The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on September 2, 1999, at 5:36 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, Sue Carlson, and Helen Voltz, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Sue Carlson.

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

AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER COUNTY PROPERTY, RE: BUCCANEER GAS PIPELINE SURVEYS

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board directed the County Manager to look into the Buccaneer Gas Pipeline matter to determine if anything needed to be done; there is no reason to be concerned about them going on County property to do a survey, but the environmental survey and other entry requires some kind of consent from the County; and there is a form license agreement which can be utilized. He stated Buccaneer Gas has submitted a proposed license agreement which he has been reviewing; and he will be asking for hold harmless provisions in that agreement.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve allowing representatives of Buccaneer Gas to enter County property for the purpose of civil and environmental surveys upon execution of License Agreement including Hold Harmless provisions. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEM OF MAY 5, 1999 PORT ST. JOHN BOARD HEARING AND PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUGUST 2, 1999

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider tabled item of May 5, 1999 Port St. John Board hearing and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its meeting of August 2, 1999, as follows:

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the Board adopted new CUP review criteria approximately two weeks ago; and Commissioner Higgs asked whether those standards would be applicable to conditional use permits that were pending before the Board, specifically those to be considered tonight. He stated under the case law of the State of Florida, the general ruling is that the conditions in effect at the time the final decision is made are the ones that govern; so the Board will be reviewing the conditional use permits that are pending tonight under the new criteria. He stated the problem is that staff has not reviewed under the criteria, and none of the applicants have prepared their cases in accordance with those criteria; and advised if the Board wants to consider them tonight, it should look at the old criteria and have staff prepare an amendment to the Ordinance to ratify the consideration of these particular applications under the old CUP criteria.

Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Enos advise which conditional permits this would apply to; with Zoning Official Rick Enos responding there are four applications on the Agenda which have requests for conditional use permits, II.A.3, II.B.6, II.B.14, and II.B.15. Mr. Enos stated II.A.3 and II.B.6 both have a dimension sketch, but the new criteria requires a sealed plan by an engineer or surveyor; and II.B.14 has a sealed plan, so it would appear to meet the new regulations. He stated II.B.15, which is request for CUP for Security Trailer, does not have an engineered plan or sketch; the criteria requires a sketch where practical; so, there is a caveat that may or may not excuse the project.

Chairman Scarborough inquired would staff be making additional comments. Mr. Enos responded he has only had a short period of time to look at the items; but it would appear that the only ones where it is questionable that they could meet the standards are II.B.6, the Cooley item because of the new noise standards and requirements on bonding the street, and possibly II.A.3, the Patsy Clark item where the applicant has not had an opportunity to present her case in terms of the new regulations. Chairman Scarborough stated he is not asking about the applicants' presentations because that is an issue for the applicants; and inquired under the new standards, what additional analysis would staff be bringing to the Board. Mr. Enos responded he would be basing his review on the engineered plan that would be submitted, so without that plan, it would be difficult to make that analysis. He stated many of the regulations under the new CUP standards are more operational in nature such as the noise standard, so there is really nothing to review there except for the fact that the concern would be raised; and without the site plan, it would be hard to do the review. He outlined the new review requirements. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the items have not been analyzed with the new criteria; with Mr. Enos responding not specifically.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board should wait on all of the CUP items. Chairman Scarborough stated if there are new rules, staff should make the analysis under the new rules, and the applicant should have an opportunity to see that analysis and comment on it.

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the applicants need an opportunity to address the criteria that will govern their applications; and to proceed tonight might be a disadvantage to the applicants and staff.

Brian Bice stated he is present to address II.B.15, security trailer for J.W. Dunn, Lodge No. 37, Inc., and requested clarification of what he needs to bring at the next meeting. Mr. Enos stated this item requires a sketch plan showing the location of the mobile home relative to the other structures on the site and the property lines; and it also requires that any landscaping, parking, structural changes, ingress and egress be shown. He stated the specific language says "where practical"; and since there is an existing structure and mobile home, the Lodge should be able to provide a sketch plan. Tim Pickles stated he is present on behalf of the Patsy Clark application for the conditional use permit in Port St. John; and inquired when the new CUP requirements went into effect and what are the additional requirements that the applicant would have to meet. Mr. Enos responded the Ordinance was adopted on August 3, 1999; with Mr. Knox responding it took effect on August 10, 1999. Mr. Enos advised of the requirements for CUP for Alcoholic Beverages On-Premises Consumption; and stated although the applicant has a sketch plan, it is not a reproducible site plan signed by an engineer, surveyor or architect. Mr. Enos stated as part of the presentation Mr. Pickles would have to show that the proposed conditional use permit does not result in substantial adverse impacts to adjacent nearby property. Mr. Pickles stated Mr. Knox advised earlier that the conditional use requirements would be at the time of the determination as opposed to the application; and inquired what was the authority for that; with Mr. Knox responding City of Boynton Beach v. Carroll, 272 Southern Second 171, and Town of Long Boat Key v. Lands Ends Limited which is 433 Southern Second 574. Mr. Pickles inquired if the cases spoke of conditional use permits or were they zoning cases; with Mr. Knox responding building permit in one case, and the other was a zoning issue.

Rick Chandler, Pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Port St. John, stated the arguments of the opposition has nothing to do with the new recommendations for a CUP; and inquired why it is necessary to wait when their objections have nothing to do with the new requirements. Commissioner Voltz stated it will be necessary for the applicant to meet the new requirements. Mr. Knox stated the way the decisions are made is based on substantial competent evidence that shows that the applicant meets or does not meet the requirements set forth in the Ordinance; and in order to make that decision, it is necessary to hear the evidence addressed to those criteria. He stated since the criteria have changed since the last time there was a hearing, the applicants and staff have to have that opportunity.

Motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing to consider Items II.A.3, II.B.6, II.B.14, and II.B.15.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired if the items have to go back to the LPA; with Mr. Knox responding no.

Chairman Scarborough inquired about a date for continuance; with Mr. Enos responding one month. Ms. Busacca suggested setting a date, and if the applicant provides the information by that date, staff will know it can come to the Board that month; and if not, staff will come back to the Board. Mr. Knox advised it will be necessary to have a date certain. Ms. Busacca inquired if there is a policy that allows staff to table something if the information is not available. Mr. Knox stated there may be policy, but the Board must postpone to a time certain because this is a public hearing; and if the information is not forthcoming, staff can notify the Board and it can be continued again. Mr. Enos stated for staff to be able to do the review in one month, it will need the site plans from the applicants within the next couple of weeks; and that may be an unreasonable request. Ms. Busacca stated staff is making copies of the conditional use permit criteria, and would be happy to meet with the applicants immediately.

Chairman Scarborough inquired how long does each applicant require. The applicants or representatives for Items II.B.6 and II.B.14 responded one month. Mr. Enos advised Item II.B.14 is in compliance now, and could be heard tonight. Chairman Scarborough inquired if the applicant for Item II.B.14 would like the item to be heard tonight; with the applicant or representative responding he would like to review the criteria first. The applicants or representatives for Items II.B.15 and II.A.3 expressed preference for two months.

Commissioner Voltz withdrew the motion to continue the public hearing.

Motion was made by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing for Item II.A.3. (PSJ90501) Patsy J. Clark's request for Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverages on-Premises Consumption to November 4, 1999; Item II.B.6. (Z9908016) Rockwell Cooley's request for Conditional Use Permit for Land Alteration to October 7, 1999; and Item II.B.15. (Z9908501) J. W. Dunn, Lodge No. 37, Inc.'s request for Conditional Use Permit for a Security Trailer to November 4, 1999. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Willa Winchell advised she is concerned about the mining operation; and inquired how the public will be notified of the hearing; with Chairman Scarborough responding it will be heard on October 7, 1999.

PERMISSION TO TRAVEL, RE: FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES' MEETINGS

Commissioner Voltz distributed a schedule showing the Florida Association of Counties' meetings from September 30, 1999 through July, 2000; and requested permission to travel to the FAC meetings. She encouraged all Commissioners to attend the meetings.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant permission for Commissioner Voltz or any other Commissioner to travel to Florida Association of Counties' meetings on September 29, 1999, September 30, 1999, October 1, 1999, and June 21, 2000 in Orlando, Florida; September 17, 1999, November 17-19, 1999, December 10, 1999, March 10, 2000, March 29, 2000, and June 9, 2000 in Tallahassee, Florida, and to the National Associations of Counties Conference on July 14-19, 2000 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

APPROVAL TO USE FUNDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE, RE: LUNCH FOR SCHOOL ATTENDANCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRUANCY

Commissioner Voltz stated there will be a meeting tomorrow of the School Attendance Subcommittee on Truancy between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m.; and requested approval to spend approximately $70 of petty cash to provide lunch for the participants.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve use of approximately $70 of petty cash to provide lunch for the participants of the School Attendance Subcommittee meeting on truancy on September 3, 1999. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

*County Attorney Scott Knox's absence and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley's presence were noted at this time.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS OF MAY 3, APRIL 5, AND JULY 6, 1999 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARING

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider tabled items of the May 3, April 5, and July 6, 1999 Planning and Zoning Board hearing, as follows:

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised Items II.A.1 and II.B.11 have been withdrawn.

Item 1. (Z9905401) KLF Partnership and Corporate Investment Properties, Inc.'s request to expand existing CUP for Cement, Concrete and Concrete Building Projects in an IU-1 zone (currently having a CUP for Metal Salvage Yard/Junk Yard, a CUP for Cement, Concrete and Concrete Building Products, and a CUP for a 360-foot Radio Tower) on 21 acres located on the north side of Paint Street, approximately 300 feet north of Viera Boulevard which had no recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board due to 5:5 split vote. The item was withdrawn by the applicant.

Item 2. Section 13, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 502, 504, 505, 504.1; Section 24, Township 23, Range 36, Parcels 251; Section 11, Township 24, Range 36, Parcels 25.1 through 277, 279 through 282, 283 through 284.D, 285E. through 285.C, 262, 268, 264, 275, and 251 from IU to PIP, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Charles Moehle submitted written information.

Commissioner O'Brien advised he and Mr. Moehle spoke about this item previously. He inquired about the map, whether the dotted line is SR 3, and if it stops at the gate to Kennedy Space Center; with Mr. Moehle responding yes.

Mr. Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., stated he is representing one parcel; and outlined the contents of the submittal. He submitted a letter of authorization to represent William Irvin; and commented on use of Parcel 504.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Moehle is referring to a gas production facility just before the KSC gate. Mr. Moehle stated from time to time they have done hydrogen, nitrogen, and maybe some oxygen. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is heavy industrial making liquid cryogenics; with Mr. Moehle agreeing they make cryogenics for the rockets. Mr. Moehle stated the parcel is approximately two and one-half acres; to move this from industrial use to PIP would be a great reduction of value; and it would be a taking. He stated the property was purchased approximately 30 to 35 years ago for investment with the intention to use it as industrial use near the Cape; the four-laning of Courtenay Parkway did not happen until 30 years after everyone thought it was going to happen; and advised of KSC's various policies regarding allowing private operations on the Cape. He stated there is a great investment; and outlined the problems with changing it to PIP, including changes in acreage, setbacks, and allowed uses. He stated the use of the property is substantially taken away; the property is located close to the center of the industrial use, and so would be shielded; and if the surrounding area is changed to PIP, it would be appropriate to leave Parcel 504 as IU.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board goes to performance based standards for zoning, a lot of the things Mr. Moehle mentioned will no longer be a problem; and there is a problem in that it is only two and one-half acres of property and PIP requires ten acres. Mr. Enos stated the PIP project as a whole requires ten acres; the individual lots are one acre; so where the PIP is mapped needs to be at least ten acres, and that is the sum of all the lots, so Mr. Moehle should be okay on the one parcel. Mr. Moehle stated he disagrees because it does not allow the roadway; to subdivide it, it would be necessary to be one use; and it does cause a restriction. Mr. Enos stated that is how it has been interpreted for some time because there have been similar problems in other parts of the County. Mr. Moehle stated even if that is the interpretation, using the setbacks and side requirements, there is nothing left and nothing can be done there. Mr. Enos advised he is only speaking about the ten-acre requirement and how it is applied. Mr. Moehle stated no matter how it is interpreted, it cannot be used at all; with Mr. Enos advising it would be usable, although there would be less use. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it would be substantially less use; with Mr. Enos responding there are substantially fewer uses that could be made of it. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about parcel size; with Mr. Enos responding planned industrial can be as little as one acre. Commissioner Higgs suggested getting a report from staff specific to the parcel and uses, and go ahead with the others. Mr. Enos stated this is a request by staff to administratively rezone based on the Comprehensive Plan; the Plan shows planned industrial; as long as the Comprehensive Plan is planned industrial, the zoning class has to be planned industrial; and that is why this is being done. Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board does not go with the administrative rezoning, it will have to go back for a Comprehensive Plan change. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Moehle and his client are the only people on the entire list who are complaining; North Merritt Island Homeowners Association came out strongly in favor of PIP on this parcel; and he is worried when he hears there is a substantial reduction in the use and value of the property. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is a vacant property; with Commissioner O'Brien responding yes, and has been for 30 years. Chairman Scarborough stated Comprehensive Plan changes are not normally done on two and one-half acres; and commented on doing a change on a parcel that size. He stated the ramifications of not approving this leave it in a PIP mode, even though the Board has not taken that action because the Comprehensive Plan prevails; so if the desire is to go to industrial, it will be necessary to have a Comprehensive Plan change; and doing a Comprehensive Plan change on two and one-half acres may not be well received. He stated if the Board approved all but parcel 504, it may be getting twisted back and forth. Commissioner Higgs stated that is a good argument; Mr. Moehle has made some points that the Board probably needs a thorough response put into the public record before taking any action; and if the Board does not proceed with the PIP, there will be a question on all of them; so she agrees with not doing any. Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to table through E and see if the Board wants to go through a Comprehensive Plan change. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not saying he wants to do anything yet, but is looking for discussion and consensus of some kind. He stated if there is going to be any heavy industrial use, they can come back and apply for a change.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 2 as recommended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (Z9907301) Carolyn S. Hildenbrand's request for change from GU to RR-1 on 1.60? acres located on the north side of Sandpoint Road, approximately 605 feet west of Main Street which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Higgs stated she met with the Hildenbrands and Mr. Arens earlier in the week; in particular they talked about some of the flooding and drainage problems in that area; they looked at the AU class, and the current request is on 1.6 acres; however, the Hildenbrands own a larger parcel. She stated what they talked about doing was to ask tonight that the Board allow the Hildenbrands to move forward on AU for the entire parcel, to waive the fees, and readvertise the whole parcels for AU. She stated they have talked about some things that might be able to be done in conjunction with the County to help the drainage in the area; and it would be worthwhile for the applicants and the County to look at this in a different way.

Mr. Arens, on behalf of the Hildenbrands, withdrew the application for the 1.6 acres.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to waive fees and direct staff to readvertise the entire parcel, approximately 6.6 acres, as AU.

Mr. Arens advised he provided a legal description to Commissioner Higgs' staff today. Mr. Arens stated time is of the essence as the Hildenbrands have a commitment from the banks to build their house.

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

Commissioner Higgs stated staff will get in touch with Mr. Arens tomorrow to advise how quickly it be done.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if this has to go to the Planning and Zoning Board; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding it should go to the Planning and Zoning Board because it is a new application. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is any way for it not to be a new application; with Ms. Bentley responding not with the new land being included. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it can be heard at a regular meeting. Commissioner O'Brien recommended it be put on the fast track. Ms. Bentley stated that may create a problem for Zoning staff because all of the notices are set up a certain way. Commissioner Higgs recommended moving as quickly as possible. Mr. Enos stated staff can get this through the process by mid-October, and even earlier if the Board wants to bring it to a regular meeting. Chairman Scarborough stated the Board does not mind it going to a regular meeting.

Mr. Aren expressed appreciation to Commissioner Higgs and her office staff for guiding him through the process.

Mr. Moehle inquired what is the procedure as far as amendments going to DCA; and stated he is trying to relate that to the requirements of notifying the County under a taking under the Bert Harris Act. Chairman Scarborough recommended Mr. Moehle confer with the County Attorney on that issue. Mr. Moehle stated he just wants to know if he is under a 30-day deadline; with Ms. Bentley responding Mr. Moehle is not under the 30-day deadline, but he does need to seek counsel if he wants to sue the County.

Item 5. (Z9905101) Brian and Heather Calligan's request for Mixed Use District Boundary Expansion and change from GU to RVP with a Binding Development Plan on 117.23 acres located on the south side of S.R. 46, approximately 835 feet east of Turpentine Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board with a Binding Development Plan, adding a 25-foot buffer all the way around the project, the applicant to apply for vacation of Hammock Trail and restrict access if vacation is not achieved, and to meet with the property owners on the west side of the project to come to compromise.

Rodney Honeycutt stated this was previously tabled; there is a binding development plan; they have modified the binding development plan to reflect the concerns of the Bar C Ranchette subdivision owners; and they have added an item about a traffic study. He stated the project will access from SR 46; and they agreed to submit to the County for review and also abide by the County requirements. He stated there was a letter from the Bar C Ranchettes; and submitted his response. He stated in the letter the owners agreed to what was worked out on the binding development plan, but had other concerns; in the binding development plan they agreed to a maximum of 399 units, but the owners heard they could have 700 units; and he explained that the only way they can go beyond the 399 units is to submit through DCA and come back to the Board through another hearing process, which is unlikely. He stated in response to the concern of the Bar C Ranchette owners they have agreed to individual electrical connections; there were concerns about traffic; and he provided them with a copy of the binding development plan. He stated he explained they have to go through the site permit process which will take several months; and the Calligans are present to respond to questions.

Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Bar C Ranchette owners have seen the last amendment of the binding development plan that includes the language dealing with SR 46; with Mr. Honeycutt responding on Tuesday he faxed a copy to Mr. Conway.

Bill Hall stated Mr. Conway has been called to California, and he has not seen a copy of the letter. Mr. Honeycutt provided Mr. Hall with a copy of the letter. Mr. Hall advised of a letter from Mr. Conway which indicates some progress has been made between Bar C Ranchettes and Rodney Honeycutt. Chairman Scarborough stated the letter which Mr. Honeycutt just provided is a response to Mr. Conway's letter; and it would be prudent to leave the item for a few minutes, and then come back to it.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUGUST 2, 1999

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board made at its August 2, 1999 meeting as follows:

Item 1. (Z9908101) 4 G's of Brevard County's request for change from AU to ARR on 1.33 acres located on the southwest corner of Breckinridge Avenue and Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 2. (Z9908102) Bradford A. Gregory's request for change from GU to ARR on 1 acre located on the north side of Bear Trail, approximately 0.23 mile west of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 3. (Z9908103) James W. (Jr.) and Angela M. Hutchins' request for change from RRMH-2.5 to AU on 2.85 acres located approximately .20 mile north of Aurantia Road, approximately 650 feet west of International Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 4. (Z9908104) Eric and Kate Breemen's request for change from GU to AU on 2.38 acres located on the west side of Florida Palm Avenue, approximately 300 feet south of Cabbage Palm Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 5. (Z9908105) North Brevard Hospital District's request for change from GU to BU-1 on 5.25? acres located on the west side of U.S. 1, 0.8 mile north of S.R. 405, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 7. (Z0008107) Daniel W. and Peggy T. Duffy's request for change of classification from AU to EU on 0.51 acre located on the southwest corner of Brookhill Drive and Indian River Drive, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 8. (Z9908108) Wilma Cornell's request for change from RU-1-7 and TR-1 to TR-1-A on 0.17 acre located on the north side of Broadway Boulevard, approximately 0.25 mile west of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

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

Item 9. (Z9908109) Margaret J. Abercrombie's request for change from TR-2 to TR-3 on 31.15? acres located on the south side of Wiley Road, approximately 0.90 mile east of U.S. 1, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board, with reduction of one-half acre from the request, as amended by the applicant.

Commissioner Higgs stated she looked at the conditions of TR-2 and TR-3 and what is in the area; currently it is TR-2; and that requires a larger lot, less density, and provides for single-family lots, not rentals. She stated abutting the proposed parcel is TR-2; and questioned the wisdom of going to TR-3.

Rodney Honeycutt stated his client will accept TR-1 which would allow 7,500 square-foot lots; the applicant will agree to one-quarter acre as a minimum; with quarter-acre lots, it would not be possible to get four units per acre, so the density would be less; and it would do away with the rentals.

Commissioner Higgs inquired is that still 124 units; with Mr. Honeycutt responding it would be 31 acres at 3.5 units per acre. Commissioner Higgs stated it is still almost twice as many units; with Mr. Honeycutt advising there is public water available on the site. Commissioner Higgs stated that deals with two of her concerns, leaving only the concern about density; but the property is Commissioner Scarborough's District. Mr. Honeycutt stated just to the west of the property, it is smaller lots; with Commissioner Higgs responding there is RU-1-9 and RU-1-7. Commissioner Higgs stated her concern is the density which is more of an urban density. Mr. Honeycutt stated it is unusual in that it has public water.

Chairman Scarborough stated he is happy with what Mr. Honeycutt stated; and requested Mr. Honeycutt repeat what the applicant will accept; with Mr. Honeycutt responding they will accept TR-1 and submit a binding development plan to agree to a minimum size of one-quarter acre lots. Commissioner Higgs stated TR-1 is single family homes. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated TR-1 is a subdivision lot.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 9 as TR-1 with Binding Development Plan specifying minimum lot size of one-quarter acre.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the applicant wanted a quarter acre to begin with. Mr. Honeycutt stated under TR-3 it was possible to get several units to the acre, but they agreed in the binding development plan to limit it to four units per acre. Commissioner O'Brien stated TR-1 limits it to four; with Mr. Enos advising the density would be less than that because of the streets.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion on Item 9. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. (Z9905101) (continued)

Bill Hall stated it sounds good with a few exceptions; and in the BDP there should be a statement saying that if any of the vegetation dies on the east side of the Bar C Ranchettes, it will be replaced. Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is acceptable; with Mr. Honeycutt responding it is not a problem. Mr. Hall stated all they have now is the artist's rendition of what it is going to look like; once the zoning is approved, it is final; and recommended the item be tabled until a site plan is drawn up. He stated everything else seems to be satisfactory, but it would be good to see a site plan before the item is approved. Mr. Honeycutt stated a site plan would require spending a good bit of money, and he would prefer to wait to make sure they have the zoning; and they have agreed to everything else.

Commissioner Voltz stated the letter was between Mr. Conway and Mr. Honeycutt; Mr. Conway is not present, but Mr. Hall is asking for something to be inserted for Mr. Conway; and she is not sure about that. Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Conway called his office; he has met with various people on this issue; and he advised Mr. Conway to give him a letter if he was going to be out of town. He advised of communication between Mr. Conway and Mr. Honeycutt; and stated the response to Mr. Conway's letter did not get over to Mr. Hall and his neighbors in time for them to know about it this evening. Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Conway saw the letter; with Chairman Scarborough responding apparently not because he already left town. Mr. Honeycutt advised he faxed the letter to Mr. Conway on Tuesday; and stated they have a conceptual plan that shows the lot layout and the dimensions of the buffers. Chairman Scarborough stated the sketch is important; and inquired if it is a problem to attach the sketch; with Mr. Honeycutt responding he does not see a problem with that. Mr. Enos advised that would be fine, and it has been done before. Mr. Honeycutt showed the layout on the conceptual plan; stated the Bar C Ranchette owners want to make sure that it would be like it is shown; and he agrees to that. He stated a copy can be attached to the BDP. Chairman Scarborough stated while there will not be all the engineering, the concept will be locked in as part of the BDP. Mr. Honeycutt stated the only change is in the area that has been modified to respond to the Bar C Ranchette owners, so there is not as much development in that corner. Mr. Hall inquired if the applicant agrees to maintain the vegetation; with Mr. Honeycutt responding affirmatively. Mr. Hall stated that takes care of his questions, but it seems like a site plan would have been required before the zoning was approved, since it will have to be done anyway. Chairman Scarborough stated the argument is they could spend a lot of money on the site plan which would be wasted if the zoning was not approved; and commented on the traffic study. Mr. Hall repeated his concern about the site plan; with Mr. Honeycutt explaining about the cost, risk and lack of requirement for site plan at this time. Chairman Scarborough stated what the applicant is requesting is reasonable with the Board's normal practices.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 5 with a Binding Development Plan as recommended, with applicant agreeing to attach a sketch to the BDP addressing concerns of property owners on the west side of the project and maintain the vegetative buffer. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. (Z9908301) John P. and Bonnie J. Sessa's request for change from GU to AU on 9.82 acres located on the south side of Grant Road, approximately 0.19 mile west of Main Street, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 10 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 11. (Z9908302) M. B. Four Limited Partnership's request for change from BU-1 to BU-2 on 3.71? acres located on the west side of SR 181, approximately 0.38 mile north of Seaview Street, which was approved specific use for mini-warehouses, all BU-1 uses, with a BDP providing for shielded lighting on the buildings, a 25-foot roadway buffer on the front of the property, a minimum of 6-foot opaque screening, and compliance with the provisions in Section 62-2115 as a BU-1 use. The item was withdrawn by the applicant.

Item 12. (Z9908303) Elise M. Otten's request for change from AU with a CUP for a Cemetery and Pet Kennel, also having a BCP to RR-1 with removal of the CUP's and the BCP on 4.66 acres located on the south side of Madison Street, approximately 0.27 mile west of Dairy Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 12 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 13. (Z9908304) South Palm Bay Development Company's request for change from GU and AU to EU with BDP limiting density to one unit per acre on 86 acres located on the south side of Micco Road, and bordering the Sebastian Canal to the west, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board with a BDP limiting density to one unit per acre.

Commissioner Higgs stated she met with Doug Robertson who is representing South Palm Bay Development Company, and received a letter from him today; Mr. Robertson met with some of the people in Micco; and inquired if there were any other items recommended other than limiting the density.

Doug Robertson stated he met with the Presidents of the Barefoot Bay Homeowners Association and the Micco Homeowners Association and their Industrial/Residential Committee; they are pleased that they are replacing the ongoing borrow pit with a single-family residential development; and the only other concern is about trucks on Micco Road. He stated they asked, and he agreed, as part of the bidding and contracting for the construction of the subdivision, to encourage, if not require if possible, contractors to go west and use Babcock Street instead of east to U.S. 1. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the applicant is willing to make that part of the binding development plan; with Mr. Robertson responding yes, they will make every good faith effort.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 13 with a Binding Development Plan limiting density to one unit per acre, and applicant agreeing to do everything possible to encourage trucks to go west to Babcock Street rather than east to U.S. 1. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien advised of a similar problem on a street that goes to Lewis Carroll Elementary. Discussion ensued on meeting with the School Superintendent, attitude of the School Board, and lack of cooperation.

The meeting recessed at 6:58 p.m. and reconvened at 7:14 p.m.

Item 14. (Z9908401) Imperial South Inc.'s request for CUP for Towers and Antennas (180-foot monopole) in a PIP zone on 11.35 acres located on the east side of Wickham Road, approximately 177 feet north of Promenade Drive, and also having frontage on the north side of Promenade Drive, approximately 236 feet east of Wickham Road, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner Carlson requested the applicant address the technical necessity for the location of the monopole.

Attorney Robert Rosen, representing Nextel Communications, introduced Peany Schwahl and Julie Walker who are in site acquisition area, and Arun Sudana and Gordon Williamson.

Arun Sudana, representing Nextel Communications, showed a map showing the current coverage and location of the proposed tower; and stated the proposed tower location will provide the needed coverage to link up to integrate with the existing network covering Interstate 95 and the Pineda area to Merritt Island. He stated the location is equidistant to the existing network.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what do the blue circles represent; with Mr. Sudana responding existing towers. Commissioner Carlson inquired who owns those towers; with Mr. Sudana responding he does not know who the owners are. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Sudana was present at the LPA meeting; with Mr. Sudana responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated the LPA minutes say that Nextel needed 180 feet of tower in order to provide coverage, and did not believe it would be able to get that height and location on a Primeco tower; and she assumed they knew which tower was which. Mr. Sudana stated the circles do not represent the Primeco or BellSouth towers, but the three points do represent existing towers. Commissioner Carlson inquired whose towers are those; with Mr. Rosen advising Nextel is located on those towers, but he is not sure who the owner is; and that is why the proposed tower gives the particular coverage area. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Nextel has talked to Primeco about co-locating; with Mr. Rosen responding yes, but the Primeco tower is only 110 to 120 feet in height, and there is also a BellSouth tower which does not provide the coverage required and was not constructed to allow co-location. Commissioner Carlson read aloud from the LPA minutes concerning the Primeco tower having problems with height restrictions. Mr. Rosen stated the Primeco tower is marked so it has an FAA issue which would lead him to believe it cannot be higher. Commissioner Carlson stated it is necessary to show technical necessity. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated the Primeco tower is limited in height to 120 feet by the conditional use permit. Commissioner Carlson inquired about restrictions and reason for the light; with Mr. Enos responding he cannot explain why the light is there, and can only speak to the height of the tower. Mr. Sudana explained why the Primeco tower would not work due to the height restriction leaving a coverage hole to the south. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has always insisted on co-location; and inquired if Nextel has attempted to do that. Peany Schwahl responded they have Master Agreements with all carriers; explained the process to determine whether co-location is possible; and stated BellSouth is too far out of their ring to accomplish what is necessary. Commissioner Carlson inquired how far out of the ring; with Ms. Schwahl responding to the west it is approximately one and one-half miles outside of where Nextel needs it to be. Commissioner Carlson inquired how much coverage would not be accomplished if it co-located. Ms. Schwahl distributed maps showing the area that would not have coverage; and stated the BellSouth tower is not built to support co-location.

Discussion ensued on the map, location of the proposed tower, location of BellSouth tower, and coverage areas.

Commissioner Carlson stated BellSouth and ATT have agreements for co-location; and why can Nextel not co-locate on this particular pole. Mr. Rosen responded because of the age of the pole, it was not engineered to support additional users. Commissioner Voltz noted it also would not meet the coverage. Commissioner Carlson stated she realizes it would not meet 100% coverage, but she is looking at the pros and cons of putting up another pole. Mr. Rosen stated the Nextel tower will be built to handle three additional users; and if BellSouth or Primeco run into the same kind of issue with a gap in their coverage, they would be able to co-locate; and there are Master Agreements with all the carriers. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the BellSouth tower is a monopole; with Mr. Rosen responding affirmatively. Commissioner Carlson inquired if all Nextel would have to do is add an antenna to the top of the BellSouth tower; with Ms. Schwahl responding the equipment that would go on the tower would include 12 panel antennas plus coaxial cable which goes in or on the structure. Ms. Schwahl explained on lattice towers the cable go on the outside; on monopoles they feed up inside the tower if there is room; otherwise, they band on the outside; and the BellSouth tower is not structurally sound enough to take the weight or structure of another 12 panel antennas. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if all 12 of the panels are Nextel panels; with Ms. Schwahl responding that is for the Nextel system. Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the reason for going with a monopole versus a lattice tower which would allow additional co-location. Ms. Schwahl stated they built it to house three additional carriers; predominantly the PCS carriers use from 6 to 9 antennas; and explained how they are mounted. Commissioner Carlson inquired is there a difference between a monopole and a lattice tower in terms of how many co-locators there can be. Ms. Schwahl stated it is much easier to build a lattice structure because there is not the concern about the circumference to get the lines inside; there is concern about where the ports are located on a monopole; but with a lattice tower the cable goes outside, and the tower can be made structurally more sound to allow more co-location. Commissioner Carlson stated she is trying to decide the more prudent way to go and how many more poles are going to be required. Ms. Schwahl stated the shorter the pole, the more are necessary to complete the coverage; and commented on industry standards. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board just discussed putting extensions on electric poles; and inquired how something like this would apply. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated that ordinance has been drafted, and is scheduled to go to the LPA next month and the Board the following month; up to a 20-foot extension can be put on any existing tower under the current Code; and the proposed ordinance would allow extensions on utility poles. Commissioner Carlson inquired how tall would that make it on an average cement utility pole; with Mr. Enos responding some are 70 to 80 feet tall.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many other antennas does Nextel co-locate on in Brevard County; with Ms. Schwahl responding at least 7 to 10. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many poles does Nextel own that have other companies co-locating; with Ms. Schwahl responding in Brevard County, approximately 7 to 10. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Nextel has any type of policy that it should put up its own poles as much as possible; with Ms. Schwahl responding the policy is to build the system as economically and quickly as possible. Ms. Schwahl stated they prefer to do co-locates anywhere it is possible. Commissioner O'Brien inquired about the size of the area shown in yellow; with Mr. Sudana responding 5 to 7 miles. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the amplifiers and receivers that are presently located on other antennas were changed to stronger units, would the areas be covered, and if not, why not. Mr. Sudana responded at the distances they are from Pineda, the coverage would not get to Pineda because the existing sites depicted in blue are at their maximum capable power output. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they are trimmed out that they cannot reach any further; with Mr. Sudana responding they are directional; they are oriented in three different azimuths; and as they are configured now, they are putting out the maximum power they can. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they could be reconfigured to close the hole in the coverage area. Mr. Sudana responded it will not work with these antennas; and explained why. Gordon Williamson, RF Engineering Manager for Nextel, stated they run their sites as efficiently as they can; because of the omnidirectional requirements for the coverage, they cannot trim this site; their equipment has limitations; and even if they could put more power out, the phones that operate cannot put more power out, so they have to have the coverage there. Commissioner O'Brien stated Nextel's competitors have been able to fill in that hole; and commented on the number of antennas visible from his home. Mr. Williamson advised all of Nextel's subscribers are not in line of sight because of all the trees in the County, but if all the towers were across the water, and the subscribers were standing right on the shore, it could work; but unfortunately it does not work that way. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the phones do not work from behind a tree; with Mr. Williamson responding it is harder for them to work.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what happens if a subscriber goes through the area that is shown in yellow, does their service go dead; with Mr. Gordon responding yes, and outlined the problems that could occur. Commissioner Carlson inquired where is the Primeco tower that is two miles west; with Mr. Williamson responding it is just north of Pineda Causeway. Commissioner Carlson stated it is less than a mile from the proposed location; and she is concerned about Nextel not going to Primeco site. Mr. Williamson stated he worked for BellSouth Mobility when it put some of the structures in the County so he is familiar with procedures; 20 feet is required between antennas; the Primeco pole is so low that the best they could do was put it below them at 100 feet; and it will not link up. Commissioner Carlson stated there is residential with a permit to have a church 400 feet from the location Nextel is talking about; one of the criteria is it cannot be more than five times the height to any residential neighborhood, which would be 900 feet; the closest real residential neighborhood would be 1,100 feet; and inquired if the practice applies to residential zoning. Mr. Enos stated the regulation speaks to the zoning; so if there is a non-residential use on a residential classification, it is still subject to the minimum setback; however, it does provide an opportunity for the applicant to speak to the waiver. Mr. Rosen stated the reason they are asking for the conditional use permit is because they do not meet the criteria with respect to the church; the church has not objected or voiced concern; and the AU across Wickham Road is less of a concern because it will not develop at two and one-half lots, and is shown on the Future Land Use Map as commercial or mixed use. He stated the other issue is the Post Office; they do not meet the 200-foot setback requirement because of the drainage swale to the rear; and the tower site is pushed back as far as it can be. He stated the Post Office in front does not seem to be a major concern given the character of the property; there are railroad tracks behind it, and the MacAsphalt plant which is one of their users; and the primary uses in the area are commercial and industrial, not residential in character. He stated they would just as soon not be in the tower business; companies do not make money building towers; and the lattice towers can be made taller, but most people find them more unsightly. He stated if they could transmit and give the required service without having towers, they would love to do it, but unfortunately there is no technology to do that today. He advised co-location on another tower is easier and less expensive. He stated this is the proper type location for the monopole tower; the other potential locations do not provide the required coverage; and they do meet the other tests for the CUP including the new tests. He stated there has been no opposition to the tower at either hearing; there is no competent evidence on the record in opposition to the technical aspects; and requested approval of the CUP.

Commissioner Carlson stated what spurred her interest was the last sentence from Robert Rosen which said, "they don't believe they would be able to get that height in that location", speaking of Primeco, "and that it would be quite expensive and probably not provide the coverage area from a technical standpoint." She stated she does not care how expensive it is; and it says Nextel did not try very hard to co-locate. Mr. Rosen noted he is a lawyer, not an RF engineer; but the engineer has said the site does not work. Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to hear from the other Commissioners to see if they think Nextel has enough technical necessity to approve the tower.

Commissioner Voltz stated it appears they do.

Chairman Scarborough stated he has seen a lot of data, but the data from Nextel is good in comparison to what the Board has gotten in the past.

Commissioner Carlson stated her concern is the BellSouth/ATT agreements; she would like to see them open up to other co-locators on their towers; she does not know how the Board can initiate that; but if they come back and ask for extensions on power poles, the Board can request they readdress the issue. She stated it is not fair to the public to have to see monopoles all over the place because they are unsightly, but based on technical necessity, she will have to move to approve the item.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 14 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot support the motion because he does not feel Nextel has shown the proof that co-location cannot be accomplished; the technical aspects have not been justified; and it appears to be strictly a financial issue. He commented on blight from billboards and towers.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, Carlson, and Voltz voted aye; and Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs stated there was a consultant on board who looked at the tower requests from the technical side; and inquired if the requests are no longer reviewed by the technical consultant; with Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott responding they are on retainer, and when the Board directs to bring them in, they do for specific instances. Commissioner Higgs stated the towers should be reviewed. Commissioner Voltz stated she thought the Board said they should be reviewed every time.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff that all applications for towers be reviewed by the consultant. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Scarborough stated it would be important to know where the existing towers are and the capacity to co-locate on them. Commissioner Higgs stated those are things the consultant would look at in bringing a recommendation back to the Board. Chairman Scarborough commented on the Board's ability to determine where co-location is possible. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated that extensive type of study would be expensive; but staff can bring back information on the cost, and the Board can decide whether it is valuable. Chairman Scarborough advised of the advantage of having that knowledge. Ms. Busacca stated consultants do that type of analysis and come forward to the Board with a plan of where it can anticipate a tower can go. Chairman Scarborough commented on the Board's inability to coordinate coverage between providers with sufficient information.

Commissioner Carlson stated she resents the fact that the Board is talking about this now when she asked for comments prior to the vote. She stated if the Board needs a study, it should have one rather than her having to figure out the technical necessity. Commissioner Higgs stated Nextel demonstrated fairly well the technical necessity and met its burden tonight. Chairman Scarborough stated they met their test. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has no criteria to determine what that burden is.

Discussion ensued on coverage gaps, lack of coordination and co-location, meeting the Board's standard, limiting towers, and having comprehensive technical data.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to request the consultant to provide a scope and cost for a broader study on towers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to draft an ordinance for a moratorium on towers and advertise public hearing to consider such ordinance. Motion carried and ordered. Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, and Carlson voted aye; and Commissioners Higgs and Voltz voted nay.

Chairman Scarborough stated this may mean building taller towers, but fewer towers.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board tabled Item 15, but the CUP for a Security Trailer was supposed to be a temporary use in 1977, and it has been going on since that time.

Item 16. (Z9907504) John S. Platt, Walter E. Platt, Vicki Curry, and Cecil J. Anastasio, as Trustee for the Betty June Anastasio Trust's request for a Mixed Use District Boulevard Expansion and change from AU to BU-1 on 2.89 acres located on the west side of Columbia Lane, approximately 700 feet north of U.S. 192, which was recommended for approval for expansion of the MUD by the LPA and recommended for approval of BU-1 by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve the Mixed Use District expansion as recommended by the LPA. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 16 as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 17. (Z9907505) T. A. Altman (Sr.) and Roberta M. Altman's request for change from GU and RU-1-7 to BU-1 on 7 acres located on the east side of Wickham Road, approximately 950 feet north of Eau Gallie Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board with a BDP, limiting residential lots on Pinehill Drive for bicycle and automobile access only, an 8-foot pedestrian and bike path access incorporated in a 30-foot buffer, and a 40-foot open space buffer bordering the residential lots.

Thad Altman stated the property is just south of the intersection of Wickham and Aurora Roads; and submitted photographs.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if anyone has any problem with the item; with Chairman Scarborough responding a couple of cards were submitted.

Mr. Altman stated four or five people spoke against the item at the Planning and Zoning meeting; the item was tabled to address their concerns; and pointed out the commercial zoning on the map. He stated they are seeking BU-1 zoning to become consistent with what is surrounding the property; the first issue of concern was the children who go to school at Sabal Elementary School; right now they are being forced out onto Wickham Road with no sidewalks; and they concur with the safety concern, and have agreed to provide a 30-foot buffer and put an 8-foot bike/pedestrian path within the 30 feet. He stated this improves the situation dramatically because all the children of the subdivision do not have to go onto Wickham Road and have a private pathway to get to school. He stated he has talked to the Principal at Sabal Elementary; and that is why no parents are present in opposition tonight. He stated at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the residents said they did not want children in their back yards, even though there is a six-foot wall, an opaque vegetated buffer and 22 feet before you get to the bikepath; and explained what they did to address that concern, moving the bikepath further away from the residents. He stated the bikepath will be 42 feet from the property line, and they did shrink the buffer area.

Commissioner Voltz inquired about the location of the bikepath; with Mr. Altman pointing out the bikepath on the map. He stated it is 44 feet to the beginning of the bikepath; it is an eight-foot bikepath; so it would be a 52-foot buffer. Commissioner Voltz stated that may put them too close to the BU-1; and inquired if there can be a buffer on the other side. Mr. Altman stated if they move it too much to the middle, they will lose any ability to put any type of stormwater or drainage; and explained their objection.

Discussion ensued on distance from the residence to the bikepath, differences in the plans, retention areas, preserving design flexibility on the property, pathway put in at time of construction, requirements for wall and buffer, no tenant on property now, concern about access on Pinehill Drive, intrusion into the neighborhood by BU-1, reducing impact of traffic, providing entrance driveway but no exit, keeping people off Wickham Road, and sidewalk requirements.

Roger Hornsby described the wooded site; and expressed concern about noise and lighting at night. He stated he and his neighbors have no problem with the entrance road, but object to the exit.

Commissioner Voltz advised of the regulations for lighting; and stated it may be a daytime business.

Mr. Hornsby expressed interest in getting information about the traffic. He stated Mr. Altman did answer the questions concerning the children.

Commissioner Voltz stated if it is a daytime business, the exit will not matter; with Mr. Hornsby responding it would depend on what went in there. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the driveway can be made contingent. Mr. Hornsby stated he does not want it there at all. Commissioner O'Brien stated the applicant is willing to take the exit driveway off the map; with Mr. Altman indicating willingness to remove it. Commissioner Higgs stated after the Board has heard the testimony, she wants to discuss the whole Pinehill scenario because she is not comfortable with it. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the driveway is removed, is it not a problem; with Mr. Hornsby responding as long as the exit is taken out. Mr. Hornsby stated he has discussed with the Altmans the idea of not bringing the parking lot down so far to allow more buffer; and they are willing to work with him. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is necessary to have the three lots rezoned; with Mr. Altman responding it is desirable, but not necessary. Mr. Altman advised of nearby commercial; and stated it would not be fair to force him to have residential next to it with no buffer. He stated if the lots can be incorporated in the unit, it would be desirable; they are willing to provide a 30-foot buffer that is not required by the Codes; and commented on preservation of trees. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the area could be used potentially for retention; with Mr. Altman responding he foresees it being perhaps retention or parking. Mr. Altman commented on complying with lighting requirements; and stated they are willing to do whatever is necessary. Commissioner Voltz stated the only thing that would be there would be an entrance from Pinehill; with Mr. Altman responding they would have an entryway from Pinehill, a 30-foot buffer from the road, and preservation of the large oak tree; that would be more than adequate to protect the neighborhood; and they are willing to do whatever is necessary on the lighting.

Commissioner Voltz stated there is a card from Rosalie Allender who did not wish to speak, but is against the request.

Commissioner Carlson stated her concern was the buffer; and inquired if the entry or exit onto Pinehill are necessary. She stated there is a road across Wickham Road and the potential for a light; and inquired what is the distance between the driveway across the street and the next major intersection; with Commissioner Voltz responding it does not look like very much. Mr. Altman stated there is an aerial that may help; with Commissioner Carlson advising it is not that far. Commissioner Carlson stated she would be more comfortable if the buffer extended down Pinehill and around to preserve the wooded section with no driveways. Commissioner Voltz stated without the driveway they will have to come up Pinehill toward Wickham, and do a big U-turn to get to the site. Mr. Altman stated extending the buffer would protect the residents; and they would be willing to do that, but would want some provision that if they ever went commercial, it could be rescinded. He stated the entrance into the development is good planning. Commissioner Carlson stated the entry would be fine as long as the buffer was preserved. Commissioner Higgs inquired if anyone has read the staff comments.

Mr. Hornsby stated what most of the people do when coming down Pinehill is turn right, because it is terrible to try to turn left onto Wickham Road; and most people use the back way to come out on Eau Gallie Boulevard to get down to Wickham Road to go south. He stated the one intersection the Board is talking about is at Thimble Road; and it is approximately one-half way between Aurora and Eau Gallie Boulevard.

Discussion ensued on traffic patterns, little chance of getting a light, and access being good for the neighborhood.

Mr. Altman stated there has been a lot of discussion on why the commercial should be there; it makes sense because it is abutting existing commercial and gives the neighborhood access to the property; if left residential, it would be necessary to have an additional 30 feet which makes the property more difficult to be used; and he disagrees with staff.

Commissioner Higgs read from staff comments concerning community clusters being located at minor/major arterial intersections and limiting intrusion into the surrounding residential area; and stated it says lots 12 to 14 of the Pinehill Subdivision are currently zoned for single family residential uses, and if commercial zoning of these three lots is adopted the percentage of the commercially zoned lands within the subdivision will increase. She stated staff recommends denial of that portion of the request covering lots 12, 13 and 14. She stated she has a serious problem of rezoning the RU-1-7 to BU-1; and the only way she can see to do this is similar to the way some have been done on US 192, where some have been rezoned and allowed to be retention, and the buffer has been included. She stated she does not see any way the Board should allow that intrusion into the residential property because it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidelines or any principle of preserving neighborhoods. She stated she understands an argument to do the entry driveway, but she does not support it; and the Board has recognized the principle numerous times on items on US 192. She stated if the applicant wants to continue the buffer, it might be okay, but the Board should not allow the intrusion in the residential area; and staff comments are consistent.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the plan which was brought forward looks good to him; the neighborhood is not present to object; and Mr. Altman's project has met the request of the abutting residential neighbors. He stated Mr. Altman has made a buffer zone larger than required; he has explained why he wants the entrance to the property; and it makes sense to him.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve Item 17 with the Binding Development Plan as recommended, but deny the exit driveway onto Pinehill Drive.

Mr. Altman stated the applicant would be willing to do that; the lot is only 150 feet deep; and of that 150 feet, they are preserving 70 feet. Commissioner Voltz stated the applicant is probably not going to be able to use the whole lot. Mr. Altman stated it is far from intrusion; and they are buffering most of it. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commissioner O'Brien is saying buffering everything with the same buffer except all the way over where the BU-1 parcel is, and to allow the one entrance. Commissioner Voltz stated it would be not quite all the way down to the bottom of the area shown in red on the map. Commissioner Higgs inquired why not, the same width that it is. Mr. Altman stated that is 70 feet; and pointed out on the map how far it would go. Mr. Altman stated the houses would have a road plus a 70-foot buffer. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is the motion; with Commissioner O'Brien responding that is way too much, and not his motion.

Discussion ensued on the size of the buffer.

Motion restated by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve Item 17 with BDP as recommended, increasing the buffer to 50 feet, and approve entrance, but no exit driveway to Pinehill Drive.

Chairman Scarborough stated there were two plans for the bikepath; and inquired if the Board is going to address that or not. Commissioner Voltz responded no, she prefers the original one. Commissioner O'Brien stated there will be grass between the bikepath and traffic.

Mr. Altman stated they will do everything in compliance with the Binding Development Plan; but if the other lots go commercial, they do not want to be held to that standard. Commissioner Voltz stated the applicant would have to come back to the Board. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board wants to include in the motion the ability to come back to the Board; with the Board reaching consensus not to include that in the motion. Commissioner Higgs stated the only use of the lots currently zoned RU-1-7 would be for the buffer and the entry driveway. Mr. Altman stated there would be no structures there or parking. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is any way to put the retention area there; with Mr. Altman responding there may be a retention swale there.

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

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: NORTH MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD RECOMMENDATION OF AUGUST 12, 1999

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board at its meeting of August 12, 1999 as follows:

Item 1. (Z9907206) Caroline M. Wiggins' request for change from AU to EU-2 on 19 ? acres located on the east side of North Tropical Trail, approximately 135 feet south of Wild Flower Street, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board with a Binding Development Plan limiting development to 53 lots, with sewer, in a mirrored image of Wild Flower Street.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if there were any objections, there was a request for this to be tabled; but there are no objections and it was a unanimous vote of the District Board. Commissioner Higgs noted it was a 6:1 vote.

Simone Spiess stated since Mr. Crisafulli is not present, she assumes he is pleased with the 53-unit binding development plan, the sewer, and the mirror image of the development to the north. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Crisafulli called this afternoon and said that if it passes as recommended, he has no problem. Ms. Spiess expressed concern, on behalf of the North Merritt Island Homeowners Association, about the general trend of a well-tended orange grove turning into the densest type of subdivision on North Merritt Island; stated specifically the concern is with the area south of Hall Road and west of SR 3; and commented on the traffic numbers and outfalls. She stated if there is a way she can work with staff to influence the Comprehensive Plan for that particular section to change the density, that would be desirable. She stated they are pleased the development is being done on sewer, and the hope is that the sewer will be close enough for most people to go to sewer.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the project is already approved by the elected body on North Merritt Island; and invited Ms. Spiess to meet with staff concerning the Comprehensive Plan issues. Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott stated staff will be bringing the Plan to the Board in November.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 1 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously. (See pages for Zoning Resolutions.)

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: ORDINANCE ADOPTING FOURTH SMALL SCALE PLAN AMENDMENT 99S.4

Chairman Scarborough called for the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the Fourth Small Scale Plan Amendment 99S.4.

Andy Ziegler stated he purchased 4.66 acres consisting of two lots, one .5- acre and one 4.1-acre lot; both are buildable lots as the smaller lot was grandfathered in before 1958; and the reason for the request is to have a future option for a lot that is consistent with the neighborhood. He stated he desires to eliminate the legal recording of the .5-acre lot, and record a larger legal lot in compliance with a 10% zoning variance. He stated the density change has to be approved in order to request the variance; and the current zoning is AU with one house per 2.5 acres.

Commissioner Higgs stated she understood that staff could do some administrative approval. Commissioner O'Brien inquired should the Board move for denial and allow it to be done administratively. Commissioner Voltz suggested letting Mr. Ziegler finish first.

Mr. Ziegler stated he has no desire to rezone; he would like to have the ability to have lots that are consistent with the neighborhood; and if there is a way to do this without a density change, he would prefer to do it that way.

Commissioner Voltz stated there are two different ways for this to be done; and requested the Zoning Official address the issue. Zoning Official Rick Enos stated there are two methods that can be used; but one would depend on the neighbors. He stated administrative waiver of lot size would give staff the authority to approve a waiver of up to 10% of the lot size; and it could go as low as 2.25; but it would require the immediate abutting neighbors to approve that. He stated that is the way to get two lots that are exactly the same; but if the neighbors do not approve it, staff cannot approve the administrative waiver. He stated the other way to do this since there is a non-conforming lot of record is to increase the size of the non-conforming lot of record; it would still be considered a non-conforming lot of record, but the smaller parcel could be increased to 2.1 acres; and the other lot would have to be 2.5 acres, so that alternative may be less attractive to the applicant.

Mr. Ziegler stated he had hoped to place his house on the back part of the lot, but that would be the smaller lot; he hopes to keep both lots; but he wants to do this before he gets into development. Mr. Enos stated the best bet would be to go through the administrative waiver process, get the neighbors to sign off on it, and be approved administratively. Mr. Ziegler inquired if that would be neighbors on the other side of the street; with Mr. Enos responding no, only those immediately abutting. Mr. Ziegler inquired if they have to be residing there; with Mr. Enos responding it would be the property owner, and it would be necessary to find that owner.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue the public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting the fourth small scale plan amendment 99S.4 to October 7, 1999 to allow the applicant an opportunity to pursue other methods of resolution.

Commissioner Voltz stated if Mr. Ziegler gets the administrative waiver prior to the next zoning meeting, this will not even have to come back; with Mr. Enos responding it can be withdrawn.

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion to continue the public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was recessed at 8:53 p.m.

ATTEST:

TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
( S E A L )