of Cone Rd., approx. 0.25 mile east of Plumosa St., which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

 

John Evans noted that at the last Board meeting Commissioner Colon requested that the applicant and the Airport Authority get together and see if they could come up with a resolution that is acceptable to both parties.  He stated there was a meeting with Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson; and at that meeting the applicant made an offer to execute avigation easements, declaration of covenants disclosing the nature of the airport, and waiving everybody’s right to sue the airport for noise; and they agreed that the condominium documents could not be amended without the Airport Authority, and that the ownerships in the project shall be limited to persons who hold pilot licenses issued by the FAA, or their surviving relatives.  He noted they also agreed that the Condominium Association would annually supply to the Airport Authority copies of all documentation to ensure they comply with the living requirements; and they gave authority to the Airport Authority to enforce the documents, to file suit to enforce the documents, and award attorney’s fees if the Airport Authority prevailed.  He added his client has agreed not to build the building in excess of 94 feet, which has been approved by the FAA, but that was not sufficient to satisfy the Airport Authority; and at a meeting earlier in the week the only thing the Airport Authority would support is a change in the entire nature of the project.  He

noted the rezoning of Courtenay Springs is relevant because it is a project which is identical to what his client is seeking.  He noted Chapter 333, which the Airport Authority is basing its entire case on, with noise and distance of runway, was passed in 1975; and Courtenay Springs was requested to be rezoned to PUD in 1979, so Chapter 333 was in effect at the time the Commission considered the application, as was the County Airport Ordinance.  He commented the basic objection for the Airport Authority was that the Courtenay Springs Development Plan was opposed by the Brevard County Planning and Zoning Board because of the incompatibility with airport noise factors.  He stated the Airport Authority said that the noise was going to ruin the airport, ruin business; and everything that the Board is hearing from the Airport Authority today is what the Commission heard from the Airport Authority 25 years ago.  He noted after the Board of Adjustment approved the project, the Airport Authority changed their position and said they did not like Courtenay Springs, but if the Commission approved it and put sound attenuations in the buildings to ensure the noise was minimized then it would be satisfied; and the County Commission approved the PUD in 1979 requiring sound attenuation.  He stated what is significant is that 28 years later and the Director of the Airport Authority, Scott Carr, admitted there have not been any noise complaints from Courtenay Springs. 

 

John Evans commented there has been some speculation that the Future Land Use on his clients’ property was an error; and when they read the record of the Courtenay Springs rezoning

the County Commission had no problem with the residential zoning in this location.  He stated when the County Commission designated the property with a residential land use designation 25 years ago, it was done as a reflection of Courtenay Springs; therefore, it was not a mistake.  He stated to the Board that substantial competent evidence is the goal it has to look at; and he does not know what better evidence to bring to the Board other than a project that has been in the same  location of the airport  and  has no noise complaints,  no  negative  impact  on  Merritt

Island Airport, and has been a good neighbor with the airport.  He noted there is overwhelming evidence that his clients’ project is compatible with the Airport Authority; and there is a Binding Development Plan they have proposed to ensure only pilots live there, that there is sound attenuation, that the Airport Authority can enforce their restrictions.  He commented he requests the Board’s support and it is a great project for the community and Merritt Island.

 

Jake Wise stated he is the Civil Engineer for the project; as proposed, the project meets or exceeds all Land Development Code requirements; and it is an environmentally friendly project that is a great project for Merritt Island and the community.

 

Dr. Wasim Niazi stated he asked the County Manager to arrange a meeting between himself and the Airport Authority, but on the day of the meeting, none of the Airport Authority Board members were there, and they sent Scott Carr and Mr. Pickles instead.  He commented he did not think they are sincere into entering any negotiations.

 

Tim Pickles stated he represents the Airport Authority, and Mr. Niazi did meet with the Chairman, Mr. Schenck to discuss issues and potential resolutions of the case; and unfortunately, the Airport Authority operates much in the same way as the Board of County Commissioners, as no one single member, nor can staff, bind the Airport Authority Board.  He commented everything discussed at the meeting with Dr. Niazi was brought back to the Board; and part of the Commissioners’ packets include a Resolution the Board passed at the March 30^th meeting in which it acknowledged the fact that Dr. Niazi wants to put a project on the property, but despite that fact, the Board made the determination that it is not in the best interest of the Airport Authority to support the project, or to support the project with the restrictions that were voluntarily put on the project by Dr. Niazi.  He stated the airport’s master plan states they cannot accept residential use adjacent to an airport authority.  He added that Dr. White is present, and he was the Chairman of the Board in 1979, when Courtenay Springs was approved, and he can address the Board as well.  Mr. Pickles noted also in the Board’s package is a resolution the Board passed in 1979, as well as correspondence, when it opposed the Development.  He stated Mr. Evans made the argument that there is a residential development to the south, therefore there will be no problem with a development to the north; and Brevard County has restrictions on where it puts residential and commercial property.  He stated that the concessions that were made in order to alleviate the concerns of the Airport Authority were valid concessions, however, there is no way anybody sitting here today can predict what will happen in the future, and the restrictions may or may not be enforceable, and that is why the Airport Authority Board said they appreciate the concessions, but because of the mandate of the Airport Authority and in protecting the Airport Authority’s interest, it could not agree to support such a plan.  He stated if they look at the uses surrounding the property, they will see industrial properties completely surrounding the proposed development, and that does not mix; Brevard County would encourage a commercial buffer in between residential and industrial, and that does not exist with this project.  He noted from a compatibility standpoint, regardless of noise issues, the property is incompatible, despite restrictions the Commission puts on the property.

 

Commissioner Colon stated one of the things she was hoping was that there would have been an opportunity for the Board of Directors to be able to sit down with Dr. Niazi and try to come up with a win-win situation.  She commented all she has heard since the last meeting is that there is no possible way they can consider the project, and she is disappointed in that because if it gets approved, they are not getting anything.  She noted it could have been the kind of working relationship that could have been beneficial to the airport; and her biggest concern is that if it gets approved, they will have to work closely together whether they like it or not.  She noted she is specifically talking about the meeting that took place between the attorneys and the applicant.

 

Tim Pickles replied the Chairman of the Board met with Dr. Niazi prior to the meeting in the County Manager’s Office; the next meeting was attended by himself and Mr. Carr to discuss some potential language changes in the Binding Development Plan that they could take back to the Airport Board to consider; and they were talking about potential additional concessions they can put in the document that might further protect the Airport Authority.  He stated they took it to the Airport Board, and at the next Commission meeting Mr. Evans presented the changes that were made and the Board had a lengthy discussion over what happens if the Airport Authority does or does not agree with the changes.  He commented the Airport Authority Board is similar to the Board of County Commissioners in the way it functions; and when there is a proposal coming forward that is inconsistent with what governs that Board, and when there is a use that is inconsistent with what the function and operation is of the airport, it is mandated by FDOT and

FAA grant assurances to oppose such a development, even with the additional restrictions.  He stated it is unfortunate and they wish they could have worked with Dr. Niazi but it is the residential use that is the problem. 

 

Chair Voltz commented the Future Land Use Map states the property has always been residential; and inquired why the airport has not taken steps a long time ago.

 

Tim Pickles stated it was probably oversight because the property has been zoned Industrial for as long as the land use has been residential; and he believes Dr. Niazi, at one time, wanted to develop the property as Industrial, but the County told him he could not do that, as the property is residential in the Comprehensive Plan.  He noted the County could have told Dr. Niazi at that time that rather than rezone to residential, he could have changed the Land Use to Industrial; and that is also a reason why everybody thinks the property is Industrial.

 

Dr. Eli White advised he was not aware the Board had been apprised of the fact that when he was on the Airport Board, they had opposed the Courtenay Springs project.  He noted some of the same issues exist now that existed 25 years ago; they felt then, and feel now that the land would be better used as industrial property; and the history of airports all around the country have been as residential properties are brought in around airports, despite concessions, after some time has passed, people get together and start complaining about the noise, and then they get into legal fights that are costly to everybody, to try to close the airport.  He noted the only way to prevent that is to never let the project develop to begin with. 

 

Mike Arnold stressed that airports are dynamic and unique and costly economic generators; and they are seeing a lot of growth of aviation in Florida and they are also seeing encroachment of residential around airports.  He commented they have had a lot of discussion of why the project is not compatible with the airport; the FAA has come out against residential development around public airports; and one group to oppose the project is a group that represents pilots nationwide, The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.  He stated they are against the project because of Courtenay Springs; and while there have not been any complaints about Courtenay Springs, the development of Courtenay Springs has now led to this proposed development, and it is being used as a justification.  He stated Ormond Beach had a runway extension approved five years ago, and recently when they tried to build the extension, it was stopped because of all of the residential development in the area; and that is what they are concerned with on Merritt Island.  He noted even the developer recognizes that residential development is inappropriate this close to an airport, or else he would not have put so many concessions on the project.  He advised the issue of a noise study was brought up at the last meeting, and the study also identifies land use compatibility around the airport; and the proposed site of the project is exactly the type of land that is looked at in one of the land use compatibility studies.  He noted ultimately the land use Statutes are in place to protect the health, safety, and general welfare; and it is clear that development is not compatible.

 

Commissioner Pritchard inquired who Mr. Arnold represents.

 

Mike Arnold responded he is with Environmental Science Associates, one of the Nations largest noise and environmental consulting firms; and they are the consultants for over 20 airports in the State of Florida.

 

Jay Schenck stated he serves as a volunteer Chairman for the Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority (TICO).  He commented he was puzzled by the challenge the Chair gave him of not meeting with Dr. Niazi and if he refused to meet with the gentleman.  He noted that Dr. Niazi did not call

him and he did not call Dr. Niazi; the Airport Board is under the Sunshine Law, and they do not talk to their Board members about business; and he makes it a practice not to talk to Board members in private or public because it may be misconstrued as talking airport business.  He advised that is why they do not meet or go to a County Commission Office or meet with a developer; they allow their Director to do that, and in turn, that meeting is reported to the Board.  He commented it has puzzled him in the past why pilots would want to see a 94-foot structure built within 1,100 feet of the runway; and he took the time to go to Tallassee and talk to FDOT about the growth of airports, the future of airports, and a program called the Transportation System that Florida will be getting soon, and said if a 94-foot structure is allowed to be built that close to the runway, the airport will not be a candidate for the new Transportation System.  He noted he approached the Economic Development Commission of Space Coast (EDC) and the Chambers of Commerce due to the political issue of the project and they refused to engage; and now the airport is letting the Commission know their concerns, and their concern is the flight pattern.  He commented the flight pattern is like I-95 and it is a danger area; and Chapter 333 separates an industrial area with a commercial area, and then a residential area.  He stated it is very difficult for the Airport Authority to give up the covenants they received from the State of Florida; the asset is worth $60 to $70 million and they receive grants yearly.  He inquired if they go into violation of that, will the County Commission be willing to donate that money to the Airport Authority so the aviation industry can continue.  He commented it is also a safety issue, as they have had several planes crash in that area. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated all of the advisory boards are voluntary and she appreciates that, and those who serve on those Boards deserve respect.  She commented if the area is such a concern, and the airport would not want to have anything built there, then why TICO Administration not buy the property from Dr. Niazi.  She noted the airport had to see there was a potential there to make money.

 

Jay Schenck stated the Airport Authority is not an Advisory Board, they are a special district that is dependent on the County, but they are treated as a separate entity; Mrs. McLeod will not sell the property to the airport, and she has been offered $15 million for that property.  He noted the Airport Authority receives $200,000 from the County, and their budget is approximately $2.2 million, and the rest comes from tenants and those who utilize the airfields.  He commented the Airport Authority does not have access to $15 million and that is why they are not able to expand.  He stated the only way to enlarge the airfield is to purchase property piece by piece; the airport had no idea Pulte Homes was going to develop just north of the airfield, and he wondered who would want to live directly under a flight pattern; and the County did not go to the developer and ask them to sound proof the houses. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired of Mr. Schenck if the airport bought property that they cannot do anything with now.  Jay Schenck responded if she is talking about the case study in Titusville, it was all industrial around the airfield, and St. Joe could not sell the property and the Airport Authority did not have the money to purchase it; and they went to the City of Titusville and said if they annex they will allow the property to be zoned residential.  He stated there were thousands of dollars lost and they eventually had to sue the City, and now they do recognize Chapter 333, and there is a corridor of industrial, commercial, wetland area, and then residential.  He noted the City of Titusville is working with them, and he is surprised that the County Commission will allow the proposition of a project of nine story condo right next to the airport.

 

Patrick Corr stated he is the owner of Helicopter Adventures, Inc., and T.I. Jet Center, both based at Space Coast Regional Airport.  He commented he is also an acquaintance of Dr. Niazi as he is a graduate of his helicopter school, and he likes and respects him.  He advised he has seen the project Dr. Niazi has developed and he likes it, and he would be interested in purchasing a condo if it was a half to three-quarters of a mile further away from the airport.  He commented an avigation easement gives an airplane owner permission to fly over a building, it does not prevent the airplane owner from making a mistake and flying into the building; an avigation easement prevents the buildings’ occupants from suing the airport, it does not give up their First Amendment Rights and it will not prevent them from calling the County Commission and the State Representatives to complain.  He advised he moved his business from California and he is glad he did, but he ran from California because of these same issues.   He noted the

 

Country is losing one airport per week because of these kinds of issues; and asked the Board to oppose the project.

 

Commissioner Colon inquired what airport Mr. Corr is from; with Mr. Corr responding Space Coast Regional Airport in Titusville.

 

Bobbie Lasher stated she is a pilot, a plane owner and a tenant of the Merritt Island Airport; the people living in Courtenay Springs are short-term renters and they are all retired people.  She added Courtenay Springs is administered through a corporation in California which is why they do not hear complaints from them; and if the proposed project is approved, the owners are going to live there, and there is a difference between short-term renters and long time owners.  She commented this is not the place for a condo, and it will be the end of the airport; and she would like to point out that there are a lot of green shirts in the audience and very few of them are pilots, and they are not connected with the airport in any way. 

 

Frank Kinney stated he served on the Airport Authority for four or five years and left the Board about two years ago; he is not a pilot, he is not a resident of Courtenay Springs, and he does not have any financial stake in the project.  He commented he has been in Brevard County for 40 years promoting economic development and trying to work toward the creation of high-quality jobs; and Brevard County is blessed with having five airports, and the future is bright in Brevard County.  He noted the area airports could make a major contribution to the future of Brevard County in terms of the high-technology and high-paying jobs.

 

William Perdue stated he does not have an airplane, but he does not want a condominium at the airport; as of right now there are no houses at the east end of the runway; and they have a prevailing wind from the ocean, so most of the planes take off from west to east, out over the Banana River.  He commented the minimum price for homes is now a quarter of a million dollars, and these people have airplanes and they have to have a place to put them; and if the

airport is closed because of the noise, there is no place for the people to go; and TICO Airport cannot absorb what is at the Merritt Island Airport right now.  He noted there is a bill before the Legislature to make developers accountable for the storms coming in, so they can get off of the islands during a hurricane.  He commented the residents will not be happy driving on a dirt road and they will ask the Commission to pave the road for them; and it is an industrial park, not a residential area.   

 

Dr. Niazi stated the first conversation he had with Scott Carr, Mr. Carr  suggested that he sell the property to the airport, then he could lease it back from the airport for his condo development so the airport could have some income.  He stated according to Chapter 162, of the Florida Land Use, if a land use has been on a property for more than 20 years, the owner is entitled to the land use.  He noted not everything surrounding the property is industrial, just north of the subject property is a 37-acre residential tract that is being developed; west of the subject property is mixed residential and industrial, and on the other side of the airport, there are houses that are 400-feet from the runway on the west end.  He commented Mr. Schenck indicated the flight path is located over the subject property, but that is inaccurate; and there has

never been a plane crash on the land.  He advised he did not buy the property from Ms. McLeod and she still owns property between his property and the airport; and there is a buffer of large trees between.  He noted a lot miss-statements have been made that do not apply to the discussion.

 

Paula Raeburn stated she is the Executive Director of the Florida Aviation Trades Association and their mission is to promote and protect aviation in the State of Florida and that includes aviation businesses.  She added airports need to be used for the intended, and it is not a place for people to live; in the future there are many new technologies coming to the industry and the airport could be very busy and bring in more aircraft traffic and it could blossom and the whole area could blossom, but not if there are people living around the airport.

 

Ray Wabler stated he is the Executive Director of the Consortium for Aviation System Advancement; and they have worked successfully over the last five years on NASA’s S.A.T.’s program, and they are now on the verge of seeing an evolution at the airports.  He commented the light jets are coming soon and they have talked to the taxi companies who report they want to drive to the community airport rather than major airports; and it will provide unlimited economic development opportunities in the future, and not only for the airport itself, but for the industrial growth around it.  He noted accessibility is what companies are looking for, and that is what small aircraft transportation systems provide; and the joint Planning Development Office is

starting the next generation Air Transportation System and it fits perfectly to what they are looking for in airports.  He encouraged the Board to save and protect the airport.

 

Kevin King stated he is a lifetime resident of Brevard County and he previously resided at 460 S. Tropical Trail, and 470 S. Tropical Trail, both of which are in the flight path.  He commented the Merritt Island airport is unique, as it is a small airport with small planes flying in and out; and there was a wreck one time, and his construction company recovered the plane, and the pilot walked away from it.   He noted he is in support of the project because he knows Dr. Niazi and

he knows he does everything first class; and if he says he is going to do it the right way, then he will coordinate with everyone to ensure it is done right.  He commented he is confused at why the airport does not want pilots to reside in a place so close to the airport and continue to boost the economy around the airport. 

 

Veronica Clifford stated she thinks the airport should be preserved; she is on the Airport Authority Board and feels she has been charged with a certain duty and that duty is to protect the airport.  She commented she has done homework and she feels it is not a good location for the project; encroachment is the number one problem at all airports.  She noted with the Merritt Island Airport going with the smaller planes, people can fly from one local airport to another; they would not want to buy land and leave it vacant, they would buy property so they will not have residents near the airport.  She stated the application should be denied at this time, and then they can work together as a team and look at the surrounding area and try to find all inconsistencies; it is a good project, it is just not a good location.

 

Commissioner Colon thanked Ms. Clifford for her work and research.  She advised the Airport Authority Board is appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and they are responsible for things that are their appointment.  She stated they should be proud to have Veronica on the Airport Board.  She noted a gentleman from TICO mentioned getting feedback from the community and the Commission has received numerous letters and phone calls and she would like to discuss the administration of TICO and Merritt Island, maybe at their next meeting.

 

Veronica Clifford stated if they work as a team they can take all the good ideas and put it together; she looked at what the Board said about an amicable solution, unfortunately she can not come up with one, because a true fly-in community has their own airstrip and they are obligated to take care of their own airstrip with high dues; and there is no guarantee of protection. 

 

Commissioner Colon asked Ms. Clifford if she has received the letters from citizens regarding how the airport is being run; with Ms. Clifford responding yes, they have received seven or eight of them.  Commissioner Colon stated they can discuss it at maybe the first meeting in May.

 

John Evans stated to the Board that in their package is a letter from the FAA that has approved the height of the building to be safe; and he would like to have Doug Robertson discuss compatibility.

 

Doug Robertson stated he has been a professional land planner in Brevard County for 30 years and he has been certified as an expert witness by the Federal Courts, the Local Courts, and the County Commission.  He commented that all of the property north of the site is zoned for condo projects similar in size to Dr. Niazi’s and to the south is a piece of vacant property that is not industrial use, and to the east is also a vacant piece of property that is wetlands and will probably never be developed, which makes the subject property a beautiful riverfront piece of property.  He continued the west has some industrial use, and when the MIRA area was being defined, this area was proposed to be part of MIRA because it is rough and it would benefit from

the project.  He stated the airport is surrounded on three sides by residential use, both single-family and multi-family; there will be certain covenants that will be applied that will limit the site to pilots and the existing future land use on the property is residential.  He noted the only compatibility issue is the airport and whether or not the project is compatible with the airport. 

 

Alicia Holmes commented she lives two blocks south of the airport.  She stated 17 years ago she bought her house in that location at Island Beach because of the airport; and it offers quite a lot of character to the area.  She noted when she heard about the proposed project in December she was surprised because she saw it very quickly on the news.  She commented she does not think many residents and neighbors really know about the project in her community; however, she did have an opportunity to talk to Ms. McLeod who is the business owner on the right side of the subject property; and Ms. McLeod indicated to her that she is neutral about the property.  She noted the three other neighbors on the other side have unusual situations in that one is a rental property, one is a divorce situation, and the last property in the back is opposed.  She commented Ms. McLeod told her the applicant does not own the waterfront property and she is concerned that will present a problem; and there is a lot of water fowl there and possibly scrub jays, which are protected species, although she does not know if anyone has done a study to see if that species is present on the property.   She stated recently there was a water main break on South Tropical and it took her approximately 10 minutes to go

less than a half-mile at 7:30 a.m.; she is very concerned about the congestion on Plumosa and Cone Rd. because of a project like this; she is also concerned about the egress because her church is in the flight path, and she has called the airport because of the noise; and at one point there was a jet flying in and at one point she and her neighbors could hear it very clearly at different times of the day and night.  She stated even though you do not want to complain, sometimes you feel compelled to because it is interfering with your sleep and the planes are coming and going at odd hours; and even though she loves the airport and it is a benefit to her and she likes the atmosphere, if the Board allows big jets to come in and there is no noise abatement, no hours, those kind of things are going to present problems to the local residents and there probably are not many that are represented tonight from her particular community.  She commented there have been crashes at the airport, and when the window for pilot error is narrowed down, there are going to be problems; and she is not sure the County is interested in lawsuits that say it should have protected people.  She noted she is opposed to the project.

 

Chair Voltz inquired of Ms. Holmes if she had any soundproofing in her house; with Ms. Holmes responding she does not; and the noise is not bad most of the time because she actually likes it,

but her concrete walls are full with concrete so her walls are a lot more soundproofed than some other homes.

 

Phil Barnes submitted a petition to the Board and stated it is from the business owners in the Industrial Park and some of the homeowners.  He asked the Board if they would want to live next to the Industrial Park, as the condos will be located right behind it; and if the condos are built, what will happen to the small businesses that employ hundreds of people.  He stated that with a condo going in, it will shut down the businesses.   

 

Commissioner Colon inquired of Mr. Barnes if he lived near the airport; with Mr. Barnes responding he lives three miles from the airport, but he has a business in the industrial park.

 

Cynthia Cox stated she has worked at the airport for 25 years; and her friend lives right behind the airport, and she does not even know about the proposed project.  She noted she did not know how they could not give people more of a notice that a condo is going to be built next door to them.  She commented she did not know how the Board could let the project happen, as it will close the airport and it just is not a good place to put a condo.

 

*Chair Voltz called for a 15-minute break. *

 

Commissioner Pritchard commented they have had a lot of information and it keeps coming; and there is a lot to be said on both sides of the issue; and in particular, one of the things he looks at is the reason for doing something.  He read a portion of a letter from the Florida Department of Transportation, “Currently, the Merritt Island Airport supports over 110,000 operations annually and has forecast 170,000 operations by 2020”.  He noted there have been discussions about the new generation of airplanes and what that may or may not mean; and he is not too sure that they want the Merritt Island Airport to suffer explosive growth.  He commented he happens to think the Merritt Island Airport is a mom and pop shop, and there is residential on the east and west; and the residential on the east are multi-million dollar houses off Newfound Harbor, so he is not too sure they want to increase the amount of aviation traffic regardless of what the new generation of aircraft may bring; if it is going to require longer runways, there is no way it will ever be permitted at Merritt Island Airport; and the runway length is what it is and it is not going to get any longer.  He commented it becomes an issue of whether or not this can work or cannot work; the FAA letters stated the building height is okay, and Chapter 333 talks about “should not” “can’t” or “won’t”, and that is talking about noise if you are at half the distance in the center of the runway.  He noted there are residential neighborhoods on the west end of the airport that are well within the distance; and he is amazed at how close the neighborhoods are to the center of the runway.  He stated he is not a fan of condos and sometimes he thinks they are a necessary evil; and there is a right place and time for most everything, and there are people who actually like living in condominiums.  He stated he would like to listen to more comments from the Board and then make follow-up comments.

 

Motion by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item VI.A.2.  Commissioner Colon stated she would like to make sure they deal with Chapter 333, but keep them separate issues; and in the future they need to clean it up and she thinks that would be the right thing to do.  She noted she is disappointed in the fact that she feels the project could have been a win-win situation; and she does not like the approach of “my way or the highway”, and that seems to be what has happened on this particular case.  She commented the issue has been going on for a very long time and it has been before the Board at least four times, the Planning and Zoning Board has heard the item a few times, and it has been in the newspaper.  She stated she does not have a problem with it for the simple fact that it is a condo that is being focused specifically for pilots, and if that was not the case, she might not have been supportive; and she takes great exception

to some of the comments that were made because people need to make sure they live in the kind of environment that needs to be respected, regardless of how old they are.   She stated she thinks overall, they have to listen to the people they are serving, and the people they serve at the airport are the pilots.  She stated the Airport Authority Board is appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and their job is to protect the airport and make sure they do right by the tenants that are there.  She suggested to the Chairman of the TICO Airport, that if the request is approved, he should extend his hand one more time and see how it can be a win-win for the airport, and she hopes he will do that and not someone on his staff.  She noted the Board should discuss the rezoning request now, and discuss Chapter 333 later.

 

Commissioner Pritchard seconded the motion for discussion.

 

Chair Voltz commented she is also very disappointed in the management of the airport, in that Dr. Niazi was asked to table the request so they could go back and talk, and if the airport had stated from the beginning that they do not want it, they will never support it, and they do not even want to discuss it, that is one thing; but to say they should talk about it and then come up with the same exact solution, which was “no”, she has a problem with that, and it was not working in good faith, whatsoever, so she will support the motion. 

 

Commissioner Carlson commented the issue she has is that the Commission gives economic incentives to developments that come in and provide jobs, capital investment, et cetera, and they have the potential of an economic engine, and she thinks the future holds some interesting potential and it should not be under estimated.  She noted she agrees some of the things that have been said about how the airport has been run, but the real issue is does the County allow a development of this nature close to an airport; in looking at the documentation and arguments that TICO has provided, she thinks the Board really cannot accept the issue based on the fact that it is incompatible; and she agrees in the lack of compatibility and she thinks that is where the Board will end up hamstringing the airport to develop as an airport if the Commission allows a lot of residential development in the area.  She noted it looks like a great project, but she does not think it should be in the area that it is in, and she will not be voting in favor of the motion.

 

Chair Voltz commented she thinks Merritt Island needs to remain the way it is, as Valkaria will remain a very small airport.

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented there needs to be certain businesses that can and will develop around airports that provide jobs; he has a bad feeling about bringing residential into proximity; and the Board is limiting the potential for jobs, more flights, and other activities, because some businesses are naturally located around airports.  He noted the Board needs to protect the commercial and industrial property with the idea that they are limited areas, and some of them can create a synergy; and condominiums can go many places, but airports are rare and they are becoming rarer.  He advised he does not feel comfortable, and he cannot support the motion. 

 

Chair Voltz stated she wanted to make sure the concessions Dr. Niazi was willing to make, are going to be done.  She asked John Evans to explain what they will be doing.

 

John Evans commented he has no problem with the motion including a Binding Development Agreement that will have an avigation easement that would allow the planes to fly over the properties; they will have a disclaimer and waiver which would waive the people’s right to sue the airport because of noise issues; the concessions would also be in the condominium documents; the condominium be limited to only FAA licensed pilots, their spouses or direct family; there would be an association that would have to approve every purchaser; and they will provide an annual report to the Airport Authority that would show the documentation to each new purchaser to ensure the condominium will comply with the requirements.

 

Chair Voltz asked if there would be a penalty if someone does not comply with the requirements.  John Evans stated the penalty if someone violates the requirement is that they will have to sell their condo.  Chair Voltz inquired if he is going to put that in the documents; with John Evans responding yes.

 

Commissioner Colon asked whose idea it was to have to notify the airport in regards to the contract; with Mr. Evans responding it was the developers’ idea because they felt the airport would want assurances that they are complying with the promises they made, so they volunteered to do that.  Commissioner Colon commented she would like to hear from the County Attorney and she would like to give Mr. Schenck or Mr. Pickles an opportunity to add anything to the Binding Development Plan they feel needs to be there. 

 

Zoning Manager Rick Enos commented Mr. Evans included in the Binding Development Plan sound attenuation.  Mr. Evans noted they also gave the right to force the Declaration independently of the Association; and there are instances he is aware of where the Association is required to approve purchasers and they did not, then the closing took place and the title company was required to purchase the unit. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired why it had to be to the airport, and asked if it could be to the County, since the Board is approving the zoning; with Mr. Evans responding the airport was the one complaining, but if the Board would like to have that information also, he would be glad to get it to it; and there is no problem giving the County Manager’s Office the annual report.  Commissioner Colon noted there needs to be supervision and there needs to be accountability and she just wants to know who it is going to.

 

John Evans commented the buildings would be no higher than 94 feet, which is what the FAA sets as the limit.

 

Tim Pickles stated he did not have anything to add to the Binding Development Plan.  Jay Schenck noted some of the comments from the Commissioners have been that all of the pilots support it; with Chair Voltz stating the Board does not want to get into that again; and asked Mr. Schenck if he would like to add anything to the Binding Development Plan; with Mr. Schenck responding the statements two Commissioners made are incorrect.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like the Commission to realize the businesses that are in the commercial area of the airport have little to do with the airport; and they are there because the buildings are there and not because the airport is there.  He commented someone would not put a facility for pilots to live in at the beach, and it would seem to him that it would be put in an airport; and the Future Land Use on the property has been Residential 15 for over 20 years, and the applicant is proposing 8.6 units per acre.  He advised the reason he looks at the Merritt Island Airport as a mom and pop shop is because he does not see the expansion of the airport to the alleged 170,000 operations to be in the best interest of the neighborhood; and he fails to see where the condominium, where people are involved in aviation, is going to be a detriment to the community.  He noted the concern he has is if the airport were allowed to expand, as was mentioned, it would have negative effect on the surrounding community and the folks who live within 1,000 feet of the end of the runway would be noticing when airplanes are landing or taking off, and the noise when they take off is a lot louder than when they are landing.  He commented Space Coast Regional Airport is where the explosive growth needs to take place; and he does not think the Merritt Island Airport is the appropriate place to see that type of

expansion.  He noted the airport does need some new hangars, and he sees the economic engine that is there increasing in its viability and he only sees enhancement through the addition of the condominium.

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Colon, Pritchard, and Voltz voted aye; and Commissioners Carlson and Scarborough voted nay.  Commissioner Colon inquired of Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson if the Board could discuss Chapter 333 at a later meeting; with Mr. Richardson responding if the Board wants to put it on the agenda and later consider to adopt it as has been instructed by the Legislature since 1975, the Board can instruct the County Attorney’s Office to draft it, and they will draft something that will comply with Chapter 333. 

 

Commissioner Pritchard commented the Board should have an agenda item to discuss the operation of the TICO Authority; and recently the FBO operations has been moving from one to the other and there is an issue of perhaps a novation clause.  He stated he is not sure the TICO Authority is watching out for airport profitability and he thinks the Board needs to discuss it because they derive a portion of their income from taxes; and the FBO switch could have been made with an increase of $80,000 to the profitability of the airport and there would not be a tax paid on it this year.  Commissioner Colon noted she would like to make sure the TICO Board will be part of that meeting; and she asked if they could have the meeting the second meeting in May.

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented the TICO Board was created by the Florida Legislature and not by the Board of County Commissioners; and the appointments come from the County Commissioners and they have the ability to approve their budget.  He commented any discussions should take place at a workshop, where the TICO Board can sit at the same table as the Commission.

 

Commissioner Pritchard noted the Commission makes the appointments; however, they are a dependent Board, and the Commission approves their budget, which includes $80,000 or so in taxes.  He commented the Commission may not have the ultimate authority, but they have a vested interest, and he thinks they should discuss that. 

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired if the Commissioners would like her to schedule a workshop; with Chair Voltz responding affirmative.

 

 

VI. A. 3.  (Z0601109) - DEANNA J. KOKOSZKA AND ROSS L. NEUBARTH - (Ross Neubarth) – request a change from AU to RR-1 on 1.24 acres; AND a Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.3) to change the Future Land Use from Residential 1 to Residential 2 and a change from AU to SR on remainder. (Total acreage 3.25.)  Located on the north side of Blacks Road, approx. 320 feet west of Indian River Drive and also having frontage on both sides of Indian River Drive, approx. 90 feet north of Blacks Road.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.A.3. as RR-1, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

VI. A. 4.  (Z0601202) - SIESTA MOBILE HOME PARK, INC. – (Craig Conlon) – requests change from TR-3 to RU-2-15 on 2.67 acres, located on the east side of Palmetto Ave., approx. 0.19 mile north of S.R. 520.

     

John Evans stated he is representing Mr. Conlon, who is seeking to rezone property in the Merritt Island Redevelopment Area from TR-2 to RU-2-15; and gave the Board a package showing the availability of other mobile home parks and the issue of availability of other properties.  He explained the request is a two-part rezoning, and one question is, does it meet the grounds for rezoning under the standard guidelines.  He noted some standard guidelines would be that it abuts RU-2-15 to the east, and that property is developed at 20 units per acre; there is RU-2-15 to the west which is developed at 12 units per-acre; and the surrounding property is BU-1 and BU-2.  He noted the staff report indicates there are no concurrency issues related to roads; and the Department of Natural Resources indicates there are no environmental

issues on the property.  He stated they also meet Land Use Plan Chapter 11, which is criteria related to redevelopment; and as far as the rezoning goes, if the property was just a piece of land, they would meet all the criteria in the Code.  He commented the issue is the applicability of 723.083, and that requires that there are other adequate facilities to move the mobile home patrons to; and Morris Richardson’s memo indicates if they do not seek a land use change, then the applicability of 723.083 does not apply.  He stated if it was just an old mobile home park, where everybody was gone, they would not be considering availability of alternative locations; and his client has decided to have 723.083 apply, and he is willing to meet the availability test.  He noted his client indicated to the Board that even though he is legally required to only give six months notice for eviction, it is a long-term project and this is the first step in many; it is anticipated to take one to two years before the evictions would take place, so the tenants are not under immediate threat of being evicted; and the change of zoning does not give them a six month eviction notice.

 

Chair Voltz inquired of Mr. Evans, if Mr. Conlon had evicted everybody, and then came in for a rezoning, then they would not be there; with Mr. Evans responding that is correct, as it would be a straight rezoning.  He noted the Board could deny the request tonight, and Mr. Conlon could give everybody six-months notice, then come back and rezone a vacant piece of property; but Mr. Conlon does not want to do that, as these are long-term residents, and he wants to work with them; and he has also offered some rent concessions to them. 

 

John Evans commented there is adequate alternate housing; and the Housing Authority seemed to think that means to move a mobile home, and the Statute states it is alternate housing for the mobile home residents.  He noted Mr. Conlon showed the Board there are over 100 vacancies at local mobile home parks, and that the rental rates in those parks are comparable to what he is charging; and therefore, they think the evidence is clear that there is affordable housing and Mr. Conlon meets the guidelines.  He stated page nine of Mr. Conlon’s report states, “The County should address the plight of the displaced mobile home owners; however, perpetrations of deteriorating mobile homes, which pose safety hazards by failing to comply with the Building Code and basic wind zone requirements, designed to protect both their occupants and their neighbors, would violate public policy, and cannot provide solutions in affordable housing in the County”.  He commented it is an old mobile home park and the homes in the park are from the 60’s and 70’s and they do not meet today’s guidelines, and they are unsafe to the surrounding residents if there is a hurricane.  He concluded by stating the request is in compliance with the Statute and they believe they have substantial evidence before the Board to meet the burden of the Statute, and he requests the Board’s support in this regard.

 

Craig Conlon stated he is from Brevard County and his family has owned the property for over 20 years, and it was already 20 years old when they bought it.  He noted this is his future and he wants to be able to protect and invest his property to pursue industry; he is not looking to evict anyone in six months, and he is not starting the development in six months, but it will occur down the road and he needs to know if there is light at the end of the tunnel and that he is not forced to run an old mobile home park for the rest of his life.  He stated he is trying to do it by the statutory scheme of things by going this route; he did a lot of leg work, talked to other mobile

home park owners, and kept in contact with Mr. Richardson and Ms. Busacca; and he is complying with the laws and hopes he is not punished tonight for doing that because he can evict everybody and then come back to the Board with the request and tell it he does not deal with tenants anymore.  He stated if the Board feels that way tonight, he will do that if it is his only other route, and he would be forced to do that.  He stated he hopes to have the Board’s support tonight and he will deal with the changing of the residents with compassion and with help; and he is not an out-of-town developer, who just evicts people and does not go through what he is promising. 

 

Gretel Fletcher stated she has lived in the mobile home park for fourteen years; she is 69 years old and all she gets a month is $373 in social security; and she still works at United Space Alliance for a cleaning company.  She commented she is a hard-working citizen and she pays her taxes and she works for four hours a day for $8.00 an hour, and she works harder in those four hours than most people work all day; and she has worked for everything she has, and it is paid for, and her home is not much, but it is a roof over her head.  She noted she was there two years ago when Mr. Pritchard handed her a plaque for cooking for all of the deputies during the hurricanes and she would appreciate it if the Board could do something for her.

 

Roger Morin stated he is a temporary resident of the mobile home park; and asked the Board to keep the mobile home park open a little longer.

 

Mark Oropeza stated when he bought his trailer in 1996 he was told by Ray Conlon that he would never have to worry about having a place to live and that Siesta Mobile Home Park would

always be his home.  He noted his trailer is 12-foot by 60-foot, the attached carport is 30-foot by 11-foot, the addition is 12-foot by 12-foot, he has a shed that is 10-foot by 14-foot, and there is a carport attached to that and it is 12-foot by 20-foot.  He added he is a Brevard County taxpayer and he pays his taxes; and he has a copy of the State’s relocation rules which states the maximum allowed relocation payment; and FMHRC will cover most of the cost of disassembly of homes, tie-downs, awnings, skirting, AC’s, sheds, and carports.  He noted he has $10,000 in all his additions, and his lot size is 3,900 square feet, and that is what he will need to remain the same size he is right now.  He commented he missed the meeting in January because Mr. Conlon picked up everybody’s newspapers before they could read them and find out about the meeting; he keeps up with his registrations; and has done improvements to his home, not knowing he would ever have to worry about losing his place.  He commented his trailer is a 1969 model; it was said that the trailers were blight and he did not know what the meaning was, so he looked it up in the dictionary, and it stated blight was a disease that causes complete destruction. 

 

Chair Voltz inquired of Mr. Oropeza how he pays property taxes if he does not own the property; with Mr. Oropeza responding he has to pay taxes on the carports, skirting and things like that.  Chair Voltz stated Mr. Conlon can evict them and they would have to leave; and she wanted him to be aware that Mr. Conlon could do that, but he is not, and she asked Mr. Oropeza which route he would rather go.  Mr. Oropeza stated he is just here to see what happens; and he noted Mr. Conlon stated he is a Brevard County resident, and he did not know Longwood was in Brevard County.

 

Bruce Oropeza stated his trailer is 60-foot by 12-foot, and his porch is 9-foot by 32-foot and most of it is closed in; and his patio in the back is 11-foot by 16-foot.  He commented he is 49 years old, has lived in Florida for most of his life, and has lived in the trailer park for about 15 years; and he tries to take care of his place, he loves the trailer park, and he hopes he can stay where he is. 

 

Karen Andreas commented the understanding is that the Florida Statute requires the Board to make a Finding of Availability, and that is what has held up the rezoning; and it is true that Mr. Richardson provided a memo on February 27^th and he acknowledges the Housing and Human Services Department is in a better position to provide data and perform analysis regarding the factual question of availability.  She noted that on May 28^th, Gay Williams, Director of Housing and Human Services, provided the document that is required for the Board to consider this question and the document also references two Attorney General’s opinions; one, when Jim Smith was Attorney General and one more recently from Attorney General Crist reaffirming the original decision; that says more than there just has to be vacancies in the area that people can go to; and according to the Attorney General’s opinion, the residents’ financial resources and the issue of moving the trailers has to be considered.  She commented Housing and Human Services believes that only four or five of the trailers can actually be relocated and staff does not believe adequate or suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the present residents of Siesta Mobile Home Park; Ms. Williams’ report also states the requested action would displace Siesta Mobile Home Park owners and preclude them from accessing vacancies because of factors used by other mobile home parks to determine whether or not their unit would be acceptable in a new mobile home park; the overwhelming majority of the residents in Siesta Mobile Home Park own their own homes and are on limited, or fixed, incomes; and the homes range from 23 to 43 years of age, and income and ages of homes precludes many of them to qualify purchasing another mobile home.  She noted this is an issue of property rights and it is the Board’s job to balance them; and while Mr. Conlon has some rights to develop his mobile home into something else, the residents do not live in apartments, and when they lose their homes, they do not pack bags and boxes and move somewhere else.  She advised the Florida Legislature recognized that situation when it crafted the Legislation; and both Attorney Generals reference researching all the records and public hearings that went into crafting the Legislation and recognize that the people have an invested right in their homes.  She noted it appears, in reading Mr. Richardson’s acknowledgement of Housing and Human Services expertise, and then the report provided to the Board by Ms. Williams, that there is not availability, and the Board cannot make a finding of availability on its own staff’s work; and therefore, they must deny the rezoning.

 

Chair Voltz stated to Ms. Andreas that Mr. Conlon can evict everybody, and she asked her which she would prefer; with Karen Andreas responding she does not think it is a matter of preference, and the matter is that the law states the Board must make a legal finding of availability; regardless of the outcome, the issue before the Board tonight is the finding of availability; and to ask the residents to make the choice is not a fair question to ask.  Chair Voltz commented the Board has the choice to evict the residents tomorrow or to give them a year and a half to two years.  Ms. Andreas commented she is not sure under the law and under the requirement for the finding of availability that that is a question it is supposed to answer; and its question to answer is if there is a finding of availability, and its own staff states there is not, based on the age of the mobile homes and the income levels.

 

Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson commented Ms. Andreas is correct that in terms of what the Board is looking at tonight, it is not an issue of whether or not they should be evicted, but the Board has to consider whether or not under the Statute there is availability; and he disagrees with an analysis in that when they are looking at availability, he thinks what the Statute plainly states is that they look at whether or not there are empty mobile home lots available; and if the Board wants to consider affordability, other counties have done that, and the Statute does not require that; however, he thinks evidence has been submitted by the applicant that there are empty lots and they are in the same price range of what Mr. Conlon currently offers.  He commented what Housing determined is that a lot of the homes cannot be moved to other parks because of their age; and the Statute does not require that the homes be moved, but rather that the owners can be moved.  He advised unfortunately, a lot of the homes will not be able to be moved and that is staff’s analysis and Housing did a good job in looking at that, but at the same time, the law cannot require the mobile home park owner to operate the park in perpetuity.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired of Mr. Richardson, under the law of eviction, if the Board has no say in the matter, and if it is strictly the say of property owners that occurs without any accommodation to the individuals living on the property.  Morris Richardson responded there is statutory control governing eviction for mobile home park owners, and they might be entitled to certain funds if they were evicted, just as they will be entitled to statutory funds if they are removed.  He added he understands the residents’ plight and he understands that the statutory funds probably will not cover, or recoup, whatever investment they have in the homes, but that is not for the Board to decide.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated either way there is some level of coverage for the occupant in the mobile home, whether they get evicted or they go the other route; with Mr. Richardson responding it is covered under the same statutory scheme, but the applicant was correct in stating he could evict the residents and then come back later and make the same rezoning request. Commissioner Carlson inquired of Mr. Richardson if there is a time limitation on eviction; with Mr. Richardson responding it is a six-month time frame.

 

Cynthia Cox commented the fact that Mr. Conlon is allowed to evict them should be illegal; and she understands he wants to improve his life, but he should not do it on the residents’ time clock; and if he wants them out of there, he should at least give them a decent amount for their mobile homes.  She stated the Board has systematically closed every mobile home park on Merritt Island; and she knows the Board does not like mobile homes, and they are not as beautiful as their mansions, but it is all that she has, and she has a little girl, and now she has to

look for a new job as well as a new place to live.  She added she has been looking for another park and they are all more expensive and have fees just to apply to stay there; and other parks are doing quite well, and the reason Mr. Conlon is not doing well with his park is because he has let the mobile homes fall into a terrible condition, but the people who own their homes do take care of them. 

 

John Evans stated the Board’s report from the Attorney states it will take 18 to 24 months to relocate the people once the zoning has been approved.

 

Morris Richardson advised the 18 to 24-month estimate came from the applicant, who said that is about how long it would take before they were required to move, if the zoning request is approved.

 

John Evans noted his client is willing to stipulate that the residents would have 24 months, if that is what it takes to humanely move them to an alternate location; and if the Board finds there is no alternate housing, then there is not going to be alternate housing next year or ten years from now, because the park and the mobile homes get older and older, and the Board is basically locking Mr. Conlon into running the 1960’s trailer park forever, which is what Mr. Richardson says is unconstitutional.  Mr. Evans commented he would like to work with the residents to find a solution that accommodates them, but ultimately close down the mobile home park because that is what needs to be done, as the park is old, the homes are old, they do not meet Code, and it is time that the process starts.

 

Craig Conlon noted he knows what the rules are with the Florida Mobile Home Relocation Corporation; and when the owners move their homes, they have to apply to the State to get a voucher which will reimburse them, and then he has to pay the State.  He advised he would be willing to pay the owners directly, and not make them apply to Tallahassee, as long as they are following the laws.  He commented what was left out of Karen Andreas’ statement on the Florida Housing memo was that the Attorney General’s report was stricken down as unconstitutional; Ms. Andreas met him outside of the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency meeting, and she made it clear to him that if he does not do it the way she wants it done, then she will not support

it, and she will make sure she is at the Commission meeting to fight it; and she told him she would support it if it is Section 8, low-income housing, but only under that circumstance.  He commented he believes Ms. Andreas is in step with Housing and Human Services to try to get him to put in low-income housing, and he does not think she cares about anybody in the trailer park and she has never stepped in before to help the people.  He concluded he feels he is doing the right thing and he wants to continue to do the right thing as the process continues.

 

Commissioner Pritchard commented he mentioned several times that when the Board sits as Planning and Zoning they sit quasi-judicial and they have to look at competent fact; and Mr. Richardson’s conclusion states, “whether adequate mobile home parks, or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of mobile home owners, thus satisfying their requirements of 723.083 is an ultimate finding of fact that must be made by the Board in its quasi-judicial capacity based upon competent and substantial evidence.  If the Board determines, based upon

competent and substantial evidence, that adequate mobile home parks and other suitable facilities exist for relocation of mobile home owners, the Board may approve the request consistent with the requirements of Statute 723.083”.  He noted the survey conducted on availability lists a park in Cocoa with a $260 monthly lot rent and 20 available sites; also in Cocoa is a park with 121 sites at $315 a month, another park in Cocoa has 64 sites at $225 a month, plus water, sewer and garbage; and another park in Cocoa has 200 pads at $279 a month.  He advised he thinks the applicant complies with 723.083, but more than that, he does not think he has seen anyone with more compassion for people than Mr. Conlon, and he could literally evict everybody in the park, and he has chosen not to do that; and Mr. Conlon has stipulated 24 months, and financial assistance, and he thinks the applicant has met the requirements and has made arrangements far and above what others may have done.  He noted the property belongs to Mr. Conlon and it should not be held hostage; he has the right to evict everybody in the park, and that is the law and there is nothing the Commission can do about it.  Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item VI.A.4. as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired of Commissioner Pritchard what he was reading the information from on the availability of parks; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he was reading off of the survey.  Commissioner Carlson asked Mr. Richardson if the survey was considered competent and substantial evidence; with Mr. Richardson replying it was submitted by the owner and he thinks Housing and Human Services called the mobile home parks, verified how many lots were available, and he thinks it is sufficient and he has not seen any evidence to the contrary.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Housing and Human Services staff should address the Board.

 

Chenita Joiner stated Morris Richardson is correct in that her Department did contact the mobile home parks and verify what was available.  She stated the concern of Housing and Human Services was the tenants’ financial ability to relocate to those facilities and they felt the parks were inaccessible for those reasons.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if the ability for them to relocate is a reimbursable cost based on a Statute; with Chenita Joiner advising because of the cost of the other units that were available, even with any type of subsidy from her Department, they would still experience some type of financial hardship, and she does not know if they are totally reimbursed.

 

Chair Voltz asked Craig Conlon if he had any information on the reimbursement; with Craig Conlon replying it is $3,000, and his hope is to find a good contractor to give a good price, and he can just pay that contractor directly.  He noted he talked to a contractor who told him it only costs about $400 to move a mobile home, but it is the set-up that costs money, so it can vary from one home to another depending on how well they are maintained.  Chair Voltz inquired if Mr. Conlon was willing to pay the residents; with Mr. Conlon responding he has no problem paying the residents directly, but they would have to do everything by the law.

 

Chenita Joiner commented the other concern Housing had was that because of the age of many of the mobile homes, a lot of them cannot be relocated.  Mr. Conlon stated that is an abandonment fee, because some of them are in such bad shape; and he wants to work with Brevard County as a team and if someone wishes to abandon their mobile home, he will not charge any rent during the last couple months of their residency.  Chair Voltz inquired of Ms. Joiner how many people would not be able to move; with Chenita Joiner replying according to the memo from Ms. Williams, it appears only four or five of the mobile homes can be relocated, out of approximately 28 mobile homes.

 

Craig Conlon commented all of the mobile homes can be moved, but it is a question of if they should be moved; and his guess is that 10, 12 or 15 of the homes cannot be moved.  Chair Voltz commented of the 15 that cannot be moved, half of them do not want to be moved; with Mr. Conlon responding affirmatively.  Chair Voltz noted there will still be a half dozen or so that something has to be done with, and she asked if he will pay them $3,000 to move the mobile home, or purchase another mobile home.  Mr. Conlon stated he has no control where people move to and some have already told him they are moving out of state.

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented his understanding is there has to be a first finding of fact before the Board can do one under State Statute; the difference is that the Board does not look at the movement of the mobile home, but to the owner; and what Housing and Human Services did was look at the movement of the mobile homes as opposed to the possibility of the people moving into other alternative housing.  Chenita Joiner noted Housing and Human Services looked at the tenants’ ability to relocate based on their finances; with Commissioner Scarborough stating that was more for the movement of their mobile homes and he asked if Housing looked at the people moving into other facilities as opposed to mobile homes as well.  Chenita Joiner replied at the time, it was what was mostly available in terms of mobile homes.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he cannot vote for the request because he has to have a finding of fact, and Morris Richardson does not help with a finding of fact, but what he is saying staff has looked at the issue with too narrow a scope and they should have looked at the broader scope of any housing.

 

Morris Richardson commented it is based on the evidence submitted and the applicant has submitted evidence which included apartments and things of that nature; and the Statute reads,

“available housing”, and even if they read an affordability requirement into it, they then look at other housing out there, whether it is mobile home lots or apartments, and see if they are within the price range.  Commissioner Scarborough commented it has been his thought that the applicant brings in testimony, and as a quasi-judicial Board, if any information is questioned, he should explore further than just taking the information provided by an applicant; and there is staff to look at traffic patterns and housing issues, and it is incumbent upon him to draw upon the public resources.  Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson to table Item VI.A.4. to allow Housing and Human Services Department to look at the broader prospective, as defined in Mr. Richardson’s memo.  Commissioner Scarborough removed his motion so Commissioner Colon could make comments, and Commissioner Carlson removed her second to the motion.

 

Commissioner Colon commented there is a problem in Florida and developers are coming into every single community they can and they are going into mobile homes; and it is not just this case that should be concerning the Board of County Commissioners.  She noted she has met with people from Lamplighter Village and she would think that any community of that type would be protected based on how long it has been there and that it has associations, but they are not protected either; and that means folks retiring to a community are in danger.  She noted there are subdivisions where mobile home parks used to be; and the seniors are scared, and she has asked some of them to speak to every Commissioner to explain how sensitive and huge the problem is.  She commented there have been many times when there has been an item in front of the Board that gets caught in the crossfire and it has to figure out what it is going to do to protect its constituents who are in jeopardy.  She noted there is a huge group that has not been discussed and that is the seniors; and she inquired of Mr. Richardson if anyone has met with him about the fact that this problem is bigger than what they are discussing today. 

 

Morris Richardson replied the State Legislature is considering revamping the Florida Mobile Home Relocation Act and it is going to potentially require County Governments to reimburse people who are moved because of zoning actions, but that is not the case currently.  He noted in the quasi-judicial capacity, the Board needs to consider the application in front of them and the confident substantial facts that have been submitted.  He noted the item has been tabled a few times and the applicant submitted a lot of evidence and Housing has submitted data, and the applicants’ numbers have been substantiated by Housing and he is not aware of any evidence contrary to those numbers.  He stated it is a big issue and one that the State Legislature is currently contemplating and they may want to put the burden on County Government.

 

Commissioner Pritchard commented he agrees it is a big issue, but it is not the Board’s issue tonight, and the applicant has concurred and complied.  He stated the park has been under charging for a number of years, and he asked Mr. Evans if the owner can raise the rent to anything he wants; with John Evans responding there is a statutory procedure that allows the raising of rents.  Commissioner Pritchard asked if the rent could be retroactive; with Mr. Evans responding it cannot.  Commissioner Pritchard advised the problem he has is that the Board is talking about an issue that is outside the realm of what is on the agenda; and he agrees they need to do something about workforce housing, but that is not the issue tonight.  He noted Mr. Conlon has proposed 24 months, financial assistance, and two months of free rent, and the alternative is eviction, no financial assistance, and no two months of rent.  He commented the Board is hearing a quasi-judicial request tonight and it has nothing to do with tenant-landlord; and he will not support the motion to table because of that.

 

Chair Voltz stated Mr. Conlon could withdraw his application and just evict everyone; and she does not want to see that happen.  She advised if the Board is truly looking out for the betterment of the people who live in the park, then it needs to support the application; and they have met competent substantial evidence, he has been tabled a number of times, they are good at tabling things, but they are not good at solving problems, and tabling does not solve the problem.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated as a Commissioner he has to determine if there is adequate suitable facilities; and he has a report from Housing and Human Services, which does not fully analyze the issue.  He commented in light of what the Attorney said, Mr. Richardson can give them the law, but he is not the one to give them determination of fact.  Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to table Item VI.A.4. to May 4, 2006 County Commissioners meeting.

 

Commissioner Carlson commented if the Board tables the issue and they get additional information from Housing and look at the other alternative housings, that is fine, but if they go that route, she would expect to see a Binding Development Plan, as this is a zoning matter.  She stated they need to have the Findings of Fact come back to the Board.  She commented Mr. Conlon has promised to do many things, and usually when an applicant makes concessions, they volunteer a Binding Development Plan. 

 

Chair Voltz advised the applicant has agreed to a Binding Development Plan.  She added she does not think they will get any more information in a month from now than they have in front of them right now.  She noted if the Board tables the item, the applicant could just withdraw the entire application and tell the people in the park they have six months to move. She noted she would not vote in favor of the motion to table.

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion.  Motion did not carry.  Commissioners Voltz, Pritchard  and  Carlson  voted  nay;  and  Commissioners  Scarborough  and  Colon  voted  aye.  

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard to approve Item VI.A.4. as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

 

Commissioner Scarborough advised he cannot approve it until there has been a finding of fact attached to the motion.  Commissioner Carlson noted she would accept the motion with the Binding Development Plan, and it has to come back with a finding of fact.  Commissioner Scarborough stated the finding of fact has to be a prerequisite and a part of the motion.

 

Chair Voltz commented Morris Richardson had the findings of fact; with Mr. Richardson responding he cannot give a finding of fact and he has just stated his opinion of what the law is and what the Board can consider; and if the Board wanted to approve it as part of the motion, it would have to make a finding as part of the motion that staff finds there is adequate facilities that exist for the homeowners.

 

Commissioner Pritchard advised that will be included in his motion. Commissioner Carlson stated the issue will come back to the Board with a finding of fact and a Binding Development Plan; and she asked if that was sufficient.  Morris Richardson commented a finding of fact usually means something more formal when they are anticipating a challenge to a zoning action, and the Statute does not require that, as it states determination and not finding of fact; and the Board does not need the formal procedure, they just need to determine whether there is available housing.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has done a finding of fact for a potential lawsuit in the past; with Morris Richardson responding the Board can do a formal finding of fact in this case, but as far as adequate and available housing, that determination can be part of the Boards’ motion. 

 

Chair Voltz asked Mr. Conlon to approach the Board to discuss what it wants in the Binding Development Plan.  Craig Conlon advised if the Board approves the zoning, he is not going to issue any six-month notices until 18 months have passed, which would mean there would be two years before they have to move; he would give two months rent abatement and as long as the tenants abide by the laws set forth by the Florida Mobile Home Relocation Act, and instead of them applying for the funds, he will pay them directly.  Commissioner Carlson inquired if he would pay them the equivalent; with Mr. Conlon responding affirmatively.  Chair Voltz noted he also stated he would help them relocate and pay that person to make sure they are relocated properly and set up properly; with Mr. Conlon replying he would do that, unless someone has their own contractor.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca commented two years from now, there will be a staff who will have to review this issue, and she inquired if the Board intends the law as it stands now, or the law as it stands two years from now; with Commissioner Pritchard responding as the law stands tonight, because the Board does not know what will happen in the Legislature.  Peggy Busacca requested that the Board make part of the motion the law as it reads on this date. 

 

Chair Voltz noted she met with the people of Lamplighter Village, and she has a number of mobile homes in her District that are up and running and in good shape; and she would never support a developer coming in and throwing everybody out just because he wants condos. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired of Chair Voltz what the difference would be, as they are human beings just like the people of Siesta Mobile Home Park; with Chair Voltz responding some of the mobile home parks are run down and there is a big difference; and she thinks they are doing justice by taking care of the people who live there.  Commissioner Colon requested that on a future agenda they look to see what other communities are doing to protect themselves from what is going on.  She noted there are ordinances that are going up in the State of Florida throughout different counties to protect developers from coming in and doing this to other mobile home parks.  Chair Voltz responded she would agree with that, and suggested the Board wait to see what happens with an issue that is at the State level right now; with Commissioner Colon commenting each community is not waiting for the State to protect themselves, there are counties now who are protecting themselves and Brevard County needs to do the same thing, and she is not going to wait for the State to protect her citizens.  Chair Voltz stated she agrees, but if they can protect them further than what the State is, then that is what they should do; and they need to look very closely at what the State is doing. 

 

Chair Voltz called for a vote on the motion, to approve change from TR-3 to RU-2-15 with Binding Development Plan.  Commissioners Prithcard, Carlson, and Voltz voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough and Colon voted nay.  

 

Commissioner Colon inquired if Ms. Busacca would be able to put it on a future agenda; with Ms. Busacca inquired if the Board wanted a report provided to show the different types of Ordinances that are currently out there; with Commissioner Colon stated the people living in the mobile home parks already have the ordinances.  Ms. Busacca responded affirmatively.

 

 

Item VI.A.5.  (Z0511307) IRVING & BETTE BETROCK – (Richard E. Torpy, Esquire) – request a change from SR with an existing Binding Development Plan (Z-10898) to EU with an amendment to the existing Binding Development Plan limiting the density to one unit per acre on 4 acres located on the west side of Hwy. A1A, approx. 80 ft. north of Sea Dunes Dr.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.A.5. to the May 4, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.    

 

 

 

 

Item VI.B.1.  (Z0603201) – DENNIS K. AND ELIZABETH A. LEE – request a Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.8) to change the Future Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and a change from AU to BU-2 on 1 acre, located approx. 425 ft. north of W. King St. and approx. 320 ft. west of Griffin Drive.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.B.1. as recommended by the Local Planning Agency and P&Z Board and adopt an Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled “The 1988 Comprehensive Plan”, setting forth the Eighth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2006, 06S.8, to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI (E), entitled the Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page

            for Ordinance No. 06-14)                                                                                                              

 

 

Item VI.B.2.  (Z0603202) – JOANNE M. NAYLOR, TRUSTEE - requests a change from AU to RU-1-11 on 2.45 acres, located on the west side of Range Road, approx. 810 feet north of Lake Drive.

 

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

 

 

 

Item VI.B.3.  (Z0603203) – DUANE A. WATSON, TRUSTEE – (James Shaver) – requests a Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-2 zoning classification on 0.53 acre, located on the north side of Merritt Island Causeway, approx. 470 feet east of Courtenay Parkway.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson to approve Item VI.B.3. with a CUP contingent on site plan to include adjacent parking, and to limit the alcoholic beverages to beer and wine, for restaurant only.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.4.  (Z0603204) – WILBUR AND JOYCE FREY – (Bob Colvard, Beneficial Communities) – request a change from BU-2, TR-3 and RU-1-9 to RU-2-15 on 13.25 acres, located on the west side of Clearlake Road, approx. 100 ft. south of Ollie Street.  

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.B.4. as RU-2-10.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item VI.B.5.  (NMI60301) UNITED ACCESS, INC. – (John Campbell) - requests a change from AU to  RR-1 on 3.878 acres, more or less, located on the south side of Hall Rd., approx. 770 ft. east of Savannahs Trail.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.B.5. to the May 4, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.6.  (Z0603301) – JOSEPH TINTERA  - requests a Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.7) that proposes to change the Future Land Use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial AND a change from GU to BU-2 on 3.02 acres, located on the west side of US 1, approx. 700 ft. south of Micco Road. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.B.6. to the May 4, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.7.    (Z0603401) – BREVARD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, pursuant to Policy 15.3  of  the  Future Land  Use Element of the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, the following property is being considered for Administrative Rezoning:  Property owned by Bobby Abraham  and  Faiaz  M.  Rasul, et al; Shakti D.  and  Gabi  Bakshi; Bobby Ray and Linda Carol Varker; Ross and Diahn Clark; and  Jo Ann C. Eubank, to  change  the  classification from RU-2-10(8) with BCP, to SR and removal of BCP, on 9.68 acres, located on the east side of US 1, approx. 0.33 mile north of Viera Blvd.

 

Jake Wise stated because the item was advertised, he would like to request that it be re-advertised, and he will do that at his own expense.  He noted the property owner currently has multi-family zoning and he would like to look a little closer at his options and work with staff to see what can be done. 

 

Commissioner Carlson asked Mr. Wise if he wanted to withdraw the item or table it; with Mr. Wise advising it would need to be re-advertised and go back to Planning and Zoning.  Peggy Busacca noted the Board would have to deny or withdraw the request; with Commissioner Scarborough stating it should be withdrawn because they will not want a denial on the record.

 

Commissioner Carlson commented the item previously had a conservation element to it when it was rezoned; Rick Enos noted the tract in question is part of a plat and it was supposed to be a conservation tract owned by the homeowners association, and that note is on the plat. Commissioner Carlson stated it is a concern to be able to put zoning across the entire property, and when it comes back to the Board, it needs to be EA or have some sort of environmental acknowledgment to that part of it, so that density cannot be taken off of it and put somewhere else.

 

Rick Enos suggested since all the residents live on single-family and they are expecting SR zoning, he would prefer that the owner of the property first fix his plat issue and then come back

on his own application with his own fees paid to request the rezoning; and the reason for that is that if the County initiates it, surrounding property owners are not necessarily notified.  He noted he would not want to come back administratively for multi-family zoning because the surrounding property owners will not understand there is a change from what was originally proposed from staff; and the Board can either go ahead and approve the item as SR, or just withdraw it and let the applicant come back.  He advised his problem with not rezoning it is that it will still be left as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board can rezone the conservation area as an appropriate environmental tract, and then rezone the rest of it; with Rick Enos responding affirmatively.

 

Jake Wise commented he would prefer to withdraw it to look at all of the options; and it is an old plat with four, single-family lots and an old Binding Concept Plan, and the owner owns this tract and some property adjacent to it.

 

Rick Enos noted the problem with withdrawing it is that zoning will be left on the property that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and he would prefer some action tonight that would make the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but still leaves the property owner the option of filing his own application.  Commissioner Carlson stated the Binding Concept Plan and conservation portion was based on the homes that are built there currently. 

 

Jake Wise commented there was an old Binding Concept Plan that was never removed and it is very different from what was platted; with Commissioner Carlson inquiring what is actually on the property.  Mr. Wise advised the plat is for four single-family homes. 

 

Commissioner Carlson commented she would like to discuss it further and the Board can table it, then she can get some of her questions answered.  Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item VI.B.7.

 

Rick Enos suggested the Board only table the particular parcel in question and approve the others in the request.  Commissioner Carlson amended her motion to table just the subject parcel and approve the remaining parcels in the request; and Commissioner Scarborough seconded the amended motion. 

 

Chair Voltz asked for clarification; with Rick Enos stating Tract C is the western most parcel in the subdivision that is owned by the representatives’ client, so the Board approved everything except Tract C.

 

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

 

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when the tabled item will return; with Chair Voltz stating May 4, 2006.

 

 

Item VI.B.8.  (Z0603402) – PSB INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. – (Viera Elks Lodge, Dennis Black) – requests a Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages for On-Premises Consumption in a BU-1 zoning classification on 0.7 acre, located on the west side of US 1, approx. 950 ft. north of Ruby St.  

 

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

 

 

Item VI.B.9. (Z0603501) – DANIEL J. WILDER – Item removed from agenda.

 

 

Item VI.B.10.  (Z0603502) – JERRY L. AND JINKIE A. BAYS AND LEONARD RIFE – Item withdrawn by applicant.

 

 

Item VI.B.11.  (Z0603101) – WILLIAM A. GRAY II – requests a change from RRMH-2.5 to AU on 2.5 acres, located on the west side of Hammock Road, approx. 0.31 mile north of Brockett Road.

 

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

 

 

 

Item VI.B.12. (Z0603102) – CHRISTOPHER AND DEANNA MCCORQUODALE – request a Conditional Use Permit for a Guest House in a PUD zoning classification on .88 acre, located on the east side of Fawn Lake Boulevard, approx. 170 ft. south of its northern terminus.  

 

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

 

Item VI.B.13.  (Z0603103) – JOHN ALBERT AND LOU RAY WILLIAMS – (Douglas Macaluso) – request a change of classification from AU to RR-1 on 4.03 acres, located on the north side of Carter Road, approx. .81 mile east of Highway US 1.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.B.13. with a Binding Development Plan as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Item VI.B.14.  (PSJ60301) – COASTAL PROPERTIES, INC. AND COASTAL PROPERTIES – (Richard Kern) – request an amendment to an existing Binding Development Plan (BDP) in an RU-1-11 zoning classification on 50.64 acres, located west of the western terminus of Clear View Drive.

 

Rick Kern, representing Coastal Properties, noted the subject site is a 51-acre site, located just south of Port St. John, south of Vineland Street, between the Winn Dixie shopping center and the railroad tracks.  He commented the site was previously zoned by the County to have RU-1 zoning in 1992, with a Binding Development Plan allowing 154 lots on the subject site; and they are seeking to only make three changes to the Binding Development Plan on the site.  He advised the previous binding development plan had provisions for aquifer protection, which were not exactly in conformance with the current regulations; and the Binding Development Plan was passed in 1992, previous to the current regulations on aquifer recharge.  He stated his client is seeking to modify the language of that clause of the Binding Development Plan to simply state that the developer shall provide aquifer recharge in accordance with all current, applicable Brevard County regulations, the Brevard County Land Development Code and the Brevard County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

 

Commissioner Scarborough commented staff prepared the Board a matrix for it to follow, and there were residents who were given copies of the matrix.

 

Richard Kern stated the previous Binding Development Plan had a provision that required the project to connect all of its streets to Clearview Street; and the new binding development plan would mandate all of the traffic be on Clearview Street.  He noted currently Clearview Street is the one and only legal access for the project; and they are seeking to lift the requirement that makes it a mandatory connection, and they would be seeking to find an alternative access point for the new project.  He advised if the Board chooses to not lift the mandatory connection, then his client will not be pursuing an alternate connection point.   He noted that to put aside any fears the residents may have, they will in no way connect to Vineland Street on this project. 

 

David Albright stated he appeared in front of the Board six years ago referencing the same property; and the residents on the south side and the north side just want to know what the plans are.  He inquired where the water will go and what will happen to the wildlife and what is going to happen to the traffic flow, which is what was discussed six years ago and they still do not have answers; and they do not mind if the applicant builds, they just want to know what they want to do.  He stated the residents asked the same questions at the Port St. John meeting and they could not get answers.

John Hempfling stated his concern is they have no plans on the project; he has lived on Clearview Drive since 1976; and there are about ten people on Clearview Drive who are on fixed incomes, such as himself.  He noted he is not opposed to the property if they get an exit other than Clearview Drive, because there is a lot of children in the community; and if they go into the property, they will use Clearview Drive as an entrance and exit for construction, and he

would want them to fix the road after they finished.  He noted he has a mobile home that is about 1500 square feet, he put a new roof on it in 2000 and he put vinyl siding on it a couple years ago, it is in good shape and it is his home, and he does not want to have to move.  He noted if they start doing eminent domain in a couple of years, where is he going to go, at his age and find a property at the cost of what it is today.

 

Laura Roper commented she has lived on her property for 20 years; and she is not against the applicant building, but she would like to know what the plans are for the roads.  She noted the applicant seems to be flip-flopping on what they are doing with the roads; and she has been told that they cannot come out onto Cedar Lake Drive, except for emergencies only, and that it would become gated.  She inquired what is stopping them from using Cedar Lake Drive, and she would like to find out what the law is as far as whether or not they can turn it into a road after they build the homes.

 

Denise Vanaria stated she was advised to attend this meeting and provide hard copy photos of flooding due to the way the land has been altered behind her; and she has been in her home since 1988, and in 1992, Coastal Properties altered their land without the proper permits, and they were stopped, and land was left the way they left it.  She noted the land used to go down behind their homes and drain off; since the hurricanes she has pictures that show they are trapped in a bowl due to them bulldozing; and there is nowhere for the water to go.  She advised she has proof of this, as well as the 1992 news coverage of the clearing of the land.  She commented there used to be an easement behind her home and that has been left overgrown; and over the past few years with the hurricanes, she had to sit for three weeks without power because FPL could not get back in there because the easement is overgrown.  She noted she is also concerned about the scrub jays, gopher turtles, and the indigo snakes, and she would like to know where they are going to be put.

 

Florence Foley commented she is concerned about the road; and she has not been told anything, even though she has asked many questions.  She noted there is a bus stop on the corner, but no one has informed her of what will happen to her property, because with 500 homes or more the road is going to have to be expanded, and they have children and elderly people to worry about.

Kimberly Thomas stated she signed a petition with more than 54 signatures, and she is worried about the traffic, the scrub jays and gopher tortoises. 

 

Rose Maxey stated with all of the houses being built, there is a lot more traffic; and the neighborhood needs lights, and they need a traffic light because of the people moving there.

 

Maureen Rupe stated she is the President of Partnership for a Sustainable Future, which is a coalition of 17 environmental groups in Brevard County; and in the early to mid 90’s she remembers the subject property was illegally cleared by the owner.  She noted over the years it has become a habitat for scrub jays, gopher tortoises and indigo snakes; she and the President of the Space Coast Audobon walked approximately one acre of the property on Sunday afternoon and they found approximately ten burrows for the gopher tortoises, many of them have been dug out and dug in, there was no indication of an animal, and no animal could have done that much damage; and it takes a tortoise up to a month to die in these circumstances and there were no exits from anywhere else that a tortoise could have escaped.  She noted she is concerned about the number of the deliberate burials on the entire site; she wants to state for the record that gopher tortoises are listed by the State of Florida as species of special concern and it is illegal to harm or harass this species under the Florida Administrative Code; and it is a federal offense to harm or harass a scrub jay, and to disturb a nest is also illegal.  She commented she understands the zoning is already in place, but there is a problem with the roads, and the Board needs to look at the cohesive neighborhood that is going to be directly adjacent to the new homes.   She noted in her opinion the entire property should be Industrial because of the FPL power grids and lines that are adjacent to the properties.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated in his briefings the community came to his office; and some of the concerns are being addressed in the BDP.  He noted that Clearview Drive now has required access on it and this could perhaps open up less traffic; however, there is a lot of issues with the request, and rather prolong the meeting, he finds it is easier to table the item and have the neighbors meet with the applicant, and bring it back to the Board on May 4^th.

 

Richard Kern stated that is fine.  Commissioner Scarborough stated he would make a motion to table the item to May 4^th.  Commissioner Pritchard inquired why these issues were not discussed beforehand, so that it could have been brought forth as a resolved issue; with Commissioner Scarborough advising he had the neighbors to his office, they were provided the information, and he is not going to make a motion until all of the questions are answered, as a number of issues have been raised.  

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he is suggesting they have those meetings before they come to the Board; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he did have a meeting with the community, but there are still a number of issues that remain.  Commissioner Pritchard commented if the community is involved and there is an issue that has not been resolved, it should not have even been on the agenda, and it should go back to have discussions in the office, rather than tabling it.

 

Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board has asked the Zoning Board to table and encourage the applicant to meet with the community; and he thinks it is in the interest of the Board, the community, and the applicant, to table the item.  Commissioner Pritchard stated if there are unresolved issues, they should be resolved before they come to the Board, and that is what he is saying; with Commissioner Scarborough advising sometimes even having the meetings does not resolve it; and he is not going to make a decision tonight that is final when he

can have a meeting tomorrow and vote in favor, and he is not going to make mistakes for the community by pushing things forward.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.B.14 to the May 4, 2006 Commission meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.15. (Z0511304) ALGO INVESTMENTS, INC. – Withdrawn.

 

 

Item VI.B.16.  (Z0511306) FRANGAR, LLC – (Zon Reed) – requests change from IN(L) to RU-2-6 on 5.22 acres; AND a change from BU-1 to RU-2-15 on 14.58 acres total.  Located on the west side of US 1, approx. 200 ft. north of Barefoot Blvd.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table Item VI.B.16. to the September 7, 2006 Board of County Commissioners meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Item VI.B.17.  (Z0507303) HAMPDEN RIDGE CORP. – Withdrawn.

 

 

Item VI.B.18.  (Z0602102) – STANLEY L. NITKOWSKI, JR. - requests a Small Scale Plan Amendment (06S.5) to change the Future Land Use designation from Residential 12 by Directive, to Neighborhood Commercial and a change from RU-1-13 to RP on .396 acre.  Located on the east side of US 1, approx. .60 mile north of Camp Road.  

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item VI.B.18. as recommended by the P&Z Board.  Motion ordered and carried unanimously. Request for Small Scale Plan Amendment has been withdrawn by staff.

 

 

THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS RETURNED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR READVERTISING ON 2/2/06.

 

Item VI.B.19. (Z0511206)  DOUGLAS P. & ETHEL P. JAREN; ETHEL L. JAREN; FREDERICK E. TREDWAY; BOBBY & MELISSA MARTIN; CARLA MARTIN LOGGINS; WILLIAM & YOLANDA DeCOSTA; DOUGLAS P. JAREN, II; KATHY L. JAREN; AND BANANA RIVER MARINE SERVICE, INC. – (Richard E. Torpy, Esquire) – request a change of classification from RU-1-11 and BU-2 to PUD with a revised Preliminary Development Plan and a Conditional Use Permit request for a Residential Marina (100 boat slips) on 17.25 acres, located on both sides of S. Banana River Dr., approx. 75 ft. north of Orris Ave.

 

Chair Voltz requested speakers not be repetitive.  Commissioner Colon asked if the Board could take a break to see who is present to speak, because if not, they will have to come back at another meeting and she would hate for that to happen because the Board has to stop at 11:00.

 

County Manager Peggy Busacca advised that perhaps a lot of people in yellow shirts have hired an attorney to speak for them; with Commissioner Colon commenting the cards are in, and that is the problem.  Chair Voltz stated she will call out names from the cards, and ask the audience to come up and speak if they want to speak, or just tell the Board if they are for the item or against it.  She asked the applicant to address the Board.

 

Scott Widerman stated they might be able to shorten some of the speaker times if it were possible to extend the applicant’s time to 30 minutes.  Chair Voltz stated they can see where the discussion goes.  Mr. Widerman stated he would like to turn the item over to Keith Jennings.

 

Keith Jennings stated he is Senior Vice President and partner of Pelican Bay Development, and they are the developer who has brought the application to the Board.  He noted in January, the plan they submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board was a mistake, and they realize that; and they have heard from the neighborhoods, and they took the plan back and looked at the property with what they heard from the neighborhoods and they tried to define where that neighborhood was, whether it was south of S.R. 520.  He commented they came back with a new plan and ended up meeting with the neighborhood nine times; they met three times in October, two times in November, three times in January and the last time in March, so they have gotten a lot of input from the community; they have heard from them and they have been vehement in their opposition to multi-family and only want single-family; and he does not think that is the right thing to do for the property, does not think it resolves the issues of the property, and he is going to outline that.  He commented he would start by stating what exists on the property now and what the current entitlements allow them to do now, without County Commission approvals; and why they do not want to go that way, what they are proposing to do, and why they think the benefits of what they are proposing to do are better for the entire community.  He noted he will show the Board petitions they have from people who support the project and talk about other issues such as density in the area, and the lack of developable property south of S.R. 520 in this area.  He noted Scott Widerman will talk to the Board about the existing developments and the developers’ entitlements.

 

Scott Widerman stated he would start with what the current entitlement is on the property; and on the Future Land Use Map, the site has two components on it currently, RU-1-11 with 15.6 acres at 5.8 units per acre allowing 90 units, the BU-2 area is approximately 1.65 acres and allows 15 units per acre which would equate to 25 units, and that leaves a maximum allowable units of 115 units.  He commented the maximum allowable density straight off of that calculation becomes 6.62 units per acre.  He noted Banana River Marina is a commercial marina with quite a bit of commercial use up front with the repair center, and the back part of the marina has a section of dry storage; and painting is done toward the southwest corner of the marina.  He commented they have met several times with County staff and they have taken out the future land use and looked at what the actual site would allow them to do; and on the BU-2 zoning at the front of the property there can be a 23-unit condo facility with three stories over parking, an approximate overall height of 50 feet, and there would be a 900-foot commercial space still available.  He noted at the main part of the site there can be 44 single-family residential units, which is the maximum possible units due to the site constraints, which now they put in some of those setbacks and open space requirements, and there are 67 total units on the site, which includes the 44 single-family homes.  He noted the condo height is three stories over parking, and it is approximately 200 feet along the Banana River frontage and the single-family height is 35 feet.  He noted in looking at the traffic studies, one concern is the amount of curb cuts, one of the big problems on Banana River Drive is certainly a traffic problem, and Newfound Harbor is a traffic problem.  He stated if they were able to go with the current plan of what can be done, the traffic generation trips is 1,113 total trips and 89 p.m. peak trips; and if they do the condo project with the single-family homes behind it, there will be approximately 16 extra curb cuts out of Banana River Drive, which is a significant change from what the Board will hear later as taking the trips down by half, and getting only a couple of curb cuts to get into the project that they are proposing.  He stated another big problem with the current plan is the storm drainage; in the past, Banana River Drive and Newfound Harbor Drive have had some issues; a single-family residential project does not have the same requirements as the proposed project by having to  capture all of its own storm water, and having to retain that, treat it, make it purified and then disburse amongst the area.  He noted there is a private bridge on a public road on the south side of the marina property, and one of the possibilities with a single-family development is that the bridge has no one to open and close it; and there is no current ownership by the County of this bridge, or a plan of upkeep; and Doug Jaren and his staff weld, paint and take care of the bridge.  He stated they will be requesting the bridge have a full-time 24/7 bridge tender.  He added if they build single-family housing, they get a 15-foot buffer, and if they get the PUD they are requesting, they will have a 25-foot buffer. 

 

Keith Jennings commented what they are proposing is an 88-unit town home style condominium that will look like town home units but will be sold as a condominium.  He stated they feel the legal portions of the Condominium Law of the Statutes of the State of Florida will allow them to do a lot more things to benefit the property and enhance it in perpetuity as far as the issues that were raised by Mr. Widerman.  He noted their plan also lowers the density along Banana River Drive by getting rid of a three-story over-parking condominium complex and replacing it with town home units; they will lower the density by almost 25% on Banana River Drive; and they will also take out 15 or 16 driveways for two as entrances into the development, and the entire project will be limited to 35 feet.  He stated the benefits of the PUD concept, versus what they have rights to entitlement today, involves solving problems and the benefiting of the property, the community and Brevard County into the future.  He commented the condominium development is a much more compatible development than a commercially operating marina within a residential neighborhood.  He noted there are multi-family units on South Banana River Drive within hundreds of feet of the subject property, so it is not out of the realm of what is actually there.  He added the bridge maintenance by the condominium docks will be in perpetuity and with the proposed project they will have to maintain and have an emergency management plan in place for hurricane evacuation, and they will have tenders on the bridge 24 hours a day.  He commented storm water runoff will be managed by a PUD and not a homeowners association.  He noted they will have to come back before the Board with an application for the slips, and they will be required by ten agencies of State, Federal and Local jurisdictions to modify the marina basin; and they will be applying the most modern scientific studies to the basin and it will be resolving the issues for the basin in perpetuity.  He noted drainage currently flows directly into the basin, which directly flows into the outstanding Florida water.  He commented they will provide public access along the riverfront through the use of a public walkway that all of the residents will be able to use; and they have petitions and affidavits from over 75 people in the immediate neighborhood who support the project.  He commented they want to do what is right and they have looked at as many alternatives as they can and they have been up against an organization that says they want single-family or nothing; and he does not think that solves problems of the neighborhood or the property.  

 

Stephanie Goins commented Mr. Jennings asked her company to do a study of exactly what was vacant land, because Small Area Studies have been brought up at several Planning and Zoning meetings and community meetings.  She stated originally it was thought that there were 140 acres south of S.R. 520; and she went to the Property Appraiser’s maps and marked all of the vacant property that was shown, and then they drove every single vacant piece of property south of S.R. 520.  She noted they found 161.44 acres that were listed on the Property Appraiser’s maps as vacant property, and when they broke it down, they discovered 42 of those acres are owned by the State, County, or Homeowners Association, and therefore, cannot or will not be developed, and it should be pointed out that a lot of the State lands are under water.  She noted in addition, there are 22.51 acres south of S.R. 520 that are owned by the Girl Scouts in perpetuity for the Citrus Council of Girl Scouts and cannot be developed.  She advised 7.7 acres of the vacant land is commercial enterprises and that is mixed south of S.R. 520; and there is a junkyard and a commercial nursery within 1,000 feet of the marina.  She stated there are 4.47 acres that have too much of the lot under water to develop unless a house were put on stilts.  She noted that leaves 46 vacant acres south of S.R.520 that can be developed and within that breakdown, 105 are scattered lots and there are two or three areas that would be developable tracts.  She noted in addition there are the properties that are within 500 feet of the marina that are actually multi-family, including one six-unit that is two lots north of the marina.  She noted that it is a less than scientific study, but they did do the research and drive every individual property, and she has the back-up available for the Board, if it wants to see it.

 

Commissioner Carlson inquired what the relevance is of defining where the vacant land is, when it is being redeveloped; with Ms. Goins responding at Planning and Zoning meetings and community meetings, the opposition has stated they want a Small Area Study because there is 140 developable acres south of S.R. 520, and when you actually do the research, it breaks down to 46 acres, or 105 scattered lots, with the exception of the three smaller areas.

 

Keith Jennings commented they have 76 signed petitions, they would like to give the petitions to the Board, and they do have their support.  He noted there are 11,000 households south of S.R. 520, in this neighborhood, they have sent out, three times, letters to each and every one of the homes and invited the neighborhood to three meetings, and in every circumstance, they had no greater turn out than 57 people, of which the majority of those were couples.  He commented they have gone back and redefined and redesigned the property, and he hopes the Board chooses what is best for the entire community and weighs all of the benefits that they are proposing versus the other benefits; and they do not want to build a condominium complex and were told clearly in January that is not what the neighborhood wanted.  He stated they are looking at the current plan as a compromise and they think it is the right way to go, as it gives the adequate protections that they will need to keep in perpetuity and certain things being maintained to the benefit of the community at large.

 

Cathy Baldwin advised she is on the south fence line of the marina, and she is of no relation to the developers or the sellers.  She commented she has been undecided on the issue, as it is a case of not being able to stop progress, but she looks at what the developer has been willing to offer; and he has been willing to change his plan, as he has gone down in height, density and size.  She noted that she looks at multi-family units as being more protection for the basin than single-family homes, and she looks at the control of the runoff in the multi-family units.  She added they are offering a park, and she will never be able to afford waterfront, and it would be nice to be able to walk along the water.  She stated she understands there are a lot of objections about compatibility, she lives in a 1950’s cracker house and that is all that was in that neighborhood a long time ago, and the large houses and mini-mansions would not exist there now if there was not progress and change.  She noted she feels that what the developer is offering them is something to look at, and she hopes the Board votes for progress. 

 

Mary Hillberg, representing the North Merritt Island Homeowners’ Association, stated they are supporting the East Merritt Island Homeowners’ Association in requesting that the Board deny the application.

 

Michael Tavano commented he has used the marina many times to repair his boats.  He noted growth is inevitable and the condominiums, with the 35-foot minimum, will set a precedent and this is a good use for the property, and he thinks it will help the whole peninsula on Newfound Harbor.  He noted he would recommend approval of the project because it will improve the whole area; and he has used the marina and he knows what kind of shape it is in, and he would like to see the development of the condominiums with the 35-foot height.

 

Ryan Moore stated he is in favor of the request.

 

Kathy Jaren stated she is one of the petitioners in the request, and she represents the Jaren Family, including Douglas Jaren and his wife Ethyl, along with her husband Douglas Jaren II.  She noted her family has owned the subject property since the 1940’s and they have maintained Banana River Marina since 1949.  She commented their company has employed residents of the area since they started the business; and their family has been involved in community projects and has served on several County committees.  She stated Doug Jaren has been the leader in the marine industries on County and State levels for years; and they feel they need to take the time to retire from the business and devote their time to the health and well-being of their family.  She commented several people have approached them regarding their approval of the project, and most of them are long-time residents of Merritt Island, but feel they do not want to address the Board because of the intimidation of some of the neighbors and some of the adverse actions that have been taken toward them; and they also do not want to speak in front of the cameras.  She commented the development company and those associated with the project have the full support of the family; and the plans submitted to them will be good for the area and for Merritt Island, including the fact that they have come down from such a large scale to what the family feels like is something that can be approved by most of the people who live in the area.  She stated this will allow the developer to develop the land and improve the positive growth of the area, which is destined to occur.  She commented she would like the Board to consider the request and keep in mind that emotions should not guide their opinions; several issues have been presented to the public that her family feels are untrue, and signs have been placed in the neighborhoods that have made her children cry; and her family feels the truth needs to come out as to how the property will be developed and they hope the Board takes all of this into consideration and vote for the project.

 

Steven Webster stated he represents an organization called the Horde Pointe Homeowners’, which is the 103 houses at the end of Horde Pointe; and they did a survey of the homes two meetings ago stating the folks on Newfound Harbor resoundingly reject the idea of multi-family dwellings dumping onto single-family Newfound Harbor; and Newfound Harbor Drive is single-family homes from the moment you leave S.R. 520 and head south to the end of the road.  He advised the cars from the proposed development are not going to go down South Banana River Drive, which is 16-feet wide with no sidewalks or drainage, they are going to go to Newfound Harbor Drive and they are going to speed.  He noted single-family Newfound Harbor Drive is going to bear the brunt of multi-family Banana River Marina.  He commented they have heard a lot of talk about how commercial marinas in residential neighborhoods are an eyesore and that the County is in support of changing commercial marinas.

 

Chair Voltz noted the marina is off the table at this point, and they are not talking about the marina.

 

Steven Webster clarified he is talking about the working waterfront portion, the actual land facilities at Banana River Marina; last year the State passed a new law called Working Waterfront Property Bill and it obliges Counties and Municipalities to do a couple of things to protect and preserve public and working waterfront; the bills require Comprehensive Plans to include within certain elements of the plan efforts to preserve recreational and commercial working waterfronts; and these elements include the Future Land Use Element, the Recreational and Open Space Element and the Coastal Management Element.  He stated the bill from one of them reads, “Such component must include strategies that will be used to preserve.”

 

Somebody from the audience objected to Mr. Webster’s reading of the bill.

 

Commissioner Scarborough stated shouting from the audience is out of order, and the Board is going to show respect to every speaker whether they like what they say or not, and it is the Chair’s prerogative to make sure that order is maintained, and the other Commissioners support the Chair in that manner.

 

Chair Voltz commented if there are outbursts, they will take a five-minute break so everyone can settle down.

 

Steven Webster inquired of Mr. Enos if his understanding was correct that Brevard County has not undertaken those Comprehensive Plan Amendments; with Rick Enos replying that is his understanding.  Mr. Webster stated the issue he would have, as Director of the Marine Contractors’ Association, is that every slip that is lost, there is not a replacement, and for every waterfront building or structure that is lost, there is not a replacement; State Law obliges them to try to preserve and protect those, and they think this is actionable; and if a permit was granted to take down the structures without the plan elements being in place, they would be inclined to file it, and they hope it does not come down to that.  He advised there are many reasons to oppose the development and the biggest of which is that they hear claims of benefits to the people who live south of S.R. 520, and those who do not want a commercial marina in their midst; and that is not true, they do not want the additional traffic the project will generate, he challenges the developers on the number of trips from 88 town homes versus 57 single-family and condo units, and his numbers come out with more numbers for what could be built now.  He urged the Board to deny the request; and stated the neighborhood deserves the chance through the study they would like and through the Board’s actions tonight, to see a better plan in place at that location.

 

Robert Matherly stated he would like the Board to decline the proposal; and the main reason is because by having a condominium they are actually forming a physical barrier between them and the surrounding communities.  He noted if there are single-family homes, they interact with each other and if there is a condominium, there is a condo association and they will be physically isolating the single-family homes from the condominium. 

 

Allison Matherly stated she is there to discuss the lack of compatibility and also the negative impact the project will have on the character of the neighborhood.  She commented their neighborhood is very quiet and has very low density, and it has single-family detached homes with low roof lines; and her house is immediately north of the subject property and it is 11 feet high.  She noted the project will double the density that currently exists, it will kill the character, and it will forever destroy the old Florida charm that they have been enjoying for decades.  She advised Mr. Torpy has stated to her he intends to set a precedent with this project, and respectively she would ask the Board why any of them would support a project that would potentially set that precedent that would be used down the road for much larger projects that would be out of line.  She commented she does recognize there could be a small condominium on that property as the current zoning allows, and they are amenable to that, and they know it would still represent a higher density, but she feels that is responsible.  She noted the Future Land Use Element states that compatibility with existing or proposed land uses shall be a factor in determining where a rezoning or any application involving a specific proposed use is being considered; and the actual current density in the area is 2.5 units per acre, and this proposal more than doubles that at 5.1 units per acre, as well as introduce multi-story and multi-family buildings where it does not fit.  She stated the current use of the land includes a marina, but it is extremely low activity and it is very low impact; and she has a boat study that has been conducted at the marina and it showed 64 boats in the marina, 50 of which had not moved in the last eight months, and of the 14 that moved, nine had only moved more than once, so it is a very low-impact marina.  She noted there is no transition in the neighborhood from single-family, one-story homes, to multi-family, multi-story buildings; and she recognized Mr. Pritchard has publicly stated before that he envisions a line of demarcation at Worley Avenue, and she encourages him and appreciates that support and that vision for their community.  She noted Chapter 11 of the Future Land Use Element states the character of a neighborhood or area should be a factor for consideration and the character of the area must not be materially or adversely affected by the proposed rezoning or land use application, and this project will do both.  She stated Angell City, in particular, has been identified as having an old Florida-style character and the neighborhood is comprised of low-roof homes, and some homes look like lighthouses, and some look like boats, but this project, with its cookie-cutter condos is like the residential version of Wal-Mart and it just does not fit in the community.  She added that it also does serve the public’s interest; and they disagree with the fact that the neighborhood is being forced to absorb a project that by definition, has to be overdeveloped because the land price has been so high.  She stated the neighbors have met with the developers eight times to come to some kind of agreement and they are willing to work with the developer and what they are asking is to not set the precedent to allow him to build what can be built with the current zoning.  

 

She commented in March the Planning and Zoning Board noted the developer provided no particular reason of why multi-family housing would be more compatible than a single-family residential development; and the neighborhood is a sanctuary for humans and wildlife, and they ask that it be kept that way.  She asked the Board to deny the request.

 

Chris Scheetz stated if the Board has driven down Banana River Drive, they may or may not have noticed the non-breakaways along either side; and they are driving hazards very close to the road.  He noted the road is old and only 16 feet wide and there is a seven-foot right-of-way on the west, and on the east it varies from three to seven feet; and by traveling one mile north of the marina, you encounter 130 various objects and there is about 250 running feet of other obstructions, this translates into one every 40 feet, and that is within six feet of the road or less.  He noted that the road is also substandard; and he reviewed the County maintenance records of Newfound Harbor and South Banana River Drives from 1991 to present and determined the pattern of grading and resurfacing and ditch/canal retention is erratic, indicating the County has placed a low priority on the roads, and they believe this lack of regular maintenance proves the actual low use.  He commented the proposed density increase will significantly and negatively impact the quality of these low priority roads; and there have been seven resurfacings in the past 15 years, and numerous patching projects in between.  He commented that coupled together with the construction traffic they are in for a potentially dangerous mess; with the increased traffic comes increased accidents, and with increased accidents comes more damage to people, vehicles, and property from the breakaways; and additionally, accident victims will pull off the road with no shoulder, to try to get out of the traffic flow.  He stated that RU-1-11 makes up the overwhelming majority of the peninsula; there is only a couple of small pockets of multi-family zoning; the largest tract is owned by the Florida Department of Transportation; the proposal is 1.7 mile from the nearest artery, which is S.R. 520; and those who live south of S.R. 520 enjoy an average lot size of just over four tenths of an acre.  He noted they have all heard what the developer wants to do and what they can do, but if they had any compassion for the neighborhood they would try to fit and blend, and not stick out.  He stated it is a shame the character of the neighborhood has to suffer just so a developer can make his return; and it is also a shame that the quality of life will change forever due to people’s greed.  He added there is no trend or tendency for multi-family type of zoning.  He asked the Board to please deny the request.

 

David Hobbs stated he is the President of the East Merritt Island Homeowners’ Association, and from the beginning their position has been that the Association is going to oppose any increase in density throughout their 4,200 home area until a Small Area Study has been completed.  He commented the Association is requesting that the rezoning for the 88 town house style condominium be denied, and they would like for a Small Area Study to be authorized.  He noted when they heard about this request in September, 2005, the Homeowners’ Association put together a 24-member development committee to look into the issues and find out if there was some kind of compromise they could work out and find out all of the details; and they have met almost every week looking at all of the information and getting information from the County and the various sources, and they had a vote after looking at all of the information and the committee voted to oppose the request for a couple of reasons.  He noted the density of 88 units is greater than what they could build with the current zoning; and they had a meeting with the developer to come to some base line agreement for what they could really do there, and using the developers numbers, they came to 66 units that they could build with the combination of the condo and single-family homes.  He stated the second reason is that multi-family housing is not compatible in their unique single-family neighborhood in that area.  He stated the Association understands there is a possibility of a small condominium if this request is turned down, and the residents are okay with that.  He commented the residents of East Merritt Island want a small area study, and believe there is a need for a small area study south of S.R. 520, so they can be aware of what is out there; and they would like a Phase I study south of S.R. 520, and a Phase II north of S.R. 520.

 

Kathy Scheetz commented on the open space credit and stated a concern stems from a staff review of Section 62-1102, Subsection Five, which excludes water bodies that are whole or part drainage easement, and if the burden of proof is provided to the Board tonight, it guarantees the acceptable levels for recreational purposes in that water.  She noted private navigable canals should not be utilized in filling the common open space requirement beyond that which is allowed for water bodies as provided in the definitions.   She advised that to receive the credit for the open space, it has to be determined that the basin can function as a canal or not as a canal, and that should be decided tonight; and canals are defined as a manmade or artificially improved natural waterway at least 80 feet wide, which is used as navigation or drainage.  She stated Pelican Creek is a natural body of water that was altered by man to make a uniform dredge that runs north and south.  She noted that the Jarens dredged the basin on their private land, and it was dredged deep enough for boats because they had a purpose of doing a marina.  She stated she has given the Board proof of the tidal flow and she has pictures of the mangroves and of the Harbor View Subdivision; and in speaking with someone from the Army Corp of Engineers, the mangrove seed pod that floated in and took root is evidence enough that there is tidal flow, as it came in from the river, into the basin, and into the canal.  She commented the real issue is recognizing the part of the canal and what it serves and what the basin serves as storm water conveyance, and the historical connection should remain.  She noted if it is active open space, they have to discuss the marina and if it is passive, the definition is defined as a non-recreational area, and for areas to be determined passive open recreation space, there should be wetlands, wildlife habitats, floodplains, and examples are non-motorized boating and fishing.  She noted there is a warm water aggregation manatee site in the northwest corner of the basin which would benefit from the passive dedication. 

 

Kimberly Rezanka advised the Board holds the future of a single-family residential community along South Banana River Drive and Newfound Harbor Drive in its hands.  She noted the community’s residents have banded together to fight the multi-family condominium PUD presented to the Board tonight.  She stated none of the property owners she represents want a condo in their neighborhood; and she showed the Board a map of the residents she represents

in comparison to where the marina is located.  She noted the PUD is not compatible and is out of character with the community that is there; and the clients are tired, the residents are tired, and staff is tired, and this all boils down to two issues: is a multi-family condominium PUD appropriate for the area, or, stated differently, will the Board protect the single-family residential character of the neighborhood.  She commented the Commission has the right to protect the family values and the blessings of quiet seclusion that make the area a sanctuary for the residents.  She stated the developer and his attorney talk about entitlements, but that is a misnomer and they are entitled to what is there with the current zoning; and 115 units is ridiculous, and they, by their own calculations can build 67.  She asked the Board to deny the PUD to protect the community; and the Board has over 191 letters in opposition to the request. 

 

Ms. Rezanka stated the second issue is if the developer has met the burden of proving that the change is desirable or is in compliance with the County Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; and she will argue that the developer has not met their requirements of showing compatibility, character, and necessity for rezoning, and the appropriateness of the proposed zoning.  She commented the developer has offered no evidence of compatibility, other than that the FLUM allows it; but the FLUM is a threshold and not a guarantee.  She stated in the proposed PUD, the developer has offered only the minimum setbacks.  Ms. Rezanka stated the information she is giving the Board discusses six issues which show the developer has not met their requirements.  She commented the open space waivers to the drainage easement is before the Board tonight and they have to consider it; and they have to look at the fact that it was dredged from a drainage canal.  She added all the initial plans show the canal to the north as a drainage easement and they have now admitted that it is a drainage easement and they have tried to redirect it and were told they could not do it because it is a historical issue.  She noted the developer is seeking a waiver to the open space requirement.  She noted the Board has an email from Mike Power stating it is a mixing basin and has some historical perspective and must be maintained.  She commented the developer is seeking 1.37 acres of open space in the basin; however, since they have removed the marina from consideration they are left with a commercial non-conforming marina in the middle of a PUD; and per Section 62-1937, any part of a marina used as commercial cannot be open space, therefore, they have just lost 1.37 acres of open space and they do not meet the Comprehensive Plan or the PUD requirements.  She stated the Board also has an email from Rick Enos which states specifically that any part of the marina used as commercial cannot be open space, and therefore, the Board must deny the request because the developer does not have sufficient open space in the PUD.  She stated initially the developer claimed the basin has low water quality, but there has been no evidence of that before the Board; and Kathy Jaren told the Board that they have had water quality testing and have had no problem.  She stated the developers said they will build what they can and they showed the Board a plan, but her clients are okay with that because that is what is consistent and compatible, and it will not distract from the community as the town homes would.  She stated the developer tried to threaten the Board with the number of driveway cuts on South Banana River Drive and they showed 17, but she would submit to the Board that that will never happen, and they will have to come back to the Board for a waiver under Section 62-102 b.2.b.7, dealing

with easements; the road functions as a collector road; and it has a max value of 15,600 trips, so the developer needs 90 feet between the easements and they cannot get it without a waiver from the Board.  She stated the traffic analysis the developer provided to the Board is dissentious, and they are trying to scare the Board by stating what they could do.   She commented the developer has promised off site improvements but it is not in the PDP and there is no BDP, so they do not know what they are going to do.  She noted the developer also has said they are going to fix the bridge, but they are still going to have a condo association if they build the BU-2.  She added the developer has not submitted proper solid waste information or fire protection, and there is not enough information from the traffic study.  She concluded by stating the project does not fit in the secluded community; and asked the Board to reject the multi-family rezoning request, as it is incompatible and out of character with the existing community of single-family residential detached homes.

 

Chair Voltz stated David Biega, Karin Biega, Laura Jurkowich, David Bugay, Al Christensen, Charlene Tarver, K.W. Birch, Rod Godfrey, Robin Young, Kathy Griffith, Sandra Young, Wallace and Evelyn Van Siclen, Dr. and Mrs. Burenko, Roger Kernan, Nora McDonald, Matilda McDonald, Steven McDonald, Anthony Rovira, Christina Rovira, R.D. McDonald, David Breadon, Ken and Pat Hughy, David Eddins, Aili Melton, Karen Santora, Vatsna Wallace, Gerald Wallace, Kenneth Hawkins, Renee Brissont, Minnie Clark, Jim Spigner, Joyce Hawkins, Joe Webb, Robert Bret, Brenda Allen, Dan Allen, Julie Sallee, Donald Evans, John Nelson, Katherine Nelson, Jeff Perry, Paula Hart, William Thim, Karen Thim, Barbara Reed, Brad Frazier, Joe Melton, T.J. Snyder, Heidi Bragdon, Ralph Adkins, and David Donaldson, are all opposed to the request but do not want to speak.

 

Floyd Rippetoe stated he would like to thank the developer for pointing out specifically why the residents feel they need a small area study and why it is necessary for this part of Merritt Island.  He commented the existing FLUM is so excessive compared to what is currently built there, and when that was done it was apparently used for some future planning and it does not represent the housing that is there now and he thinks it is vitally important if they are going to maintain their community to have a small area study to refine that.  He noted the future land use is to maintain the nature of the community, not put in sore thumbs that totally change the area. 

 

Chair Voltz stated Douglas Jaren, Linda Stullenbuger, Michael Stullenburger, Paul Parker, Sylvia Mendez, Enith Diaz, Teresa Kulas, Andrew Kulas, Rosa Narvarez, Yolanda DeCosta, Carlos Diaz, Ethel Jaren, Douglas Jaren, George McNamee, and Debra Ehrenreiter are in favor of the project but do not wish to speak.   

 

Elaine Baron De Riso stated she has only lived in the community for four years and she chose the community because it is an eclectic and unique community; and the developers or attorneys totally misjudged what was going to happen in this community and she thinks they now have some serious distrust issues. 

 

Tom Parker stated he works for the Scales Company and he is proud of the company he works for and proud of their contributions to the community.  He noted he is in support of the project because he believes the developers have taken into account every aspect of what the neighborhood needs to make it a better community.   He commented there are a lot of people who support the project who are not here, because it is hard to get anybody to come and support a project when your neighbors are telling you not to.  He added he was told at the Planning and Zoning meeting by opposing neighbors that he does not have a right to an opinion unless it is the same as theirs; and he has an opinion based on the fact that he is a resident of the community, as well as everybody else. 

 

He noted if you drive down South Banana River Drive, you drive past commercial property, trailer parks, a condo, homes that are in disrepair, beautiful homes; and it is an eclectic neighborhood and the developer is taking an approach and finding a common ground to go in the middle of what they can do and they are willing to do, which makes for a better community.  He added he does not have a vested interest in the project, but he does have a vested interest in the community and he has a right to be there and support the project.

 

Joseph Ayala stated he is opposed to the request.

 

Tim Adams stated the flight path of the airport is over their neighborhood, and now that the Board approved the condo project near the airport, by not approving the Banana River proposal, what they will get is less density which means they will get less complaints from the noise.  He encouraged the Board to deny the request.

 

Christine Black stated she has tried hard to look at both sides of the issue and realize everyone’s wishes and rights and she has attended six meetings in reference to the project, and there seem to be changes at every corner.  She inquired if the neighborhood is looking at the facts or acting on emotion; she cannot support a condo in that neighborhood; however, she has heard statements with tons of emotion at the meetings that are simply untrue, and yet they are taken as facts; and false statements heard as facts scare people.  She commented the neighborhood runs the risk of a depressed 17-acre property and bridge becoming a magnet for unfavorable conditions.  She stated they owe the property owners some respect and there is something to be said for the right of property ownership.  She stated she has heard the statement repeated that the proposed project is not compatible with the area, but in that area is a gun range, residential rental complexes, a storage complex for massive amphibious machinery and semi’s, shacks, mansions, a 7-Eleven, an art studio, rented garages for storage, a couple of trailer parks, an auto shop, a restaurant, and an existing condo; and she would ask what does not fit in. 

 

Mad Max stated he has been living in the marina for 19 years and it is Mr. Jaren’s property and he has a right to do what he wants to with it; and the Jarens have owned that property for 50 years and it has been operating as a commercial property and it was there before anyone else built their houses.  He commented the property belongs to Mr. Jaren and nobody has the right to tell him what he can or cannot do with his property.

 

Daphne Edgar stated she has lived on South Banana River Drive for almost three decades and she is in favor of property rights, but one person’s rights stop where someone else’s starts, and that is why there are zoning laws.  She commented that the little people have to follow the zoning rules and everyone else should also.  She noted the Brevard County Emergency Plan stipulates that the Federal Government guarantees the insurance for uninsurable people on barrier islands when they cannot get other insurance, and the requirement for getting that insurance is that the local community complies with density on the barrier islands.  She stated if people cannot get off of barrier islands, then their lives are at risk.  She commented the County should be sued for any loss of life, due to their negligence, and they do not have a right to put people at risk.

 

Greg Loggins stated he talked to the Jarens about what they are going to do with their property; and he does not want to live next door to condos.  He commented he approached Mr. Jennings and told him he does not want to live next to a condo and told him he wanted to sell his property and Mr. Jennings agreed to buy it, and that is why his name is on the application.  He noted when he signed the contract he thought it would be a four-story condo, and he told them it would never happen and the residents would not support it.  He stated he saw a meeting in which Mr. Jennings brought the condo to 88 units, and he thought that it may not be too bad.  He stated 88 is a lot of units and having to put the bridge in could cost up to $2 million, so it makes it difficult for someone to develop, so the 67 units would be in line if you did not have to consider the bridge.  He commented at some point they need to compromise and not do too much because they could end up with more problems than they have. 

 

Tom Myers stated he represents 60 of the homeowners in the area.  He commented Section 62-1151 states the character of the land use of properties surrounding the property being considered and there is no dispute that the surrounding land uses around the subject property are single family residential, and Mr. Torpy has stated that on the record.  He noted a long time ago there were no bridges going to Cocoa Beach, and you had to take a ferry over from the end of South Banana River Drive, and that is how the commercial came to be in the area; and a few years later a floatation bridge was built that went to the Minutemen Causeway on Cocoa Beach and that is why there is commercial and multi-family in the area.  He stated when the Comprehensive Plan was effective, the County chose not to make the area mixed-use because it was not appropriate.  He added that the Board has not been approving anything like this.  He commented Section 62-2102 states that if property is subdivided, it should be subdivided so that what exists meets the rules.  He commented that by withdrawing the Conditional Use Permit application, they have left a grandfathered commercial marina in the middle of a PUD, which does not qualify for the open space requirement, therefore the PUD does not meet the rules of the Code.

 

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to extend Mr. Myers’ time by five minutes.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Tom Myers stated the developers were asked to provide details so the Planning and Zoning staff could evaluate it so that the Board would see it one final time and make a decision on it; the withdraw of the Conditional Use Permit was not considered by the P&Z Board, and there have not been a new set of staff comments; and the fact is that it no longer meets the code requirements, because they do not meet the open space.  He noted what the area really needs is a small area study from S.R. 520 and south.  He added that everything in the area is now a historical accident; it was made non-conforming by the Comprehensive Plan; and the Comprehensive Plan put 15 units per-acre on the property as a broad brush because nobody became entitled to 15 units per-acre under that.  He commented if the Board approves the request, they will be setting a precedent and they will be subjecting the area to a domino effect. 

 

Chair Voltz asked if the 60 persons he represents are the same people being represented by Ms. Rezanka; with Mr. Myers responding affirmatively.

 

Keith Jennings commented they have had traffic engineers who have told them that they are reducing the density on S. Banana River Drive and reducing trip counts on Newfound Harbor Drive; and they were asked by staff to withdraw the marina portion of the request because of certain rules in the Land Development Code that are overlapping in conflict.  He commented they will stipulate that they will come back to the Board and resolve the marina issues and they will not be using an incompatible use with the PUD; and it has been their intention all along to create a new marina basin that is compatible and existing with the current Codes and current science.  He stated he is confused because the residents say they do not want a condominium project, but they are satisfied with a condo that could be built without any rezoning; and that is why they came up with the solution of town home style condominiums.

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has no problem with a small area plan, but it will be a while before it happens, because there is no staff right now to do one, as they have lost three key players in Planning and Zoning.  He stated the damage on Banana River Drive and Worley Avenue will be repaired.  He noted the community has said they will accept a condo and he has to question if the residents know what they are accepting if the Board denies the zoning; they can build, and there would be no homeowners’ association and no common ground on the bridge; and the walk that would be on the river side would not be there.  He commented it may be a change to the neighborhood that they may not like, but they have thought about that and have said they will accept that.  He stated he is surprised the neighborhood is willing to accept it and he thought it would be a trump card and the neighborhood would say they do not want that, but they cannot seem to get to that point.  He stated that because they do not know where it is going to go, he will move to deny the rezoning. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Colon to deny item VI.B.19.

 

Chair Voltz stated she will also support the motion, and she drove around the area and saw the two large condominiums and they are ugly and they do not do anything for the character of the neighborhood whatsoever, but that is what the residents are going to get.  She commented if she lived there, she would prefer the 88 units, but actually she would not want either.  She stated there were a number of issues brought up by Ms. Rezanka and she did not hear the opposition argue the issues.

 

Commissioner Colon stated once they have the finding of fact, they are not hearing the whole argument again, and that has been an opening that people have used in the past, and she has no intention doing that and she wants to make sure the Board is on the same page, or else it will happen again.  She noted during the process of finding of fact, the applicant has to have that information with plenty of time for them to put in writing anything they feel they need to tell the Board.

 

Commissioner Pritchard commented some people will leave the meeting thinking they won and some will walk out thinking they lost, but he does not think anyone has won anything.  He stated his reason to deny is because he is not going to table it, but he is encouraging the parties to get together and see if they can do better.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated she was in the community also and it is an eclectic community and she thinks they do need a small area plan and if they cannot fill the planning position, then they need to find out how much it is going to cost to go out and do some of the small area plans; and the time to act is now, and she would like to make sure the Commission considers that.

 

Commissioner Colon commented she does not want the two sides to get together because the Board is finished hearing the item, and she is not sure where Mr. Pritchard is coming from in regards to a win-win situation.

 

Chair Voltz stated it is over for tonight but the property is still going to be sold and it is still going to be developed somehow or another.  She called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

20.  (SPE60301) – CARL W. LOGGINS - (Theodore R. Rubbo) – request a change from AU to RU-2-8 with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to seven units per acre on 20.17 acres, located 200 ft. north of Pluckebaum Road, approx. 200 ft. west of Range Road.  

 

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would move to support the denial by P&Z.

 

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion.

 

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Rubbo has mentioned to her that he cannot come to the meeting because he has had a death in the family, and he asked that if he is denied, he would like to be here to defend himself, so she would like to table the item to the May 4^th meeting.

 

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to table Item VI.B.20. to the May 4, 2006, meeting.  Motion ordered and carried unanimously.  (See pages                         for Zoning Resolutions.

 

 

 

Chair Voltz called for the public hearing to consider Ordinance extending the temporary moratorium for 90 days on issuance of driveway permits on Wickham Road between Pineda Causeway and Parkway Drive.

 

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adopt the Ordinance extending the temporary moratorium for ninety (90) days on the issuance of development permits for driveways (driveway permits) on Wickham Road in Brevard County from the intersection of Pineda Causeway south to Parkway Drive; setting forth the purpose of the temporary moratorium; setting forth the extent of he temporary moratorium; providing for exemptions; providing for extensions and expiration of the temporary moratorium; providing for conflicting  provisions; providing for severability; providing for area encompassed; and providing an effective date.

 

Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  (See page                       for Ordinance No. 06-15).

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:18 p.m.

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     _________________________________

                                                                                    HELEN VOLTZ, CHAIR

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

___________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

           

            (SEAL)